Casualty Report

[Caid Ivik]

Well that was partly deliberate but if you insist...

Xenophobic: Medieval tendancy to turn on Jews if anything went wrong, Crusades, practice of 'Christian' peoples throughout history to ostracise other peoples including, but not limited to, American Indians, Australian Aborigines, Black Africans...

Elitist: Any social structure with a hierarchy is elitist. It goes with the territory.

Sexist: Women's place in the bible, subservience of women in all Christian countries until very recently...

In charge: Again, with the hierarchy. Popes, Bishops, Priests, etc... They have leadership, do they not? Then they are in charge.

I wasn't saying any of these things are inherantly bad (though I do not support sexism or xenophobia), I was just pointing out similarities and making no judgement on them.

Oppression, destruction or assimilation of various nations which encountered advanced christian nations was more an effect of imperial view, like they were barbarians. Not truly an effect of xenophoby, some national hate against others, only pushing out. Surely, it was a process out of Law's range. Church is, and always was, open for everyone who wanted, and for others it only awaits  ;D

Actually I can say that family is a fascist organization, as parents have a strict authoritarian (elitist) role in it. O com tocis vole? About women, every culture but the our one last twenty years had a strict role distribution between genders. However, even in Bible you have female heroes and prophets, while Jesus' mother Mary has even more feasts than Jesus himself.

So these "similarities" have no pillars.

[GUNWOUNDS]

nice explanation Caid.. you brought up some points i had never thought of before... especially about the woman issue.

[Dante]

Feasting for a woman is not the same is appreciating them, especially if it is merely for giving birth and to a man at that.

As for history, church and law was more or less the same thing. There were no laws then that were not sins as well. Nearly all actions of a country were quietly approved by the church, whichever church it was. Few political leaders could rule without the consent of religious leaders.

I did say that I was being deliberately obtuse, you did catch that, yes?

nice explanation Caid.. you brought up some points i had never thought of before... especially about the woman issue.

Oh use your own arguments, why don't you? Your opponent in any argument will constantly use arguments you didn't think of and they aren't praised for it. Stop bootlicking and say something useful.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Oh use your own arguments, why don't you? Your opponent in any argument will constantly use arguments you didn't think of and they aren't praised for it. Stop bootlicking and say something useful.

haha struck a nerve eh?

[Caid Ivik]

Feasting for a woman is not the same is appreciating them, especially if it is merely for giving birth and to a man at that.

As for history, church and law was more or less the same thing. There were no laws then that were not sins as well. Nearly all actions of a country were quietly approved by the church, whichever church it was. Few political leaders could rule without the consent of religious leaders.

Actually, in prehistoric times was a matriarch rule, while we based such knowledge on various prooves of how they worshipped women. You wouldn't worship (or make a feast for) something lesser than you.

Law in history is a more lawyer question. However, first mention of natural (God-given) rights and thus rebellion justifying comes with christian scholar Thomas Aquinus, and his Summa was already approved by Church as its official philosophy. To be sure, in the beginning was Church fully an outlaw organization which pacifistically awaited punishments without any defence...

All misunderstandings in your ansicht could be easily solved by reading actual catechism.

[Dante]

Caid: I'm getting tired of this. I said I was being deliberately obtuse, it wasn't supposed to be an argument. We can drop it, da?

[Caid Ivik]

Good, I just didn't know what "obtuse" means  ;D

[Dante]

In this case... *fetches dictionary* 'not acutely senstive or perceptive; stupid, insensible.' I was deliberately faking ignorance in order to get a point across.

[Edric O]

I'll begin by answering to DRF:

You call me a neo-nazi and a christian. The two do not meld together well.

I know they don't. I only called you a (quasi-)neo-nazi and asked you whether you were a Christian or not.

In fact I am neither, but I oppose globalism, immigration and racial/cultural destruction.

Globalism? What's that? Or, to be more exact, what kind of globalism? "Globalism" refers to making SOMETHING global. This can be good or bad, depending on what that "something" is.

Immigration? Immigration by whom, to where?

"Racial/cultural destruction"? Perhaps you mean racial/cultural metamorphosis and change. So, in other words, you support racial/cultural stagnation. Why?

As for christianity, I suggest this website : http://www.i_am_violating_forum_rules.com

After looking through it, I'd have to say they're rather shallow and pathetic. Their philosophy is broadly Nietzschean (a dead giveaway is the fact that they quote him extensively), and they put special emphasis on the "there is no good and evil" idea. They oppose the very idea of objective morality, like Nietzsche did. But, unlike Nietzsche, they actually claim that the idea of morality is the root of all the great evils of our world, and anyone who follows morality is evil.

Now, this presents a problem: By claiming that anyone who follows morality is evil, they are in effect making a moral claim (saying that X is evil). Therefore, by their own logic, they are evil.

This is such a glaring error that I'm inclined to believe the authors of that website were either sarcastic or abysmally stupid (oh, and, of course, evil). The stupidity theory seems to have the most evidence in favour of it, given the fact that they make statements like:

"...how much of our basic belief as Western culture has been corrupted by this menace."

Apparently, they haven't studied enough history to notice that a large portion of "Western culture" is built on Judeo-Christian beliefs and philosophy. As a matter of fact, what we now call "Western culture" was born out of medieval Christendom.

Ok I admit I'm no expert on communism, but as far as I know it involves all money being controlled by the state, as in all the money you earn goes straight to the government who dispense it where necessary.

*Sigh*... That's not only wrong, it doesn't even make logical sense. What would be the point in the state paying you money and then taking back that money? What would be the point of having money in the first place in such a system? People don't produce money - they produce goods. Money is only a measuring unit for value and a means of exchange.

But never mind that. Let's get back to the issue of communism. I've explained it numerous times on this forum, but here we go again:

1. COMMUNISM is a socio-economic system that consists of a free association of human beings who put all their property in common and co-operate so that each of them will be better off than if he was on his own. The guiding principle of such a society is "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need". Communism can also be defined through the things that it seeks to abolish: Private property and the State. In other words, communism is a system with no state and no private property (or with a very limited state and very limited forms of private property).

Although communism has existed in many small communities throughout history (from the early Christian Church of Jerusalem to various workers' communes in the last century to any present-day Jewish kibbutz), it has never been tried on a larger scale, and there have never been any communist countries. The old Soviet Union and all the other countries that followed its example never even claimed to be "communist countries". The West used to call them "communist" out of convenience and for propaganda purposes. They called themselves "socialist" countries (hence "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics") and they claimed to be on the way toward communism. Neither of these things was true, of course, and more explanations are given further down. The leaders of those countries were blatantly lying when they claimed to have socialist systems (given the fact that they lacked democracy, a vital element of socialism), but claiming to have a communist system would have been a much bigger lie.

2. SOCIALISM is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are under the control of the people (as opposed to capitalism, in which the means of production are under the control of a rich minority). Broadly speaking, socialism means economic democracy. A socialist economy is a planned economy democratically controlled by the people, and which therefore produces what the people need, not what brings the greatest profit. A socialist economy also involves extensive social services and full employment. As part of the basic human right to Life, every individual is guaranteed certain basic standards of living (food, clothing, a decent home, free healthcare and free education). Beyond those basic standards of living, however, an individual is free to earn more and grow richer, through his/her own work. Socialism does not create absolute economic equality, but it does reduce inequality to very small levels - much smaller than the absurd inequality that exists under capitalism. For example, the poorest person in socialism would earn about 3 or 4 times less than the richest person in socialism - whereas the poorest person in capitalism earns a few hundred million times less than the richest person in capitalism.

Also, it is very important to note that a planned economy will produce what the people need only if it is controlled by the people. If it is controlled by a small minority (like, say, a group who calls itself the "Communist Party"), then it will serve the interests of that small minority instead of serving the interests of the people, and the resulting system will be no better than capitalism. It might even be worse (see stalinism).

3. So what was the case in the Soviet Union and the other countries who followed its model? Well, the means of production were the property of the state, but the people had no say in what the state did with them. Therefore, since the people did not control the means of production, this system was obviously not socialism (in order for the Soviet Union to have been socialist, it would have needed to be a democracy. That way, the state would have controlled the means of production, and the people would have controlled the state. So, by transitivity, the people would have controlled the means of production). The system used by the Soviet Union and its Cold War allies is a type of oppressive dictatorship which we call STALINISM, because Joseph Stalin was the one who created it (afterwards, many other dictators followed his model). Stalinism tried to make itself look like socialism in order to benefit from the very good reputation that socialism and communism had at the time. But eventually, it managed to utterly destroy that reputation...

I hope that clears things up for you. If it doesn't, feel free to ask me anything. You might also want to look over some older topics such as What is socialism?, What "capitalist exploitation" means and Communism and human nature.

[Caid Ivik]

Name of the system (socialism, communism, stalinism...) is just a symbol. A lone mem made to infect citizen's mind. See first statements in this thread. However, it is nature of memes, that they are de facto meaningless when they enter your mind, and all description is added by your imagination, following external signs of the mem in laws of hodic illusion of order. Same could we say about another very strong politically used memes like exploitation, globalization, fundamentalism, human nature, or (especially today) terrorism.

[Edric O]

Name of the system (socialism, communism, stalinism...) is just a symbol.

Of course it is. Essentially, it doesn't matter whether you call it "communism" or "insertanamehere-ism". It's the description of the system that is important. The same goes for every other system, obviously: socialism, capitalism, stalinism, etc. It's the content that matters, not the name. (still, the name may be important if you care about the historical heritage of the respective system or idea)

As for the rest of your post, that's philosophy, not politics. Mixing them up will only lead to confusion.

[Caid Ivik]

Politics were always a reflection of mutual thinking, which could be completely described only by philosophy. Or not even that is needed, pure semantic analysis is far enough. Using symbols, either for propaganda or external manipulation, is a part of politics as well. Especially in democratic systems.

[Dunenewt]

Ken Bigley is the latest hostage to be killed in Iraq. RIP.

[Dante]

What do you expect when governments keep saying "We'll never negotiate with terrorists!" and then proceed to attempt to get others to negotiate for them? Let's see, who tried to help this time... The Irish Government, Yasser (Yassar?) Arafat... and one other surprising thing. Can't remember what. Mmf. Anyone hear what Billy Connolly (sp? I can never spell names like that...) said? Seems he was a bit close to the mark this time.

[Dunenewt]

Yeah but what he said was still very tasteless.

[DRFsimmsy]

Edric O, intelligent opposition is needed at http://bbs.anus.com/ . You seem knowledgable (I don't know whether you are or not). A consensus is currently ruling that bulletin board and conversation has become stagnant. They're views are in direct opposition with yours (as far as I can tell). (and yes they all give nietszche fellatio)

[DRFsimmsy]

There are many ideologies that disregard religion. That website is against Judeo-Christianity. That is 3 religions.

lol

[Edric O]

I suppose that was a communist website as it went again almost all the relogions ( well half of it ), but you said you hate communism ... hmm controversy controversy.

Communist? Communist? COMMUNIST?? >:( For your information, that website is based on Nietzschean philosophy. As in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. As in one of the foundations of right-wing atheist ideologies like Fascism and an obscure little thing called Objectivism. As in the greatest enemies of Communism.

[Caid Ivik]

Nietzsche an objectivist? We should make an order to our terms you know... Actually I still think communism is itself some kind of a religion.

[Edric O]

I never said Nietzsche was an objectivist. I said the objectivists are Nietzschean. There's a big difference.

As for communism, of course you'll have all sorts of strange ideas if you never listen to what the communists have to say about themselves. But since you're the biggest anti-communist around here (with the exception of Emprworm), that's no surprise, is it?

[Caid Ivik]

Strange ideas, I don't say that religious devotion to your ideals is a bad thing. It gives you only the courage, and courage is a positive thing, so why such tone. Most creators of religions had a target to better understand the world and improve it as much as their wisdom could think of. Same for Jesus, Muhammad, Jefferson or Marx here.

[ordos45]

Back on topic...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=6&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_toll_5

A recent poll of Iraqi households shows as many as 100,000 civilians may have died in the invasion and occupation.

[nemafakei]

I'd like to point out that this is more than twice emprworm's own estimate of Saddam's maximum rate.

Hands up who wasn't expecting that.

... ok, you can put your hands down now and post that you didn't expect it, so that anyone outside the room knows, and so that noone inside the room thinks you're a prat.

[Dante]

I expected that. War generally has a high casualty rate, and minorities in a genocide tend to run out eventually.

...It doesn't help when some of the people in charge have attitudes like "Anyone you see running around must be guilty of something because innocent people don't run." I got that (paraphrased) from an American commander.

[Andrew]

One thing I can not understand is the media.

When dead American soldiers are broadcast on television (Mostly Aljazeera) the good old USA gets all angry about it and stuff. And when Dead Iraqi (rebels/civilians(?)) are shown on television on any channel, nothing is said about it. I don't understand. Is there no televisions in Iraq? Is that why Western countries can show dead Iraqis on television and in print media?

A good example is when the USA soldiers were shown hanged from something many months ago. America media got all crazy about how they can't show that on television, yet they show dead Iraqis all the time. Iraqis have families too.

:)

Makes no sense to me.