"practiced destruction of all" thatmeans everything in my understanding, only the "practical" relativates a bit. So how many was it then? 10% as practical all? Or rather 90%?
You keep going to that "90%" like it means something. It doesn't. And, like everything else you've asserted, the claim that "90% of chinese population are buddhists and/or taoists" is completely wrong.
No, strawmanner, I did not. I said they "practiced destruction of all" religions and places of worship. And they killed many people and destroyed many buildings, I never said they got around to destroying everything.
a) China has no official state religion
Since we're being literal, I'll go ahead and point out that this is not really accurate, either. China actually has 5 "recognized" or "official" religions. They are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, and they consider the practice of any other religion illegal.
Welfare doesn't create single moms. People create single moms.
But welfare encourages them to stay that way, and discourages the baby-daddies from "doing the right thing". The problem is not so much that they need financial help, it's the total absence of a father (2nd parent) that so drastically lowers the children's odds of making it out of poverty.
Except show me where it incentives.. You have kids out of wedlock you will be stuck poor with no disposable income for the rest of your life... That sure does not sound like incentives to me.
Sure, that's why they can't get anywhere, people like you tell them "you can't make it, you just need the government to support you", they believe it, and are kept down. I know plenty of people that have been in that situation and are doing just fine now. Sure, they struggled, needed help, but they worked to bring themselves out of it. Happens all the time, you're not destined to poverty for the rest of your life, and you need to stop discouraging people with that kind of crap.
And, yes, it provides incentives. If you're 15, hate your family life and your mom's abusive boyfriend, you know what the way out is that everyone tells you about? You have a baby. Then you get your own government apartment, food stamps, and welfare. And the cycle continues. Mostly because of people like you that keep telling people "The system is rigged and you can't make it." Yes they can.
You are responsible for them, even if you don't want to. The options are, help them when they are children, or house them in prisions when they are older. Why do you prefer prisions to education?
I'd rather educate them about freedom and responsibility, and let them fly. But I would gladly spend money on prisons for people like you that would rather tell them they can't make it and keep them dependent on your bureaucracy and state-run ghetto housing.
So, you propose to increase responsibility by punishing those who claim responsibility?
Your alternative is to punish ME, by making me responsible for some kid that I have no responsibility for raising. Worse, I didn't even get any pussy. Why do you hate me to such a level?
I think the point is that they are creating the system that produces welfare recipients, by depending on provably counterproductive moral principles such as abstinence and unlimited procreation in wedlock, regardless of income.
And I think the point is that providing incentives for producing children out of wedlock (which is provably harmful to the children) and discouraging the involvement of the father is resulting in a lot of lost potential. Two parent homes are demonstrably better at raising well-adjusted productive people, and providing incentives for creating an abundance of fatherless children and single-parent households is devastating to communities, and is a self-perpetuating cycle of dependency.
You've gone off the deep end and are now just spouting a bunch of pedantic nonsense. Too bad that's all you've got. I guess your hatred has destroyed your ability to reason.
Just being pedantic but a state religion cannot be atheism because atheism is by definition the absence of belief that deities exist. You can accurately say that there is no state religion or that theist religions are officially discouraged/suppressed. But atheism is not and cannot be a religion in any sort of conventional meaning of the term.
Your definition is wrong. A religion is any belief based on faith. Atheism is a belief that no god exists, something that cannot be proven empirically, and thus Atheism is a religion. It's not an "absence of belief", that would be agnosticism.
Besides, Atheism clearly meets the "Seven Dimensions of Religion", defined by Ninian Smart (a framework accepted by anthropologists and historians): narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Where is your proof that the majority "don't give a fuck about helping the poor"? Because that was your assertion, which the link, with all those Christian organizations helping the poor, and all that money going to do it, must come from... somewhere? Is it a bunch of atheists donating to those Christian organizations? They sure as hell aren't getting it from government bureaucrats.
FWIW, if you claim yourself to be a "Christian," then that last little line only serves to prove my contention right.
I don't, but I'm not black, either, but I still feel the need to defend them when racists make unfounded stereotypical statements about them. Same goes for religious folk of whatever stripe.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute?
That's quite a long list, although it's more than just the "destitute", which we simply don't have many of around here, what with food stamps and welfare and public housing and everything else available to them. At least there is some help coming out of that 60% of my labor that various governments confiscate from me. Too bad so much of it goes to killing brown people and oppressing 3rd world countries.
Is that because they are Atheist, or is that because the government doesn't want their citizens answering to another leader (i.e. the Pope)? It seems like much more of a political issue than a religious one. The one thing all religions have in common is there is a structure and someone you as a member of that religion take direction from. This was part of the reason for the creation of the Protestant religion, The King wanted his people to obey him, not the Catholic Pope. Yes, he also wanted a divorce and didn't like the Pope telling him he couldn't get one. The Chinese Government wants its people to obey the government not the Pope or any other head of religion.
It's exactly the same as anything you can call "Christian terrorism", though. Exactly. People wanting power, suppressing competition.
So either both exist, or neither exist and it's all about an excuse for control. Many countries had the king as the head of the Christian church. Other times, there was a "partnership" - but that didn't exist without sanction from the King.
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Sorry your momma didn't love you - there's no need to project your ill feelings on the people that are, collectively, the most philanthropic in the world.
Dude - it's solved! Don't you know? All that's left to research is the psychology. Just read the article, it's right there at the end:
“We've mostly solved the physical science of climate change,” Howe said, referring to the vast amount of research showing that global warming is real and caused by human burning of fossil fuels. “Now we are working on the social puzzle.”
“We've mostly solved the physical science of climate change,” Howe said, referring to the vast amount of research showing that global warming is real and caused by human burning of fossil fuels. “Now we are working on the social puzzle.”
I hate to point it out, because the initial commentor was being a heavy handed idiot, but I think the initial comment meant people don't go around killing others because they're Atheists or in the name of Atheism.
Actually, they kind of do. The Chinese, even today, certainly jail and persecute people that practice an outlawed religion, and the official state religion is atheism. Surely you've heard of China's "Cultural Revolution", when churches were destroyed and thousands of religious citizens were killed? They've relaxed their stance on the practice of religion in recent years, but they absolutely practiced destruction of all "non-atheist" structures and people in the past.
You'll punish the children for the actions of the parents?
It's the mothers themselves that do this. They typically refuse to name the father, because the state will then go after him for child support. What's your solution to that? This whole "Won't someone please think of the children" appeal is effective, but it's just used to support policies that destroy communities from the inside.
They shit on welfare recipients, but because of their religious idiocy, they refuse to take PROVEN steps to help prevent people from requiring so much extra financial help.
Actually, they shit on the system that produces welfare recipients, not the people. And religion is their solution, because it teaches people about long-held human moral principals like don't have kids out of wedlock, families should stick together, and communities should help each other.
That depends, you didn't make it clear in your original post, but quite a few seem to think that if these people just learned to suck dick to get a whole 20 hours a week scheduled at walmart they wouldn't need welfare.
Pretty sure sucking dick pays more than Walmart. Well, depending on how you look, I guess.
Uneducated single mothers living in slums with 5+ kids should just get a better job.
Nah, just have another kid, somebody will have to pay for it. Just don't put the dad's name on the birth certificate, because the state might try to put a dent in his drinking money.
Slashdot Mirror
"practiced destruction of all" thatmeans everything in my understanding, only the "practical" relativates a bit. So how many was it then? 10% as practical all? Or rather 90%?
You keep going to that "90%" like it means something. It doesn't. And, like everything else you've asserted, the claim that "90% of chinese population are buddhists and/or taoists" is completely wrong.
You claimed they destroyed EVERYTHING!!!!
No, strawmanner, I did not. I said they "practiced destruction of all" religions and places of worship. And they killed many people and destroyed many buildings, I never said they got around to destroying everything.
a) China has no official state religion
Since we're being literal, I'll go ahead and point out that this is not really accurate, either. China actually has 5 "recognized" or "official" religions. They are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, and they consider the practice of any other religion illegal.
Uh... yes they did.
See also: Falun Gong, and Tibet.
History. Stop revising it.
Welfare doesn't create single moms. People create single moms.
But welfare encourages them to stay that way, and discourages the baby-daddies from "doing the right thing". The problem is not so much that they need financial help, it's the total absence of a father (2nd parent) that so drastically lowers the children's odds of making it out of poverty.
Except show me where it incentives.. You have kids out of wedlock you will be stuck poor with no disposable income for the rest of your life... That sure does not sound like incentives to me.
Sure, that's why they can't get anywhere, people like you tell them "you can't make it, you just need the government to support you", they believe it, and are kept down. I know plenty of people that have been in that situation and are doing just fine now. Sure, they struggled, needed help, but they worked to bring themselves out of it. Happens all the time, you're not destined to poverty for the rest of your life, and you need to stop discouraging people with that kind of crap.
And, yes, it provides incentives. If you're 15, hate your family life and your mom's abusive boyfriend, you know what the way out is that everyone tells you about? You have a baby. Then you get your own government apartment, food stamps, and welfare. And the cycle continues. Mostly because of people like you that keep telling people "The system is rigged and you can't make it." Yes they can.
You are responsible for them, even if you don't want to. The options are, help them when they are children, or house them in prisions when they are older. Why do you prefer prisions to education?
I'd rather educate them about freedom and responsibility, and let them fly. But I would gladly spend money on prisons for people like you that would rather tell them they can't make it and keep them dependent on your bureaucracy and state-run ghetto housing.
So, you propose to increase responsibility by punishing those who claim responsibility?
Your alternative is to punish ME, by making me responsible for some kid that I have no responsibility for raising. Worse, I didn't even get any pussy. Why do you hate me to such a level?
I don't know, but this Zanzibar Higglesbrain sounds like a guy whose G+ feed I would like to follow!
Good idea! I also went ahead and uploaded my picture of Zanzibar, and tagged him!
I think the point is that they are creating the system that produces welfare recipients, by depending on provably counterproductive moral principles such as abstinence and unlimited procreation in wedlock, regardless of income.
And I think the point is that providing incentives for producing children out of wedlock (which is provably harmful to the children) and discouraging the involvement of the father is resulting in a lot of lost potential. Two parent homes are demonstrably better at raising well-adjusted productive people, and providing incentives for creating an abundance of fatherless children and single-parent households is devastating to communities, and is a self-perpetuating cycle of dependency.
God forbid we should ask people to be responsible for their actions and ... their own children.
You've gone off the deep end and are now just spouting a bunch of pedantic nonsense. Too bad that's all you've got. I guess your hatred has destroyed your ability to reason.
Some actually believe they're doing it for god or some "higher" purpose
To be fair, so do Richard Dawkins and his [... dare I use the word? yep ...] followers.
and the official state religion is atheism.
Just being pedantic but a state religion cannot be atheism because atheism is by definition the absence of belief that deities exist. You can accurately say that there is no state religion or that theist religions are officially discouraged/suppressed. But atheism is not and cannot be a religion in any sort of conventional meaning of the term.
Your definition is wrong. A religion is any belief based on faith. Atheism is a belief that no god exists, something that cannot be proven empirically, and thus Atheism is a religion. It's not an "absence of belief", that would be agnosticism.
Besides, Atheism clearly meets the "Seven Dimensions of Religion", defined by Ninian Smart (a framework accepted by anthropologists and historians): narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Quite bullshit.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Where is your proof that the majority "don't give a fuck about helping the poor"? Because that was your assertion, which the link, with all those Christian organizations helping the poor, and all that money going to do it, must come from ... somewhere? Is it a bunch of atheists donating to those Christian organizations? They sure as hell aren't getting it from government bureaucrats.
FWIW, if you claim yourself to be a "Christian," then that last little line only serves to prove my contention right.
I don't, but I'm not black, either, but I still feel the need to defend them when racists make unfounded stereotypical statements about them. Same goes for religious folk of whatever stripe.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute?
That's quite a long list, although it's more than just the "destitute", which we simply don't have many of around here, what with food stamps and welfare and public housing and everything else available to them. At least there is some help coming out of that 60% of my labor that various governments confiscate from me. Too bad so much of it goes to killing brown people and oppressing 3rd world countries.
Is that because they are Atheist, or is that because the government doesn't want their citizens answering to another leader (i.e. the Pope)? It seems like much more of a political issue than a religious one. The one thing all religions have in common is there is a structure and someone you as a member of that religion take direction from. This was part of the reason for the creation of the Protestant religion, The King wanted his people to obey him, not the Catholic Pope. Yes, he also wanted a divorce and didn't like the Pope telling him he couldn't get one. The Chinese Government wants its people to obey the government not the Pope or any other head of religion.
It's exactly the same as anything you can call "Christian terrorism", though. Exactly. People wanting power, suppressing competition.
So either both exist, or neither exist and it's all about an excuse for control. Many countries had the king as the head of the Christian church. Other times, there was a "partnership" - but that didn't exist without sanction from the King.
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Quite bullshit.
Sorry your momma didn't love you - there's no need to project your ill feelings on the people that are, collectively, the most philanthropic in the world.
Dude - it's solved! Don't you know? All that's left to research is the psychology. Just read the article, it's right there at the end:
FTFA:
Just ... wow.
I hate to point it out, because the initial commentor was being a heavy handed idiot, but I think the initial comment meant people don't go around killing others because they're Atheists or in the name of Atheism.
Actually, they kind of do. The Chinese, even today, certainly jail and persecute people that practice an outlawed religion, and the official state religion is atheism. Surely you've heard of China's "Cultural Revolution", when churches were destroyed and thousands of religious citizens were killed? They've relaxed their stance on the practice of religion in recent years, but they absolutely practiced destruction of all "non-atheist" structures and people in the past.
Ah you must be American for you've never heard of guys like Stalin or Mao.
... or Nelson Mandela.
Go ahead, mod me down all you want. Inconvenient truth, indeed.
It also overpowered the ability of most people to make sound judgments about climate change
Pretty sure Al Gore did that many years ago.
You'll punish the children for the actions of the parents?
It's the mothers themselves that do this. They typically refuse to name the father, because the state will then go after him for child support. What's your solution to that? This whole "Won't someone please think of the children" appeal is effective, but it's just used to support policies that destroy communities from the inside.
They shit on welfare recipients, but because of their religious idiocy, they refuse to take PROVEN steps to help prevent people from requiring so much extra financial help.
Actually, they shit on the system that produces welfare recipients, not the people. And religion is their solution, because it teaches people about long-held human moral principals like don't have kids out of wedlock, families should stick together, and communities should help each other.
That depends, you didn't make it clear in your original post, but quite a few seem to think that if these people just learned to suck dick to get a whole 20 hours a week scheduled at walmart they wouldn't need welfare.
Pretty sure sucking dick pays more than Walmart. Well, depending on how you look, I guess.
Uneducated single mothers living in slums with 5+ kids should just get a better job.
Nah, just have another kid, somebody will have to pay for it. Just don't put the dad's name on the birth certificate, because the state might try to put a dent in his drinking money.