Many would consider the victim's deprivation of their property to be a bad consequence. Sociopaths are people for whom this is not plainly obvious.
My point is, if atheism is a valid belief/religion, then stealing should be an ethically (but not legally) okay profession. That is, atheism supports the path of the sociopath.
Atheism does support the path of the sociopath, because it doesn't identify any additional bad consequences beyond the victim's deprivation (i.e. no trip to hell). Religion fills this gap for sociopaths; it gives them an ethical framework as a substitute for the common decency that the rest of us inherently possess. That is, it's easier for a sociopath to live as a "good person" if they are religious than if they are atheist.
Also, the belief of God's existence has existed for thousands of years. And if you want to change that belief, the atheists will have to prove God does not exist. Millions of mindless atheists constantly chanting "God does not exist" is not a proof.
The belief in natural spirits, animism, also existed for thousands of years. That belief changed with the arrival of polytheism, which in turn gave way to monotheism. However, polytheists never proved the nonexistence of tree spirits. Monotheists never proved the nonexistence of a gaggle of gods. Why would you expect monotheism will not yield to atheism without a proof of your god's nonexistence?
If the carrot-and-stick approach of heaven-and-hell is the only thing that keeps you from acting as an evil person, then you are an evil person at heart, merely constrained by religion.
1: Just like the insurgency in Iraq was stopped quickly? It's quite obvious that you can't take out stealth bombers with pistols and you can't protect yourself against nukes with a shotgun, but it's quite impressive what an armed populace can accomplish.
2: American society exposes its citizens to more violence than nearly any other developed country.
3: This is the only point you make that isn't total shit.
4: We're teaching our kids creationism in public schools, but you say Christianity is declining? Brownskins across the country are getting harassed, even Sikhs for fucks sake, but Islam is destined to be the top US religion in ten years? How out of touch with reality can one possibly be?
5: This is comical. Why are countless countries around the world complaining about how heavily subsidized US food exports are destroying their domestic agriculture industries? Why isn't China already invading any of the countless places in the world that have quality arable land but a weak government? Why does my broker tell me that my shares of KRFT (Oscar Mayer, one of our largest bacon producers, is owned by Kraft) are still owned by me and not China? How will Mexico conquer Texas if they can't even control the territory they already have? Why isn't some Middle Eastern nation building a new Damascus or Dubai in Mexico, which already has a weak government?
6: The US has been a belligerent in many (if not most) of the world's recent conflicts. Read a book.
7: Hostile actors? Who the fuck are you talking about? Japan 75 years ago?
8: What the fuck does this even have to do with a revolution? Is there some reason why we'd need a new government to take the form of a federated republic?
tl;dr, both you and the people who talk about revolution are clueless. A revolution would be stupid primarily because we already have a government, and the pain of getting a new one would be greater than the suffering we experience under the current one. It has nothing to do with Obama converting everyone to Islam or China invading our farms.
No, the Holomodor is a tactic right out of Stalin's regime. Posting messages mildly critical of capitalism on a public message board is orders of magnitude less reprehensible than anything Stalin would do. Your hyperbole diminishes the horrors of Stalin's reign, putting him on the same level as some dude on slashdot. People like you are the reason everything is so fucking sensational today. Get some perspective.
I was mostly joking, as it's still rather commonplace for churches to be considered non-profits. In many ways, they really are no different from other non-profit organizations, many of which compensate their administrators quite handsomely.
relevant regulations - including that they have to actually spend at least a certain percentage of their income on endeavors with no return.
Well, there's no return in buying Cadillacs for the clergy, right?:P
Your asinine statement is predicated on the idea that international trade is a -requirement- for a communist nation to be successful.
That's not true. Success is relative. An abrupt and undesired discontinuation of international trade, particularly with a state's largest trading partner, is likely to worsen economic conditions. That's the rationale behind economic sanctions. This isn't something I just made up, it's a cornerstone of modern diplomacy. I never said international trade was a requirement for anything. I did imply that the effect (indeed, the whole point) of an embargo is negative, economically.
Globalism opens up greater opportunities, but by no means is it required for any nation to succeed.
Off topic. I said nothing about globalism, nor about it being a requirement for national success.
Even complete islands of people can function without Marxist ideology.
Off topic. I never said otherwise. I never said Cuba isn't functional, nor did I say that Marxism was a requirement for island populations to function.
And FYI, Cuba isn't an American welfare state.
Off topic. I never said anything about welfare or American welfare states.
They can (and do) trade with the rest of the world and South America just fine.
Off topic. One of the few claims in the history section of the Wikipedia article on Cuba's economy that doesn't have a [citation needed] tag is that pre-Castro , "90 percent of the country's raw sugar and tobacco exports was sent to the USA". I never suggested that Cuba pursues an isolationist economic policy, so continued trade with other states doesn't counter any of the claims I've made.
If Communism falls, it falls on its own face.
When did the workers gain control of the means of production in Cuba? That's a rhetorical question; they didn't. Cuba never implemented communism, so pointing to it as an example of failed communism contradicts reality.
Please see N. Korea and their Juche philosophy.
See previous response.
Damn, what they hell are they teaching you in school these days? FFS!! Please PLEASE educate yourself.
Communism is incompatible with both human rights and a healthy economy, and never has, never can, and never will meet the needs of its own people or offer better lives than those under capitalism.
Citation needed. Show me one country where the means of production have been owned by the workers and I'll concede defeat.
If you look through the posts on this story, it's evident that people are fucking retarded. A significant number are blaming the embargo on the missile crisis, seemingly unaware of time's relation to the principle of causality. I commend you for trying to fight the ignorance.
That being said, the shocking number of misinformed people has got me thinking. It's so unlikely for this many people to be so very wrong in the same exact way. Is this possibly the consequence of the way we're teaching history in public schools? How exactly is the history of American-Cuban relations taught in American schools? Are our kids really this stupid, or is this the effect of teaching revisionist history?
Just goes to show, if you can prevent the success of a communist country (whether by embargo, or by funding, training, and supporting terrorists, or by supporting organized crime, or by countless other means) for long enough, it's just a matter of time (well, maybe several generations, but who's counting) before you can point and say "See! Communism really doesn't work!"
When ideology becomes more important than humanity, you become inhumane.
The people they didn't murder the Cuban revolutionaries stripped of all property and they became paupers overnight. They'd have to ignore their own actions if they want to claim there has never been a more vile violation of human rights.
In other news, the ICC has indicted Robin Hood for vile violation of human rights.
Capitalism apologists need to step back and get some perspective from time to time.
That's the most absurd article I've read on the subject in quite some time. Here's a few reasons why:
“Contrary to the myth spread by the revolution,” wrote Alfred Cuzan, a professor of political science at the University of West Florida, “Cuba’s wealth before 1959 was not the purview of a privileged few. . . . Cuban society was as much of a middle-class society as Argentina and Chile.”
Ha! Alfred Cuzan was born in Havana in 1948 and became a naturalized American citizen in 1969. It seems overwhelmingly likely that his family, much like virtually all Cuban expats of that era, were part of the oppressive capitalist caste of Cuban society that was specifically targeted by Castro's policies. His impartiality is questionable, to say the least. Additionally, he references Argentina and Chile as though they were shining beacons of middle-class awesomeness. He's actually saying "Cuban society was as much of a middle-class society as any other shithole suffering from massive disparity of wealth distribution", but the way he says it paints a different picture. Consequently, I'll just say Alfred Cuzan is a lying sack of shit with a personal vendetta against the Castro administration, regretably so similar to many other Cuban expats of his generation.
In 1958, Cuba had a higher per-capita income than much of Europe.
Somebody didn't do too well in math class. Citing per-capita income (i.e. an arithmetic mean) as evidence of equitable distribution of wealth (i.e. standard deviation) is a non sequitur. Michael Totten fails at numbers. Additionally, I'll just point out that a high per-capita income is consistent with claims that the wealthy elites of pre-Castro Cuba were raking in the cash at the expense of everyone else. How did the median household income in pre-Castro Cuba compare against much of Europe? That's what I thought.
“Between 1960 and 1976,” Cuzan says, “Cuba’s per capita GNP in constant dollars declined at an average annual rate of almost half a percent. The country thus has the tragic distinction of being the only one in Latin America to have experienced a drop in living standards over the period.”
That's interesting. 1960, eh. Let's see, what happened in 1960 that could possibly explain this unfortunate circumstance. Indeed, Castro rose to power in 1959, that could explain it. Let me dig through my history books and... wait... what's this? Oh look! The US embargo against Cuba started in 1960? The same US that was Cuba's largest trade partner? What a fascinating coincidence!
That's around where I stopped reading. Based on the contents of the article you linked to, I can say with confidence that Michael Totten is either a disingenuous asshat or a raging imbecile. By linking to this propaganda piece, you've put your own credibility in a questionable light.
I'm sure Cuba would be more willing to consider releasing Alan Gross from prison if the Cuban 5 were freed from prison. It doesn't help relations when you imprison counter-terrorism operatives for being spies. Their only crime was preventing more bombings of innocents in Havana.
Sure, yes, they should push the Cuban people further into destitution to enrich wealthy American capitalists. Perhaps after they're done with that, they can simply march into the ocean like lemmings after having waived sovereignty and given their island to the US. That would only further soften the situation, no?
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be a little weird too if your biology teacher had focused more on creationism than evolution by natural selection.
When society is outright hostile towards atheists, I'm not surprised that atheists seek to congregate into groups or form Atheist Defence Leagues.
Example: It's dangerous for children to know atheism exists, says Illinois state legislator. Citation.
If there are no bad consequences to stealing
Many would consider the victim's deprivation of their property to be a bad consequence. Sociopaths are people for whom this is not plainly obvious.
My point is, if atheism is a valid belief/religion, then stealing should be an ethically (but not legally) okay profession. That is, atheism supports the path of the sociopath.
Atheism does support the path of the sociopath, because it doesn't identify any additional bad consequences beyond the victim's deprivation (i.e. no trip to hell). Religion fills this gap for sociopaths; it gives them an ethical framework as a substitute for the common decency that the rest of us inherently possess. That is, it's easier for a sociopath to live as a "good person" if they are religious than if they are atheist.
Also, the belief of God's existence has existed for thousands of years. And if you want to change that belief, the atheists will have to prove God does not exist. Millions of mindless atheists constantly chanting "God does not exist" is not a proof.
The belief in natural spirits, animism, also existed for thousands of years. That belief changed with the arrival of polytheism, which in turn gave way to monotheism. However, polytheists never proved the nonexistence of tree spirits. Monotheists never proved the nonexistence of a gaggle of gods. Why would you expect monotheism will not yield to atheism without a proof of your god's nonexistence?
If the carrot-and-stick approach of heaven-and-hell is the only thing that keeps you from acting as an evil person, then you are an evil person at heart, merely constrained by religion.
I'm a gnostic atheist. God speaks to me directly, only to tell me he doesn't exist.
It would be shrinking were it not for immigration.
... !?
You misspelled "cheeseburger".
Hm, what? Oh, sorry, wrong thread.
Not posting AC, because this is beyond idiotic.
1: Just like the insurgency in Iraq was stopped quickly? It's quite obvious that you can't take out stealth bombers with pistols and you can't protect yourself against nukes with a shotgun, but it's quite impressive what an armed populace can accomplish.
2: American society exposes its citizens to more violence than nearly any other developed country.
3: This is the only point you make that isn't total shit.
4: We're teaching our kids creationism in public schools, but you say Christianity is declining? Brownskins across the country are getting harassed, even Sikhs for fucks sake, but Islam is destined to be the top US religion in ten years? How out of touch with reality can one possibly be?
5: This is comical. Why are countless countries around the world complaining about how heavily subsidized US food exports are destroying their domestic agriculture industries? Why isn't China already invading any of the countless places in the world that have quality arable land but a weak government? Why does my broker tell me that my shares of KRFT (Oscar Mayer, one of our largest bacon producers, is owned by Kraft) are still owned by me and not China? How will Mexico conquer Texas if they can't even control the territory they already have? Why isn't some Middle Eastern nation building a new Damascus or Dubai in Mexico, which already has a weak government?
6: The US has been a belligerent in many (if not most) of the world's recent conflicts. Read a book.
7: Hostile actors? Who the fuck are you talking about? Japan 75 years ago?
8: What the fuck does this even have to do with a revolution? Is there some reason why we'd need a new government to take the form of a federated republic?
tl;dr, both you and the people who talk about revolution are clueless. A revolution would be stupid primarily because we already have a government, and the pain of getting a new one would be greater than the suffering we experience under the current one. It has nothing to do with Obama converting everyone to Islam or China invading our farms.
one political party has
Let me guess: You're a supporter of the other political party, which is only doing great things to improve our society?
No, the Holomodor is a tactic right out of Stalin's regime. Posting messages mildly critical of capitalism on a public message board is orders of magnitude less reprehensible than anything Stalin would do. Your hyperbole diminishes the horrors of Stalin's reign, putting him on the same level as some dude on slashdot. People like you are the reason everything is so fucking sensational today. Get some perspective.
Ah, you must've missed that whole "Industrial Revolution" thing. It happens. Honest mistake.
I agree with your sentiment regarding automation, though. The first part, at least.
relevant regulations - including that they have to actually spend at least a certain percentage of their income on endeavors with no return.
Well, there's no return in buying Cadillacs for the clergy, right? :P
Your asinine statement is predicated on the idea that international trade is a -requirement- for a communist nation to be successful.
That's not true. Success is relative. An abrupt and undesired discontinuation of international trade, particularly with a state's largest trading partner, is likely to worsen economic conditions. That's the rationale behind economic sanctions. This isn't something I just made up, it's a cornerstone of modern diplomacy. I never said international trade was a requirement for anything. I did imply that the effect (indeed, the whole point) of an embargo is negative, economically.
Globalism opens up greater opportunities, but by no means is it required for any nation to succeed.
Off topic. I said nothing about globalism, nor about it being a requirement for national success.
Even complete islands of people can function without Marxist ideology.
Off topic. I never said otherwise. I never said Cuba isn't functional, nor did I say that Marxism was a requirement for island populations to function.
And FYI, Cuba isn't an American welfare state.
Off topic. I never said anything about welfare or American welfare states.
They can (and do) trade with the rest of the world and South America just fine.
Off topic. One of the few claims in the history section of the Wikipedia article on Cuba's economy that doesn't have a [citation needed] tag is that pre-Castro , "90 percent of the country's raw sugar and tobacco exports was sent to the USA". I never suggested that Cuba pursues an isolationist economic policy, so continued trade with other states doesn't counter any of the claims I've made.
If Communism falls, it falls on its own face.
When did the workers gain control of the means of production in Cuba? That's a rhetorical question; they didn't. Cuba never implemented communism, so pointing to it as an example of failed communism contradicts reality.
Please see N. Korea and their Juche philosophy.
See previous response.
Damn, what they hell are they teaching you in school these days? FFS!! Please PLEASE educate yourself.
So, what year did your family flee Cuba?
Let's not forget my personal favorite:
"The Bears are what we thought they were. They're what we thought they were." - Dennis Green's treatise on epistemology.
Or, if you prefer, Da Bearss.
(a church could refuse to host a service, but a church is not a business).
So I guess you're not that far ahead of us if you still haven't seen through the thinly veiled "not a business" argument. Lekker.
Communism is incompatible with both human rights and a healthy economy, and never has, never can, and never will meet the needs of its own people or offer better lives than those under capitalism.
Citation needed. Show me one country where the means of production have been owned by the workers and I'll concede defeat.
If you look through the posts on this story, it's evident that people are fucking retarded. A significant number are blaming the embargo on the missile crisis, seemingly unaware of time's relation to the principle of causality. I commend you for trying to fight the ignorance.
That being said, the shocking number of misinformed people has got me thinking. It's so unlikely for this many people to be so very wrong in the same exact way. Is this possibly the consequence of the way we're teaching history in public schools? How exactly is the history of American-Cuban relations taught in American schools? Are our kids really this stupid, or is this the effect of teaching revisionist history?
Your first sentence isn't one. It's a fragment.
Just goes to show, if you can prevent the success of a communist country (whether by embargo, or by funding, training, and supporting terrorists, or by supporting organized crime, or by countless other means) for long enough, it's just a matter of time (well, maybe several generations, but who's counting) before you can point and say "See! Communism really doesn't work!"
When ideology becomes more important than humanity, you become inhumane.
There was a time when the Cuban embargo was indeed a Cuban naval blockade.
The people they didn't murder the Cuban revolutionaries stripped of all property and they became paupers overnight. They'd have to ignore their own actions if they want to claim there has never been a more vile violation of human rights.
In other news, the ICC has indicted Robin Hood for vile violation of human rights.
Capitalism apologists need to step back and get some perspective from time to time.
“Contrary to the myth spread by the revolution,” wrote Alfred Cuzan, a professor of political science at the University of West Florida, “Cuba’s wealth before 1959 was not the purview of a privileged few. . . . Cuban society was as much of a middle-class society as Argentina and Chile.”
Ha! Alfred Cuzan was born in Havana in 1948 and became a naturalized American citizen in 1969. It seems overwhelmingly likely that his family, much like virtually all Cuban expats of that era, were part of the oppressive capitalist caste of Cuban society that was specifically targeted by Castro's policies. His impartiality is questionable, to say the least. Additionally, he references Argentina and Chile as though they were shining beacons of middle-class awesomeness. He's actually saying "Cuban society was as much of a middle-class society as any other shithole suffering from massive disparity of wealth distribution", but the way he says it paints a different picture. Consequently, I'll just say Alfred Cuzan is a lying sack of shit with a personal vendetta against the Castro administration, regretably so similar to many other Cuban expats of his generation.
In 1958, Cuba had a higher per-capita income than much of Europe.
Somebody didn't do too well in math class. Citing per-capita income (i.e. an arithmetic mean) as evidence of equitable distribution of wealth (i.e. standard deviation) is a non sequitur. Michael Totten fails at numbers. Additionally, I'll just point out that a high per-capita income is consistent with claims that the wealthy elites of pre-Castro Cuba were raking in the cash at the expense of everyone else. How did the median household income in pre-Castro Cuba compare against much of Europe? That's what I thought.
“Between 1960 and 1976,” Cuzan says, “Cuba’s per capita GNP in constant dollars declined at an average annual rate of almost half a percent. The country thus has the tragic distinction of being the only one in Latin America to have experienced a drop in living standards over the period.”
That's interesting. 1960, eh. Let's see, what happened in 1960 that could possibly explain this unfortunate circumstance. Indeed, Castro rose to power in 1959, that could explain it. Let me dig through my history books and... wait... what's this? Oh look! The US embargo against Cuba started in 1960? The same US that was Cuba's largest trade partner? What a fascinating coincidence!
That's around where I stopped reading. Based on the contents of the article you linked to, I can say with confidence that Michael Totten is either a disingenuous asshat or a raging imbecile. By linking to this propaganda piece, you've put your own credibility in a questionable light.
I'm sure Cuba would be more willing to consider releasing Alan Gross from prison if the Cuban 5 were freed from prison. It doesn't help relations when you imprison counter-terrorism operatives for being spies. Their only crime was preventing more bombings of innocents in Havana.
Russell Peters has a funny bit in defense of American culture.
Sure, yes, they should push the Cuban people further into destitution to enrich wealthy American capitalists. Perhaps after they're done with that, they can simply march into the ocean like lemmings after having waived sovereignty and given their island to the US. That would only further soften the situation, no?
master_kaos: “They lose money on every sale.”
Pfhorrest: “Yes, but they’ll make it up in volume!”