Some special relationship...

Originally posted by richjohnson
Why then, do you always seem to dismiss other people's points of view by labelling them as "communist" and then relying on the brutal regimes of Stalin and Mao to "prove" how bad anything other than your world view is? Surely you ...[text shortened]... ? People come half way around the world to see trees like that."

Your first point. The title of the thread "some special relationship" was dismissive to my point of view, ie, the US and UK do indeed have a special relationship based on being "free market" countries. Since the premise and invitation of the thread was to make fun of my point of view, (by inferring mutual distrust between the two nations) I chose to return in kind. My world view? It is not really related to politics and religion. I do everything I can to ridicule both. I remember McCarthy. He was a US senator who NOT ONCE ATTENDED A MEETING OF THE "House Un-American Activities Committee". So? He made the mistake of holding a few news conferences and being an easy target was destroyed for his trouble. He stated the obvious. Hollywood, washington and all academia was infested with communists. History has shown him to be correct. So? I sure don't care one way or the other. Just another politician.

Your second point... as to "greens" and "commies" being related. Study the people who drive the movements. Without exception they are the people who had to find a new title when the USSR fell. The underlying dogma of communism is "The STATE is everything. The individual is nothing." The underlying dogma of greens and socialists is "The rights of SOCIETY trump the rights of individuals". So if you change a few terms and semantically become less clear, you are not the same as you used to be? Repentance should be made of sterner stuff. Are all greens commies? Only as a matter of degree. All socialists and greens have their roots in the basic notion that the individual is subservient to the society and/or state, just as the communists enforce in China, Cuba, Vietnam and N. Korea. We could call communists "green" only in the sense that they want to tell individuals what they can and can't do with property. We can call greens and socialists "communist" only in the sense that they want to tell individuals what they can and can't do with the their own private property and all of the community environment. A difference in degree only.

Your third point. Who owned the tree? This is the crux of the matter isn't it. Society or Individual? Anger, hate and loathing for destroying the tree? Think "green". Society Or State? Should he have had to get permission from either to "sell" the tree? Me thinks you will reply in the affirmative. I know i come down on the rights of the owner of the tree. The individual is worth more to me than all of the "societies" and "states" on earth.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Mark,
You make a logical mistake in removing "adherants" from the "tenets" of the movement. Unlike the communist point of view, I hold only individuals as culpable upon causing and participating in evil. The individuals who enforce communism can logically be called communists. ... It is obvious, but removes the conversation and debate from the poin ...[text shortened]... 's theology"... that is a deliberate inference by me, that it is indeed just another religion.

Mike, I think you are suggesting that only individuals can be evil. I might agree that almost all government officials in past Communist regimes were evil, but this does not prove the point I thought you were trying to prove. I think you will agree that the idea "it is right to mutilate large numbers of children in food processors" is evil. That statement is NOT an individual. I would like to know what, if anything, is evil about the [actual abstract ideas[/i] that underlie command economies. Not the people, not even the putting into practice of these ideas. I want to know how an idea that was basically conceived as morally valueless can still be evil.

The fact that evil can be done by other groups is also a logical fallicy, as i think you know.

Why is the statement "Evil can be done by other groups" a logical fallacy?

Basically, What I'm saying is that you still have not told me anything to suggest that communism is anymore morally objectionable than capitalism, or Rastafarianism, or gardening.

"Religion" is defined as:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

which definition is not satisfied by communism. Communism as practiced may be a dogma, and I may agree that dogma is evil, but you have yet to convince me that any other economic or political ideology is NOT a dogma.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Why? Surely you don't need the obvious stated. There is over a hundred years history to this particular religion. I think my basic summary is all i want to say. ..... I don't agree with that and so I speak against it whenever I get the opportunity. No rehash or consideration of the minutia within the greater message can justify it's ultimate conclusion. Same logic as I apply to all religious questions.

Mike, history cannot prove that an abstract idea is evil. History only proves that the practice of an abstract idea is evil, which is not what I am disputing. I am saying that until the ACTUAL IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF COMMUNISM are shown to be evil, it is theoretically possible to practice communism in a non-evil way.

Also, I don't think your reduction to:

Repeating... "The State is everything. The individual is nothing."

is quite valid, given the history of communism in certain places. Aiding the worker against the corporation does not really exemplify the above.

I am not a socialist per se. I just don't think it is moral to be wealthy beyond one's needs at the expense of those who are not. Not socialist, but anti-corporate.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Your first point. The title of the thread "some special relationship" was dismissive to my point of view, ie, the US and UK do indeed have a special relationship based on being "free market" countries. Since the premise and invitation of the thread was to make fun of my point of view, (by inferring mutual distrust between the two nations) I chose t ...[text shortened]... tree. The individual is worth more to me than all of the "societies" and "states" on earth.

OK, point taken about the subject of the thread, and apologies for hijacking it.

You obviously missed my points, since I only had 2.

The first is that it gets my dander up when people dismiss arguments with labels.

The second is that a properly informed individual would not act against his own best interest by chopping down a tree that is much more valuable left standing. No, I don't think that anyone but the owner has any say about what happens to a tree on private property (except maybe a neighbour who's house is dangerously close to a rotting tree).

Are you saying that the rights of the individual are supreme, and any abrogation of those rights is unjustified? How would you deal with conflicts between individuals?

Originally posted by royalchicken
Mike, I think you are suggesting that only individuals can be evil. I might agree that almost all government officials in past Communist regimes were evil, but this does not prove the point I thought you were trying to prove. I think you will agree that the idea "it is right to mutilate large numbers of children in food processors" is evil. T ...[text shortened]... l, but you have yet to convince me that any other economic or political ideology is NOT a dogma.

Mark,
You, I think, are of the "moral relativist" school of thought and I am not. Thus i don't see that we could ever agree on a rather simple abstraction like "evil". So lets not try.

I pretty much agree with Kant concerning my moral methodology.

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above and the moral law within."

Why is the afore mentioned a fallacy? It was a red herring. As you know, that is one of B. Russels 7 deadly fallacies.

When Rasta's and gardeners take over governments with the intent of telling me what i can own and why... then they can be compared to communists. Not before. Again, watch that logic circuit. Not really related to the subject at hand.

I will agree with you that any institutionalized system of money or monetary control is a thing to be examined very carefully. If said thing limits the individual it is dogma. If it regulates society it may be policy. The border between dogma and policy is rather slippery, but i judge based on it's effect on INDIVIDUALS. Can I open a transmission bearing replacement shop on 3rd west or does the government tell me to show up at their shop for work?

I admit I use my own definition of "religion" and "government" for that matter. Whether I have the right to do so is probably open to debate. My definition of a religion is "Any institution guided by rigid rules and control mechanisms for keeping it's members in line with dogma, while defining and proclaiming a description of God. Usually controled by charismatic individuals. Group name usually ends with 'ism'. " Does communism qualify under my definition? Let's see... Strict rules. Yes. Defines and Describes God? Yes. Ran by powerful and charismatic people. Yes. More powerful than charismatic, but religious leaders in the western world are frowned upon if they institute fireing squads. Charisma will just have to do them for now. Who knows?

Originally posted by royalchicken
Mike, history cannot prove that an abstract idea is evil. History only proves that the practice of an abstract idea is evil, which is not what I am disputing. I am saying that until the ACTUAL IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF COMMUNISM are shown to be evil, it is theoretically possible to practice communism in a non-evil way.

Also, I don't think your reducti ...[text shortened]... thy beyond one's needs at the expense of those who are not. Not socialist, but anti-corporate.

Ok. Let's wait for the very first communist government to be born that does not enslave it's populace. Then lets talk about it some more. At that point i will be more likely to discuss the dangers of "class" and "property" and proletarianism. Until we have one example, i don't see a discussion as a beneficial use of time and effort.

I don't think it is right for corporations to treat people badly either. Whenever i see or hear of that happening, i no longer use that product or service. I don't allow Nike or Adidas shoes in my house, for example. And i will never buy non-farm grown hardwoods. That is my choice. If the corporation doesn't get money, it will go away. Same argument liberals use for supporing pornography, degradation and violence in rap lyrics.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy[/b]

You, I think, are of the "moral relativist" school of thought and I am not. Thus i don't see that we could ever agree on a rather simple abstraction like "evil". So lets not try.

I am not exactly a moral relativist, rather I am of the opinion that abstract ideas that do not directly attempt to deal with morality are amoral. It is as senseless to talk of "Communism as a theoretical economic method" as having any moral properties is it is to talk about there being any morality in physics, say. You seem to be confusing one thing. Whe I said something analogous to "Physics has no morality", you said something like "Whoa! you're telling me that Edward Teller did a moral thing by developing thermonuclear weapons?". You're missing the point here; it is sensible to talk of the practice of physics as having morality. It is not sensible to talk of the actual content of physics as being governed by moral laws. Similarly, I agree that the practice of communism, capitalism, Rastafarianism, and gardening are all governed by some morality. However, the ideological tenets of something as, well, scientific as Marx's "scientific socialism" are not designed for submission to moral tests.

I pretty much agree with Kant concerning my moral methodology.

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above and the moral law within."

Do you or Manny Kant go on to say what moral law fills you with admiration, or are we just going to try for a logical discussion with no definition? If you would like to use Kant's moral position as a baseline, and then use it to show why the ideas of communism are immoral, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I am going to continue to be skeptical on this point.

Why is the afore mentioned a fallacy? It was a red herring. As you know, that is one of B. Russels 7 deadly fallacies.

it is not, as you said, a "logical fallacy". It is a fallacy for other reasons, but not its logical structure.

I will agree with you that any institutionalized system of money or monetary control is a thing to be examined very carefully. If said thing limits the individual it is dogma. If it regulates society it may be policy. The border between dogma and policy is rather slippery, but i judge based on it's effect on INDIVIDUALS. Can I open a transmission bearing replacement shop on 3rd west or does the government tell me to show up at their shop for work?

If you accept the former, then sure, communism is immoral. But that's almost tautological.

Anyway, are you familiar with Robert Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality". I ask you this because it postulates that morals can be broken into 4 categories, and put in an evolutionary hierarchy. He states that the society is more valuable than the biological being of any of its individuals, but less valuable than their ideas. Just a thought.

Originally posted by richjohnson

Are you saying that the rights of the individual are supreme, and any abrogation of those rights is unjustified? How would you deal with conflicts between individuals?
[/b]

<Are you saying that the rights of the individual are supreme, and any abrogation of those rights is unjustified? >

Shortest answer in history. Yes.

<How would you deal with conflicts between individuals? >

Let's just say that I am 55 years old and have never talked with a lawyer that i know of. Never will either. Reason and the golden rule have worked in hundreds of disputes. I would hang a sign on the wall of a small room saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." and leave an instrucion sheet on the table saying "Food and Water will be delivered Once daily. Ring the button by the door when you have reached agreement and signed the contracts provided. Have a nice day." Then lock the combatants in the room to rot if they can't come to an arrangement. Had to ask didn't you?


😵

Originally posted by royalchicken
[b]You, I think, are of the "moral relativist" school of thought and I am not. Thus i don't see that we could ever agree on a rather simple abstraction like "evil". So lets not try.

I am not exactly a moral relativist, rather I am of the opinion that abstract ideas that do not directly attempt to deal with morality are amoral. It is as sens ...[text shortened]... ological being of any of its individuals, but less valuable than their ideas. Just a thought.
[/b]

Mark,
Do you know how silly "Scientific Socialism" sounds? It is a good set of dogma, and each point contained should have it's own bead on some prayer chain, but please. Science if repeatable and verifyable. Not?

What kind of test can be applied then? I submit it is moral or nothing, as it has no testable and verifiable aspects. Show me where the entire underlying tenet "State Trumps Individual" can be shown to be true.

Logical discussion without definition is easily within the range of the human mind. It is an inate section of the brain just above the eyebrows in all humans. If removed then you are right, no moral discussion can occur. If it is healthy, then yes, all humans can tell right from wrong. (this is going to stir the hornets nest with the tabula rasa crowd)😕 Using my own moral baseline to prove communism is evil doen't require the support of Manny. They commit genecide. ipso facto they are evil. Not much effort there. Now you support "They commit genecide. ipso facto, they are not evil" if you like.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy

Mike, when I talked of "scientific socialism", I was referring to the fact that economics is a science, and thus is theoretically outside of the realm of moral application, but we needn't discuss that point.

What kind of test can be applied then? I submit it is moral or nothing, as it has no testable and verifiable aspects. Show me where the entire underlying tenet "State Trumps Individual" can be shown to be true.

Since I am not claiming the conclusions of communism to be correct, and only picking apart your statement that communism is evil, the onus is on you to show that "individual trumps state". And if morality is indeed the only viable test, please give a definition of morality for us to use.

Logical discussion without definition is easily within the range of the human mind.

This is false. A logical discussion must define its terms. Morality is no exception.

It is an inate section of the brain just above the eyebrows in all humans. If removed then you are right, no moral discussion can occur. If it is healthy, then yes, all humans can tell right from wrong.

You are essentially calling me a sociopath here, along with other people who like to make their decisions based on reasoning. YOu are saying that "moral law" is self-evident. I'm saying it's not; lay one down, I will accept it for the purposes of this discussion. I am not in the "tabula ras crowd", you needn't worry.

Using my own moral baseline to prove communism is evil doen't require the support of Manny. They commit genecide. ipso facto they are evil. Not much effort there. Now you support "They commit genecide. ipso facto, they are not evil" if you like.

For the last time, Mike, I'm not saying that the PRACTIONERS of communism are not evil. Sure, I accept your argument that the commission of genocide makes Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. evil. This STILL IS NO LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION THAT THE ABSTRACT IDEAS THEMSELVES ARE EVIL. To show that the abstract principles themselves are evil, you MUST introduce an abstract moral law. In fact, Kant's categorical imperative would likely do the trick.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Mike, when I talked of "scientific socialism", I was referring to the fact that economics is a science, and thus is theoretically outside of the realm of moral application, but we needn't discuss that point.

[b]What kind of test can be applied then? I submit it is moral or nothing, as it has no testable and verifiable aspects. Show me where the en ...[text shortened]... oduce an abstract moral law. In fact, Kant's categorical imperative would likely do the trick.

Mark,

I don't see us making any progress. I only speak of people and you want to discuss "abstract ideas". Communists are evil. These are individual human beings. Communism is evil. It's set consists of communists. I wouldn't think that trying to elevate an abstract idea into the realm of being co-equal with living, breathing beings will lead us into much discovery. I don't think it is even desirable or doable.

You are correct. I meant to say the "Moral discussion without definition of strict points of logic is easily within the range of the human mind."

If you got the impression i was calling you what i myself am usually called... a hem... sorry bout that. Never even occured to me. Let's see ... a moral law that is self evedent. "Thou shalt not eat your children.", "Never grind up babies in the food processor". "Never Microwave Cats". "Don't Cheat On Your Spouse." I have plenty more if you insist. A moral law is that which applies to the moral sense in a logical fashion. If you lack a moral sense, you will of course see no law, or indeed the possiblity of the existence of such.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Mark,

I don't see us making any progress. I only speak of people and you want to discuss "abstract ideas". Communists are evil. These are individual human beings. Communism is evil. It's set consists of communists. I wouldn't think that trying to elevate an abstract idea into the realm of being co-equal with living, breathing beings will lead us ...[text shortened]... a moral sense, you will of course see no law, or indeed the possiblity of the existence of such.

I may accept your thesis "Communists are evil", because to illustrtate that point, all you need do is list every communist there ever was and show that each is evil. I realize that when you say "Communism", you mean "the people whose political and economic ideas are shaped by the work of Marx an Engels on that subject". I was talking about "the ideas of Marx and Engels on economics and politics". That is why we had such an impasse. I might be willing to accept that some people are evil (your claim), but I can't accept that the ideas are evil (my erroneous interpretation of your claim).

I don't think it is even desirable or doable.

This is admittedly a strong point of view, but I would tend to take the reverse of this view, which is just as scientifically verifiable. If you'd like to know more, read my first post in the thread "Just an Honest Question".

You are correct. I meant to say the "Moral discussion without definition of strict points of logic is easily within the range of the human mind."

I still don't entirely agree with this. Maybe i am a sociopath. I think on certain points everyone disagrees what the "moral thing to do" is, unless, of course, they have some religious or political dogma to tell them what to do.

No need to apologize for anything. I was just taking something to its conclusion.

A moral law is that which applies to the moral sense in a logical fashion. If you lack a moral sense, you will of course see no law, or indeed the possiblity of the existence of such.

This is really a very good idea in many ways. I'm just arguing that the moral sense varies from person to person and that this situation is acceptable. I don't, for example, see why adultery is immoral. "Don't cheat on your spouse" seems like a logical moral law to me, because of the implied contract in their being your spouse, but "Don't, when married, have sex with one who is not your spouse regardless of mutual agreement" is illogical. I think it is that locution, and not the behaviour it proscribes, that is immoral.

Again, Colin, I apologize for taking a perfectly good thread and messing with it. Send a game and I'll see if I'll last longer than I normally do. (Bold text to attract those who have quite rightly stopped reading.)

Originally posted by royalchicken
I may accept your thesis "Communists are evil", because to illustrtate that point, all you need do is list every communist there ever was and show that each is evil. I realize that when you say "Communism", you mean "the people w ...[text shortened]... o attract those who have quite rightly stopped reading.)


[/b]

I had previously stated in this thread that the culpable "communist" are those "who enforce communism". I would have been better served to state is as "those who enforce the doctrine" involved, etc. I took it for granted that the unculpable communist, ie, member with no enforcement power are as innocent as the snow. It was self evident to me, but i realize it should have been expressed. This should eliminate my need to show that all communists are evil.

Will go read "An Honest Queston" and be back with an edit.
<I'm Back>

A lot to think about. I will begin with your conclusion. I like your idea of struggling against [ignorance] personally with the hope of fighting it globally as being a reason for living.

You started out with a partial description of the relativists point of view that reality is socially constructed by the use of language, stereotypes and images. This is really an adendum to the effort to support two ideas: 1 - that the mind has no mechanisms designed to grasp reality; all it can do is passively download words, images and types from the surrounding culture. 2 - that scientists, like lay people, are unequipped to grasp an objective reality. This goes back to the idea of "western science might be a good way to create goods and services, but it misses the essence of other cultures and sciences." In short, western science is an "imperialist arrogance".

This point of view is not an accident, because in bringing down hard science, the relativists are increasing their own power base. And you can't argue with them. they have the principles of "false consciousness", "inauthentic preferences" and "interiorized authority" to name just a few ... with which to whack any opponent into the dirt.

Even though "the world we know is a construct of the brain", that does not mean it is an arbitrary construct. A million years of evolution have left us very capable of ascertaining reality. Also, one last point. A human child spends the first year of it's life learning the "process" of knowing, not any particular action. This is why artificial intelligence is in deep trouble. The wiring of the human brain is so profound and deep as to be truely mysterious. Teach a baby monkey to grab for a rattle, it spends 98 % of it's attention on the rattle. Teach a baby human and it spends almost it's entire attention on the human doing the teaching. "What does this person want me to do? What is the action required. What reaction do i get for this action." It is learning the teacher, not the action.


The ability of the brain to have a "moral sense" gets really deep into "human nature". That subject is taboo because it has been denied by the intellectual left for a hundred years. They do it so that the idea of "every person is the product of the environment" can be used to combat racism and social darwinism. I agree with their aim, but not to the exclusion of biology and "human nature". Very simple experiments have shown that all moral sense can be excised with a scalple in the brain. That is a can of worms, but it has also been shown that the entire region is "mapped" before birth with 'what appears' to be a full set of 'genetic memory'... again, let's not get too heavy into that. It always brings out the worst. I forget the author but I will use the quote anyway... "Evolution is of course a controversial subject for those yet to experience it."

You know that your mind and mine work differently. I reread the statement...

"Don't, when married, have sex with one who is not your spouse regardless of mutual agreement" is illogical.

five times and for the life of me, i can't see any difference to "Don't cheat on your spouse". The reason is that "they both took a vow" at the wedding. Any subsequent agreement just makes both parties co-equal cheaters.

Can swingers be cheaters? Good subject for another "red hot thread", maybe? Just as an aside... I have known four couples who were into "open marriage" and swinging. Every one of their marriages ended badly. One tragically. Lot of miserable kids to boot. (and to answer your question before you ask... no... hell, i can't even keep one woman happy. why would i try for more?)

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
I had previously stated in this thread that the culpable "communist" are those "who enforce communism". I would have been better served to state is as "those who enforce the doctrine" involved, etc. I took it for granted that the ...[text shortened]... i can't even keep one woman happy. why would i try for more?)

Ok, one last thought experiment before I get to read your forthocoming edit (Russ, an expectant smiley please 🙂). When you say "evey culpable communist is evil", and "communism is evil", you are really saying "there exists a communist, who is evil, such that if he ceased to be a communist, would no longer be evil". See how that works?

Now this seems rather amenable to experimental testing..just go out, take a bunch of old ex-commissars, and indoctrinate them into non-communism, apply your moral criteria, and see if they are still evil. Wrong. This assumes that the new indoctrinationg must not be evil. Thus we assume whatever we indoctrinate them into to be morally superior from the start, which begs the question. The conclusion that such experimental practices are unscientific is an old one due, I think, to Frank Boas.

I do believe in human nature. I have no experienced evolution directly, but have seen empirical evidence that makes it irrational for me not to accept evolution as an explanation for theway the world is. I agree that some kind of moral sense is ingrained wrt our actions, but morals ome into play in our actions rather infrequently. Morals do not govern my, and I suspect most people's, thoughts. The pwith "excising moral sense with a scalpel" is that moral sense can also be excised with a bad experience. I once had a teacher who once worked with some former members of the (ironically enough) Khmer Rouge military, who had participated in a massacre. He said that these people had no "moral sense" at all.

As to "taking a vow" at a wedding, this is a form of mutual consent. Just because this agreement is recognized by the state and/or a church does not mean that it is more valid than the decision to practice "open marriage". I think as long as the "immorality" is zero-sum, there is none. Co-equal, agreed cheating, is perfectly fair. Two wrongs usually do make a right for everyone else. I firmly believe that morals should only govern interactions between people that are not already tempered by foresight. Thus it is moral for me to go and get high right now, for example, because it is not a personal interaction. It is immoral for you to cheat on your wife, because that would be using someone as a means to an end without any attempts at fairness. If you and your wife had previously agreed that such things were acceptable, then it would not, to my mind, be immoral. Sorry for making it that "personal" there. No offense was intended.

EDIT If someone is evil as a result of a warped "innate moral sense", how does that square with them being evil because they are communist? Was Josef Stalin becoming a communist make Josef Stalin evil? Or was he evil because of some problem with his biologically centered moral sense? Or is it a combination of hereditary and biological factors, like virtually all other personality traits?

Originally posted by misslead
Life is more important than death.
Linda

I beg to differ. If everything was alive, would life mean anything? It is only death that defines life, just as one needs darkness to appreciate light. Death and life are just as important as each other.