Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:26 pm

Inconvenient Reality wrote:Well everyone, here we see the lefty mentality on display.

Dangerously childish, isn't it?

Not everybody here is a leftist neo liberal.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:32 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:Well other animal species practice other behaviors that we find horrendous or abhorrent where we don't practice those behaviors in the norm of human society. Understanding that, why is homosexuality tolerated or promoted? Why is it the exception? Heterosexual relationships is the underpinning of reproduction which is why it is promoted because society can't function at all without reproduction. This is just basic common knowledge here.
Sure, that's just basic common knowledge, but it's not relevant, unless have a minority that has homosexul sex leads to stopping reproduction. I see no signs that is happening. If the population starts decreasing, well, OK, let's take a look and see if there is a causal connection. But at a more abstract level, it seems like you are saying that we should only use our bodies in those ways that foster reproduction or improve the species. Do you really restrict yourself to that yourself?

In my ideal society homosexuality would not be spotlighted, promoted, or be deemed socially acceptable. It wouldn't be illegal but it wouldn't be socially accepted publicly either.
I think it's good you don't want to make it illegal. But again, let's look at this more abstractly. You are going to make anything that does not increase reproduction, socially unnaceptable? Masturbation, chastity, deciding not to have kids, having less sex, having just one kid. And does this mean that if I have liesure activities that do not benefit society or lead to increased reproduction they will be socially unacceptable? Sounds like a really judmental place. Not where I would want to be. I don't want people trying to calculate the value to society of my actions and considering things they cannot justify as benefitting society socially unacceptable. It's like high school was. Now it's great that it won't be turned into a legal issue, but it sounds like a place where one of those workaholic fathers is now the president. if it only applies to homosexuality, well, I''ll be fine. But then I wonder why it would not be a more generalized criterion.

What else wuold be socially unacceptable in your ideal society? And you don't need to mention things like pedophilia or rape, etc. I mean, what are we supposed to be always doing in your society such that not doing it or doing something that is not like that is bad?

Cause otherwise it sound rather puritanical. I am vary wary of conformism. I am wary of when it is decided what is the majority normal and then anything else is considered wrong. Of course there are things I am against that are minority activities - pedophilia - but there I see consent issues and abuse issues. But man, put me in a society where all my activities have to benefit society and be what normal (the majority of the) people do, fuck that's a terrible place.


Yes, sexual relations should only be used for reproduction but notice I said nothing against the use of contraceptives. Homosexuality should be restricted to private life where it belongs and transgenderism is a mental illness. If I could make homosexuality illegal I would however homosexuals have been around for thousands of years where it is unlikely that making it such would have any effect. Pedophiles should be executed publicly for display and rape is not excusable where that act should be punished.

Radical individualism as an ideology must be exterminated as all should revolve around collectivism of what is good for the whole of society and the nation state. There is no place for radical individualism within society or a nation.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby MagsJ » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:52 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

...along with fraudulent charities. Sure.. some of the money gets to the intended people, but millions are siphoned off as bonuses to those running these charities. How compassionate they really are!

You can't do that! Who else would do the money laundering and tax evasions?! :lol:

Lol.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17149
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:49 pm

MagsJ wrote:Lol.

Western oligarchy and its NGO's wouldn't be able to function without their international front charitable organizations because if either was to disappear overnight they might actually have to contribute to society in paying taxes like everybody else. :shock: 8-[
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:15 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:If judges are allowed to go by the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law with religions, what you want would likely follow.

Judges would want proof that the fraudsters are lying before giving a guilty verdict and that would mean that we would have to find a way around the logical fallacy and impossibility of showing that there is no God. They would have to accept that the fraudsters cannot possibly know anything of the supernatural.

That is tough as law is fact based and not logic and reason based and even atheists cannot prove with facts that God does not exist and that those who claim there is one are liars.
I am not sure what you mean by fact-based. The law definitely uses reason and logic, in fact it cannot function without it. This does not mean they always reach correct conclusions, but deduction (from law, from evidence) is core. And logic and reason without facts is just math, so any other system would be problematic also. You can't decide much regarding the world with just logic and reason, you need to base it on experiences - hence science for example being an empiricism - hence observation and facts.


You have my "fact based" well defined, and yes, facts are key as compared to speculative nonsense or outright lies.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:23 pm

Inconvenient Reality wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:For me homosexuality is unnatural

Except it isn't. It is present in hundreds of species, anything from higher primates to birds to a wide variety of mammals to species further away from us. It can include anything from occasional homosexual sex to life pairing. And let's make this very clear. These animals are not being influenced by cultural ideas. They are simply a part of nature, by definition making it natural. Yes, it tends to be a minority of each species though in bonobos lesbian sex is more common than anything else. I do not like how it is promoted but it is natural. I don't really like how heterosexual sex is promoted either, though that's either for capitalist ends or the products of very damaged humans ideas about what sex is. Human damage around sex is pretty much the norm. Would it be safe to say that in your national socialist state homosexual minorities would or would not be abused by the minority?


This is either reductio ad absurdum or part of a dishonest ideology. Animals also hump humans, other animals and inanimate objects, are they cross species sexual or are objectofiliacs? The anthropomorphizing you are doing here is disingenouous or short sighted. We do not see any actual sustained "'homosexual" behaviour. The behaviour is normally sporadic and predictable based on other biological or sociological factors. We do not see measurable percentages of a population that can be regularly predicted, and from what I know every single case what humans would typically call animal "homosexuality" invariably involves sexual activity (we cannot ascribe "homosexuality" or any other human concept, emotion or thought processes to non-sexual same sex animal pairings, where/if they exist). This is not the case in humans, as many do not engage in sexual behaviour at all, or are engage in other paraphiliac behaviours. We haven't sufficiently explained the behaviour in humans yet, let alone animals.

Lastly your claim of "natural" should rightly draw dismissals based on usage of the naturalistic fallacy. Leftists (or leftist thought) for years used that argument against traditionalists. Except that the leftists themselves flip flop between biological and "identity" claims using the terms interchangeably, completely dependent on whether an ideological opponent chooses to use to attack based on biology or sociology. You are either claiming it is natural in which case you are making a biological claim and the burden of proof is on you, or you are making a sociological claim in which case it is nothing more than another "social construct" according to leftists, and therefore holds no universal merit. Proponents so desperately want it to be "normal" or "correct" behaviour no matter what that cognitive dissonance is the usual result. Hell, I didn't even argue the part where animals engage in other behaviour that in humans would be considered reprehensible on the highest order.

And we have not even touched on why even IF we could prove homosexuality had a biological basis that it should be regarded as "correct" or "normal" behaviour. Just because we are naturally (requires definition) inclined to behave in a certain way does not mean that it is beneficial to human society to do so. In fact, we could come to a conclusion that any behaviour that interferes with the survival or continuance of the species is "wrong", "incorrect" or "unnatural". I believe evolutionary psychology is the root of all religious beliefs, humans just lost track of (or deliberately obfuscated) the psychology behind the words.


You say gays act un-naturally, then show that we are naturally doing almost exactly what they do. #-o

You are good at showing your disgust, but not too good at justifying the just cause for your discrimination.

You showed your hate. Do you have any view love and on you denying gays the loving relationships and marriage that we all have a right to?

If gayness is not a natural condition as defined by their DNA, then nurture must be the cause, right?

So are you not hating the wrong party and should hate those who reared the children that way?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:40 pm

Silhouette wrote:Fraudulent religions? Isn't that tautology?

"Edgy" but true statements aside, is the real question about whether all fraud is necessarily bad? Something I have been considering for a long time now is whether all useful things are based on deception. I wouldn't use religion as a very good example of this, but I do believe there is a certain utility to a successful religion (regardless of its specific style of narrative to elucidate a certain metaphorical kind of truth) beyond the obvious examples that you might expect to hear from one of its believers. The mere fact that it induces pseudo-kinship is particularly powerful, though I think there are far better ways to do this. All religion is a kind of psychotherapy. It's a primitive and bad kind, but I think it's a better classification of it than a primitive attempt at philosophy, science or truth-seeking.

Saying this, I want to be clear that most forms of fraud are performed in line with competitive and high risk/high reward strategies when within a social environment and do not benefit beyond a single individual or small scale syndicate. And a far better example of a cooperative strategy is faith in objective reason and logic. Every single person is a subject and has access only to the subjective, but the myth of the objective that minimises the immediacy of the subject is incredibly useful and valuable toward social concerns. I'm even using it right now with my suggestions of game theory terminology. However, reason and logic are particularly totalitarian - the implicit intention and goal is toward singular and absolute answers in a world where all is relative. But the form of the authority is far more useful than any Godhead or central concept in religion.

Perhaps a less difficult question would be about freedom of expression, or manifestations of freedom of thought and speech. Freedom of thought is not viable to police, though some religions at least try. Freedom of speech is mostly harmless so long as it isn't backed up with any action. But the notion that speech cannot affect ideas, and thus not attitudes and thus not behaviours is naive. Speech can escalate into highly damaging actions. Freedom of expression is the manifestation of freedom of thought, which is influenced by free speech - drawing a line is no clear task. You can police action based on (fraudulent) religions, whilst leaving speech about said religions untouched - and such policing is the totalitarianism at play here to counter the totalitarianism behind most, if not all religions. However, I have faith that objective reasoning is a far better dictator - and I support the education of critical thought and logical reasoning. Such a method, when respected, not only brings about technological advancements upon application to the physical world, but it also annihilates any threat of freedom to lie in your speech, and freedom to believe and even derive morality from myths. All beneficial potential from such authorities are achieved by the God of objective reasoning, and more, and without the demonstrable risk of terrible side-effects of belief in inferior Gods gone wrong.


"tautology"

A bit but I wanted to see who thought their religions were legitimate and truthful. I also wanted to allow for the religions that are knowledge and wisdom based like Buddhism and Gnostic Christianity.

So far, few deny that the supernaturally based religions are based on lies.

I agree that freedom of thought cannot be legislated but that freedom of actions are the culprit we can do something about when it is poorly directed.

If you tell a lie often enough, which is what they have said about religions, it becomes a fact and that is why constant or perpetual lying for money is fraud.

There is a gay discussion going on here that shows how the perpetual lie, --- that gays should be discriminated against for being un-natural, has some thinking that those humans are somehow un-natural.

I like freedom of thought and speech and even preach hate, but I try to insure that I have a just cause for my discriminations. Biases are good, even the negative ones, as they are in us to protect us. They tell us who to love as well as who to hate.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:45 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

...along with fraudulent charities. Sure.. some of the money gets to the intended people, but millions are siphoned off as bonuses to those running these charities. How compassionate they really are!


I hear you and hate that you and I have to pay the tax shortfall created by thieves who know how to play the system.

The crooks ain't just confined to religions. Here are a few more crooks:
Rank Charity name... Total raised by solicitors ...Paid to solicitors ... % spent on direct cash aid
1 Kids Wish Network 137.9million 115.9 million 2.5%
2 Cancer Fund of America 86.8million 75.4 million 1.0%
3 Children's Wish Foundation International 92.7million 61.2 million 10.6%
4 Firefighters Charitable Foundation 62.8million 53.8 million 7.4%
5 International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO 66.6million 50.4 million 0.5%
6 Breast Cancer Relief Foundation 63.9million 44.8 million 2.2%
7 American Association of State Troopers 48.1million 38.6 million 8.9%
8 National Veterans Service Fund 70.2million 36.9 million 7.8%
9 Children's Cancer Fund of America 43.7million 34.4 million 4.6%
10 Children's Cancer Recovery Foundation 38.5million 28.9 million 0.7%
11 Project Cure (Bradenton, FL) 53.8million 25.5 million 0.0%
12 Committee For Missing Children 26.6million 23.5 million 0.8%
13 Youth Development Fund 27.5million 22.6 million 1.0%
14 Association for Firefighters and Paramedics 24.0million 21.4 million 3.1%
15 Woman To Woman Breast Cancer Foundation 19.4million 18.2 million 0.3%
16 United States Deputy Sheriffs' Association 25.6million 17.9 million 0.8%
17 National Caregiving Foundation 21.0million 17.4 million 3.2%
18 Vietnow National Headquarters 19.1million 16.7 million 2.8%
19 National Cancer Coalition 42.1million 16.4 million 1.3%
20 Operation Lookout National Center for Missing Youth 18.2million 14.7 million 0.0%
21 American Foundation For Disabled Children 15.8million 13.4 million 0.6%
22 Heart Support of America 31.4million 12.9 million 3.1%
23 Police Protective Fund 37.7million 12.2 million 0.7%
24 Veterans Assistance Foundation 12.4million 11.1 million 10.4%
25 Children's Charity Fund 14.0million 10.3 million 2.4%
26 The Veterans Fund 12.6million 10.2 million 2.5%
27 Wishing Well Foundation USA 12.6million 10.1 million 4.3%
28 Disabled Police Officers of America Inc. 11.4million 9.5 million 2.3%
29 Disabled Police and Sheriffs Foundation 10.4million 8.9 million 1.0%
30 National Police Defense Foundation 10.6million 8.4 million 5.1%
31 Defeat Diabetes Foundation 12.7million 7.8 million 0.0%
32 American Association of the Deaf & Blind 10.3million 7.8 million 0.1%
33 Optimal Medical Foundation 7.8million 7.6 million 1.0%
34 Circle of Friends For American Veterans 9.3million 7.2 million 4.4%
35 United Breast Cancer Foundation 12.7million 7.2 million 6.3%
36 Reserve Police Officers Association 7.8million 6.9 million 1.2%
37 Children's Leukemia Research Association 9.8million 6.8 million 11.1%
38 Disabled Police Officers Counseling Center 7.6million 6.4 million 0.1%
39 Shiloh International Ministries 7.7million 6.0 million 1.1%
40 Find the Children 7.4million 4.8 million 4.6%
41 Survivors and Victims Empowered 7.7million 4.8 million 0.0%
42 Firefighters Assistance Fund 5.7million 4.7 million 3.1%
43 Caring for Our Children Foundation 5.1million 4.4 million 1.6%
44 National Narcotic Officers Associations Coalition 5.0million 4.2 million 0.0%
45 Our American Veterans 2.6million 2.3 million 2.3%
46 Roger Wyburn-Mason & Jack M Blount Foundation For Eradication of Rheumatoid Disease 9.0million 1.9 million 0.0%
47 Hope Cancer Fund 2.1million 1.7 million 0.5%
48 Firefighters Burn Fund 2.0million 1.7 million 1.5%

Crooks all, and there ain't nothing illegal about it.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:55 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:[ There is no place for radical individualism within society or a nation.


So you would stop man's evolution and not seek the fittest minds to lead us.

You would you want a world of leaderless sheeple.

Einstein would be outlawed in your new world and the gay guy that broke germanise code and won the war for the West would have never gotten his job of helping win WWII.

You might want to re-think on outlawing our best minds.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:56 pm

Inconvenient Reality wrote: You will have to provide some sort of context and proof if you want to link homosexual behaviour with positive impacts on society. Nebulous ideas about egos and tension will have to be backed with something that indicates homosexual behaviour is the best way to provide X to the species overall on balance (also risk v benefit).

One last point about sexual behaviour. You scoffed at my point about being beneficial to the continuation or stability of the species, but let's be real for a second. Heterosexual activity provides a clear benefit to the continuation of the species. Please support homosexuality on the same basis.


Your assumed righteous goal is the continuation of the species, but you haven't remotely explained what that means nor even how its righteousness is justified because maybe the plan of nature is to not have us around one day and perhaps somehow that works out to be what is ultimately good; how are you to say otherwise? By what authority do you speak?

What's ultimately good can ultimately only come from authority ;)

Perhaps eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, in fact, unnatural simply because it's full of conceit! It's not a tree that bestows knowledge, but a tree that, like alcohol, gives one the arrogance (balls, gall) to presume knowledge of right and wrong; that's the sin!

So let's say that moving-forward is an inspiring aspiration and by that we mean a robust population explosion! Well, if that's our goal, then do we keep our women barefoot and pregnant every available ovulation cycle? Do we outlaw feminine celibacy? Ban homosexuality and abortion for the sake of keepin up with the rabbits? Maybe we can mechanize the whole process. No?

If we suspect that competitively large numbers of specimens is not the way forward, then how about restricting breeding to iq tests and all manner of contrived meritocratic struggle? And who decides that and from where does he get his presumption to be judge of what is good? The blind fool may well drive us into a ditch because "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

And that's beside the point that once mass-breeding is determined unfavorable, then it's no longer a function of numbers, but something else that determines "continuation of the species". Really, we only need a handful of people to go on. Who cares if some weirdos stick their tallywackers in the wrong holes? It's less competition for the straight guys.

What does your goal mean and how do you know how to get there?

If you're insisting on proof for why homosexuality is inherently wrong, you must first provide proof that heterosexuality is inherently right, or that anything can be inherently right.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:13 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:[ There is no place for radical individualism within society or a nation.


So you would stop man's evolution and not seek the fittest minds to lead us.

You would you want a world of leaderless sheeple.

Einstein would be outlawed in your new world and the gay guy that broke germanise code and won the war for the West would have never gotten his job of helping win WWII.

You might want to re-think on outlawing our best minds.

Regards
DL


Human beings are social animals and no man or woman is an island. A majority of human beings are sheople, dumb, and ignorant which is why hierarchy exists to begin with as the smartest leads them. Einstein was an intellectual thief/plagiarist and was responsible for the Manhattan project in the application of nuclear weapons. Somebody should take a time machine in the past and erase his entire existence snubbing him out. As for the gay code breaker in a more ideal world the Third Reich would of been victorious in World War II. I want a society where there is no public influence of poofters. All the problems the west faces in civilization now is a direct result of world war II, we are still living in the consequences of its aftermath.

Image
Last edited by Zero_Sum on Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:35 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:[ There is no place for radical individualism within society or a nation.


So you would stop man's evolution and not seek the fittest minds to lead us.

You would you want a world of leaderless sheeple.

Einstein would be outlawed in your new world and the gay guy that broke germanise code and won the war for the West would have never gotten his job of helping win WWII.

You might want to re-think on outlawing our best minds.

Regards
DL


Human beings are social animals and no man or woman is an island. A majority of human beings are sheople, dumb, and ignorant which is why hierarchy exists to begin with as the smartest leads them. Einstein was an intellectual thief and was responsible for the Manhattan project in the application of nuclear weapons. Somebody should take a time machine in the past and erase his entire existence snubbing him out. As for the gay code breaker in a more ideal world the Third Reich would of been victorious in World War II. I want a society where there is no public influence of poofters.

Image


Compare the number of death by nuclear bombs to the number of people saved by nuclear medicine and tell us if we have a net gain or a net lose.

You might also wonder why the world has been enjoying the best stats for death by violence, including war, than it has ever had, in part, thanks to M.A.D.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:37 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Compare the number of death by nuclear bombs to the number of people saved by nuclear medicine and tell us if we have a net gain or a net lose.

You might also wonder why the world has been enjoying the best stats for death by violence, including war, than it has ever had, in part, thanks to M.A.D.

Regards
DL


Nuclear medicine? Please clarify.

Yeah, we're just a button or detonation away from complete total global destruction and annihilation where we're better off because of it. :lol:
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:49 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Compare the number of death by nuclear bombs to the number of people saved by nuclear medicine and tell us if we have a net gain or a net lose.

You might also wonder why the world has been enjoying the best stats for death by violence, including war, than it has ever had, in part, thanks to M.A.D.

Regards
DL


Nuclear medicine? Please clarify.

Yeah, we're just a button or detonation away from complete total global destruction and annihilation where we're better off because of it. :lol:


Your fears are clouding your judgements.

As you requested. If you want more, do your own research.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... today.aspx

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:55 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Compare the number of death by nuclear bombs to the number of people saved by nuclear medicine and tell us if we have a net gain or a net lose.

You might also wonder why the world has been enjoying the best stats for death by violence, including war, than it has ever had, in part, thanks to M.A.D.

Regards
DL


Nuclear medicine? Please clarify.

Yeah, we're just a button or detonation away from complete total global destruction and annihilation where we're better off because of it. :lol:


Your fears are clouding your judgements.

As you requested. If you want more, do your own research.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... today.aspx

Regards
DL


Most nuclear medicine exists for cancer which has skyrocketed because of our artificial environment we've created where there are cancer causing effects everywhere in our modern society but whatever. :wink:
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:45 am

Zero_Sum wrote:
Nuclear medicine? Please clarify.

Yeah, we're just a button or detonation away from complete total global destruction and annihilation where we're better off because of it. :lol:


Your fears are clouding your judgements.

As you requested. If you want more, do your own research.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... today.aspx

Regards
DL[/quote]

Most nuclear medicine exists for cancer which has skyrocketed because of our artificial environment we've created where there are cancer causing effects everywhere in our modern society but whatever. :wink:[/quote]

And you did not even have to find the numbers that refuted your original claim, but whatever. :wink:

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:15 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:If judges are allowed to go by the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law with religions, what you want would likely follow.

Judges would want proof that the fraudsters are lying before giving a guilty verdict and that would mean that we would have to find a way around the logical fallacy and impossibility of showing that there is no God. They would have to accept that the fraudsters cannot possibly know anything of the supernatural.

That is tough as law is fact based and not logic and reason based and even atheists cannot prove with facts that God does not exist and that those who claim there is one are liars.
I am not sure what you mean by fact-based. The law definitely uses reason and logic, in fact it cannot function without it. This does not mean they always reach correct conclusions, but deduction (from law, from evidence) is core. And logic and reason without facts is just math, so any other system would be problematic also. You can't decide much regarding the world with just logic and reason, you need to base it on experiences - hence science for example being an empiricism - hence observation and facts.


You have my "fact based" well defined, and yes, facts are key as compared to speculative nonsense or outright lies.

Regards
DL
You seem to be agreeing with me here, but I was pointing out in part that the law is logic and reason based, and not simply fact based (whatever that would mean) which is not what you said previously.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:18 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
And you did not even have to find the numbers that refuted your original claim, but whatever. :wink:

Regards
DL



*Yawns*

Care to defend your other positions?
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:23 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:Yes, sexual relations should only be used for reproduction but notice I said nothing against the use of contraceptives.
But then you must be against contraception since it is for sexual relations not for reproduction. You should be against celibacy, porn should be a problem for you, masturbation, couples who stop having children and activities that limit reproduction - that is anything that reduces the number of children people have - everything from time consuming hobbies to too much focus on career and more. And since you found homosexual sex disgusting than disgust as guide could lead to all sorts of other shoulds. What other shoulds do you have that are based on disgust?

Homosexuality should be restricted to private life where it belongs and transgenderism is a mental illness. If I could make homosexuality illegal I would however homosexuals have been around for thousands of years where it is unlikely that making it such would have any effect.
Yes, there was homosexuality, in high numbers, even when it was illegal and when the social punishments were unbelievably high. It was constantly denigrated in all media and nearly all social circles and condemned by the church. Nevertheless there was a significant part of the population that engaged in it, many of whom felt attraction for the same sex as far back as they could remember.

Radical individualism as an ideology must be exterminated as all should revolve around collectivism of what is good for the whole of society and the nation state. There is no place for radical individualism within society or a nation.
What else counts as radical individualism?
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:28 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
You have my "fact based" well defined, and yes, facts are key as compared to speculative nonsense or outright lies.

Regards
DL
You seem to be agreeing with me here, but I was pointing out in part that the law is logic and reason based, and not simply fact based (whatever that would mean) which is not what you said previously.[/quote]

If only logic and reasoned ruled us, there would not be fraudulent religions.

If the word fact is giving you a problem, I recommend the dictionary. I am not re-defining well defined terms.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:30 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
And you did not even have to find the numbers that refuted your original claim, but whatever. :wink:

Regards
DL



*Yawns*

Care to defend your other positions?


Care to tell me what you object to?

Do it with an argument against and we can proceed.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:54 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
And you did not even have to find the numbers that refuted your original claim, but whatever. :wink:

Regards
DL



*Yawns*

Care to defend your other positions?


Care to tell me what you object to?

Do it with an argument against and we can proceed.

Regards
DL



I believe I've already responded to a few points several posts back and waiting for a response from you.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:39 pm

I am not a mind reader.

If you have issues, put them up as I do not know which ones you are referring to.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Zero_Sum » Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:53 am

Greatest I am wrote:I am not a mind reader.

If you have issues, put them up as I do not know which ones you are referring to.

Regards
DL

I am not going to hold your hand in finding my prior posts in this thread. Please utilize your computer properly, thanks in advance. :wink:
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Postby Greatest I am » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:45 pm

Thank you as well for not knowing what you priorities are.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users