Boycott Google

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:36 pm

Gloominary wrote:
If rich people cannot exist in government, then it's hard to see how corruption could manifest.

The rich could promise to make the poor governors rich after they exit government.

I guess so, but at least they are required to be out of government in order to realize the wealth.

What's the problem? Why do you want to ban people?

If your club is private, you can ban anyone. If your club is open to the public, then it's open to anyone. If you think you can ban people from a public club, then the public can ban you from a public society by the same logic. So either play fair, or have your own ethics imposed on you. Makes sense right?

My club is something I own, our country is something we own, so the two are not equivalent.

If you own it, then it's not public. If it's public, then you don't own it. Can't have it both ways.

The settlers pushed the natives out because they wanted the gold (Dahlonega, GA had lots of gold). You push them out because you're righteous.

I don't want to push the natives out, I don't have a problem with them so long as they don't think I owe them something they don't owe me.

But you're sitting on their land.

Bernie Sanders@BernieSanders
We spend more on our military than the next 10 nations combined. American troops have been in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years, Iraq since 2003 and in Syria since 2015.
We're going to invest in housing, public education and infrastructure, not never-ending wars.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders

Chomsky said military spending is corporate welfare.

Trump hasn't started any new wars I'm aware of, whereas Obama and the Clintons did.

Trump wants to cut social spending and issue new debt to expand military spending, which is more welfare for the rich to go along with his massive tax cut for the rich. Bush started Iraq. Bush started Afghanistan. I don't know much about Syria. Anyway, Clinton and Obama were conservatives.

Libertarians = ultra-conservatives.

On the economy I party agree with you, but recall Finland, they want the middle class to pay the same % of tax as the rich, and the working class to pay half that.
Since the rich often evade taxes, they'll end up paying say the same % of tax as the poor or less, so essentially what we have is the middle class paying for the poor's crumbs and the rich's corporate welfare, so if libertarians are ultra-conservative, than everyone is.

That just means the Fins are buying the baloney from the right. Appeals to "fairness" come from the right.

And how far did he get with that?

Phyllo is arguing that the germans were the most educated people on the planet and yet Hitler could convince them that Jesus wasn't a jew? If all the village idiots left their villages and formed their own village of idiots, the village idiot of that village would still know Jesus was a jew.

It doesn't matter how many Germans actually drank the cool aid, the point is the Nazis were serving it, for they weren't Christians, they were Social Darwinists and neopagans.

Hence all the bible references and appeals to Jesus.

Hitler was christian when he wrote his book. He was not at some later date.
I was christian, now i'm not.
Matt Dillahunty was on his way to being a preacher, now runs an atheist call-in show and conducts debates with christians.
Everyone on Matt's team was a christian, but are now atheists.
Seth Andrews ran a christian call-in show, now gives atheist lectures.
It's par for the course. I can't think of any atheist who was born that way. The vast majority started as christian.
Why do you find such a regular occurrence so hard to believe? The answer to that is obvious to me and any fair-minded reader of this.

If you discovered the woman you were married to for 10 years was plotting to kill you, for you found and read her diary, and in it there was a five year old entry where she wrote she hated you and was plotting to kill you after you became sufficiently wealthy, would you assume the day before she wrote that entry she loved you?

Probably. If not the day before, then at some point before. Am I supposed to believe she married me because maybe one day I might get rich and then she could kill me? Why not marry someone who was already rich?

No, there is a good reason: the reason I stated above. Statistically, it's exceedingly unlikely for any atheist to not have been christian at one point. So on the basis of statistics alone, there is good reason.

Sure, perhaps when they were kids, but not for long after they joined the Nazi Party.

Most don't snap out of it until they are adults. Hitchens may be the only exception, who realized it was baloney at 8.

Well for one, Mein Kampf appeals to christianity, so you can't have a new bible that appeals to the previous bible for a foundation.

I'm sure they were going to edit that part out.

Then it wouldn't be Mein Kampf

Second, the notion is completely idiotic. Even the most backwoods hillbilly would not substitute another book for the bible and neither would professors or anyone in between. I think you'd sooner convince me the earth is flat.

You don't know anything about Nazi philosophy then,

Sure I do. It's identical to republican philosophy. They even advocate killing people in our concentration camps. Go on fox news and read comments. Right after church on sunday they cheer lethal injection and complain that it took 30 years and want more killings of undesirables. I can't see a difference in a bible-thumping republican and a nazi; only the extents.

they saw the bible as the very antithesis of everything they stood for,

That's true of the republican party, but they don't seek to change it. Republicans are a mockery to the bible, yet the bible is their ally.

they blamed democracy, communism and all they considered degenerate and weak in Europe on it, permitting all whom they hated to survive and flourish,for them it was either usher in a new scientific,pagan era,or perish

They blame it on atheism the same as they do today. Later on Hitler realized the degeneracy of the christian, but also realized there's no way to convince the people of that.

I don't blame it on a single religion, but religion itself because religion = absolutism. The good/evil, right/wrong, us/them, white/brown type thinking that causes atrocities.

You can be irreligious and an absolutist or relativist and still discriminate.

But if you call yourself an atheist, it's highly unlikely you'd be an absolutist.

And discrimination isn't bad if it's your preference and it's not unreasonable.

Depends why you're discriminating.

Your family is christian and whites are typically christian, so you have HUGE incentive to lie.

So do you, most of those hillbillies you hate are Christian.

Ok, you have me there lol. What can I say? We both have incentive to lie, but my position is sensible while yours is reaching.

Why did Hitchens have incentive to lie? I'm pretty sure his brother is still a christian and his family were christians.

I thought Hitchens was left-wing across the board, but politically he was mixed.

He evolved through time. He began as a flaming liberal but tempered after seeing religiosity in the left. Like the Green party. And he went to school with Clinton at Oxford and knew the guy was a charlatan. And he was for the Iraq war (no one can figure out why).

All guns kill, but not all kill with the same effectiveness, so what's your point?

Guns can be used to defend people or act as a deterrence too, and religion isn't just a gun, it's charity, community, etcetera.

Yes but we don't need religion for charity. The Red Cross is secular.

How could you pass anyone's class? How could you get a degree in anything without accepting the authority of the professor?

I could regurgitate the answers I know they want without believing all or any of them.

But how could you disagree without accepting a contrary authority? Unless you were around in nazi germany, you pretty much have to trust someone.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:44 pm

Gloominary wrote:Liberty isn't just a means to an end for some people, even irreligious people, it can be an end in and of itself.

You can value liberty and still value other values simultaneously.

You be can be both reservedly willing to sacrifice some liberty for the sake of other values at times, and reservedly willing to sacrifice other values for the sake of liberty at times, it doesn't have to be a one way street.

I think the fundamental difference between your socialism (or your communism, for as time goes on I can see you wish to expand government far beyond UBI) and my socialism, is for me it's ultimately a means to an end (extrinsic socialism), something limited and perhaps temporary, the end being greater freedom and independence, the more free and independent we are the less we'll need it, whereas for you it's an end in and of itself (intrinsic socialism), something absolute and permanent.

I wish you'd just be honest and admit you want to see poor/lazy people suffer. I'd respect your honesty at least. Your entire political philosophy is predicated on that point.

Ok, I think I'm caught up now. Holla when you're ready for me to reply again. I can't tell sometimes and I don't want to break the flow because messages get lost in the mix that way.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Previous

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users