Portrait of an American Hero

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:34 pm No one had to listen to or read Marx or take anything he said seriously. No one force anyone to adopt Marx's theories or to practice them.
No. And nobody forces an alcoholic to drink if you put a bottle in front of him. Nobody forces a criminal to steal if you leave him in charge of the cash. Nobody forces a child to pull the trigger if you give him a handgun, or to cross traffic without looking. But people who are not very smart or are susceptible to being misled do things when evil people entice them to.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm
I admit I do not say some things in the presence of idiots who will irrationally react to what I might say in some form of force or violence.
Well, Marx did.
So what? I'm not worried about the idiots threatening others, only me.
Good thing you don't live in Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas, Seattle or London.
If what I say incites others to do bad things, that's not my fault.
Sure it is, if you instructed them how to go about it and gave them reason to think it was a good idea.
When you blame Marx for what evil men have done, you are letting the real perpetrators of evil off the hook.
Not at all. I blame them for their share. But they are not the masterminds of the problem, and the conceivers of the violence have their distinct share of responsibility too.
Good grief. You think being a Rhodes scholar is the equivalent of being intelligent?
No, but being intelligent is one of the things you have to have going for you if you're even going to get in that game.
So the real reason you want to suppress free speech is because you think human beings are so stupid they need intelligent censors, like you, to keep them safe from hearing dangerous things.

Don't be silly. I'm making the point that words can incite actions, particular in situations of thoughtlessness, like fear and panic, or in the case of children and the mentally limited, and in the cases of mass movements. And those who carelessly or maliciously manipulate the masses into actions of violence and cruelty are not at all innocent of what they cause. Marx knew what he wanted: violent revolution, the end of religion, a new state of collectivists, the elimination of the bourgeoisie, and so on. He got it. Now, he has to answer for it.
No, you only mentioned what other people did, not how anything anyone said or wrote harmed anyone. Really, IC, if one is never to say or write anything some idiot might swallow whole, misconstrue, or take to heart and do wrong because of it, nothing of significance can ever be said or written.
Heh. :D There's a world of difference between writing something that is "misconstrued," and something that is construed exactly as it was intended, and leads to the suffering and murder of millions. If a man writes a note saying, "Kill my wife, and I will give you $10,000; she'll be at the Sheraton at 6," and the police find it, I wonder whether or not they'll think they're being unfair in accusing him of attempting to create a murder...Or will they simply say, "Well, it's his freedom of speech"?

Marx was not unclear about what he wanted to see happen, and what reasons he wanted it to happen. Hitler was pretty clear in Mein Kampf, too. And I wouldn't put either book in the hands of children or fools. But I would read them for myself, to know what evil men said and thought...and, if for no other reason, to be able to refute their evil. So I would not "censor" anything: but neither would I put guns in the hands of children, nor pretend others were innocent when they did so.

Marx was certainly "significant," as you put it, but in every bad way. I think the world would have been better off without the man, personally. And so do the many millions murdered in the pursuit of his ideology, I suspect.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:34 pm
Of course you don't see any difference between forcing children to sit it in classrooms and intimidated into remembering the nonsense they will be expected to regurgitate on tests or be penalized. With rare exception, none of those children would pay any attention to the lies they are fed if it weren't for the threats they (and their parents) are faced with. They are given no choice but to, "listen," and, "read," what is required. That's not an audience to free speech.
Children seem to usually be taught the primary values of the society they grow up in (sometimes with exceptions). What should we be teaching children if not what they are currently learning? Are you suggesting children shouldn't be taught? Or what is your solution to these criticisms?
It's not up to me to dictate what other people's children should be taught, nor up to the government either. I know that most people, if they had a choice, would like to have their children taught how to read, the fundamentals of mathematics, how to write and use their language correctly, how to reason and think for themselves, some basic principles of science, mechanics, and chemistry, geography, and basic history. What they don't want them taught is the cultural marxists views of sex, multiculturalism, that there are no consequences to one's choices, that true achievement and merit don't matter, or any other government propaganda. So long as people are willing to surrender their children to GCDPs (Government Child Day Prisons) there is no solution to the education problem.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:01 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:34 pm
Of course you don't see any difference between forcing children to sit it in classrooms and intimidated into remembering the nonsense they will be expected to regurgitate on tests or be penalized. With rare exception, none of those children would pay any attention to the lies they are fed if it weren't for the threats they (and their parents) are faced with. They are given no choice but to, "listen," and, "read," what is required. That's not an audience to free speech.
Children seem to usually be taught the primary values of the society they grow up in (sometimes with exceptions). What should we be teaching children if not what they are currently learning? Are you suggesting children shouldn't be taught? Or what is your solution to these criticisms?
It's not up to me to dictate what other people's children should be taught, nor up to the government either.
Then who's it up to, and why do you feel so free to weigh in on this issue of how children should be taught, RC? Is it any of your business?
What they don't want them taught is the cultural marxists views of sex, multiculturalism, that there are no consequences to one's choices, that true achievement and merit don't matter, or any other government propaganda.

Ah. So parents have the right to say what their children learn. Well, I actually agree with you about that. But I don't know how you get to say that public educators have an absolute right to free speech, but somehow can't teach children Marxist propaganda. After all, isn't Marxist propaganda just another free-speech option? From your argument with me so far, one would think so.

If not, what makes it different? Why won't you allow public educators the right to say whatever the heck they want to, since you clearly believe that everybody else has that right?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:06 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:34 pm No one had to listen to or read Marx or take anything he said seriously. No one force anyone to adopt Marx's theories or to practice them.
No. And nobody forces an alcoholic to drink if you put a bottle in front of him. Nobody forces a criminal to steal if you leave him in charge of the cash. Nobody forces a child to pull the trigger if you give him a handgun, or to cross traffic without looking. But people who are not very smart or are susceptible to being misled do things when evil people entice them to.
What's your point? You want to blame what Marx wrote for what other people do. So, are you blaming the bottle of booze for the drunks drinking, the cash for the criminal stealing it, the handgun for the child using it, or the traffic for the child not looking? Of course "people who are not very smart or are susceptible to being misled do things when evil people entice them to." They send millions of dollars to Christian Televangelists all the time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:06 pm Good thing you don't live in Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas, Seattle or London.
It's not luck, it's part of my self-defense program: "don't be there when it happens."

Now you just wrote:
Kill my wife, and I will give you $10,000.
Did you just commit a crime? Why not? Because it's not the words that matter. You just said what you wrote would be a crime if someone put it in a note. But it's not the words that are the crime, but the fact they were put in a note as a conspiracy to commit murder.

That's the difference in our view. So long as you do not want to suppress speech or the press by force, your view that words themselves can be evil is harmless, but it you want to use that view to force others to not say or write something, that is just wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:06 pm Marx was certainly "significant," as you put it, but in every bad way. I think the world would have been better off without the man, personally.
Well, so do I. I certainly have no use for any form of Marxism, political or cultural, no matter who actually contributed the ideas (Engels, Gramsci, et.al). Except as a convenient handle, the emphasis on the personalities seems misplaced. It's the ideologies that are the danger, not who originated or promoted them.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:20 am Then who's it up to, and why do you feel so free to weigh in on this issue of how children should be taught, RC? Is it any of your business?
I have not said anything about how or what children should be taught. I'm only pointing out that forcing children to read and listen to what neither they or their parents have chosen is a violation of free speech, because free speech includes the freedom to read and listen to whatever one chooses. The freedom must be both positive and negative, freedom to say or not say whatever one chooses and freedom to listen or not listen to whatever one chooses. Government school suppresses that freedom.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:20 am Ah. So parents have the right to say what their children learn.
It has nothing to do with the false concept of, "rights." It is wrong for anyone else to decide, other than a child's parents and the child, what they will or will not read or listen to.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:20 am Why won't you allow public educators ... to say whatever the heck they want to, since you clearly believe that everybody else has that right?
They can. Just not to an imprisoned audience. One reason school is compulsory is because almost no one would be in their audience if it wasn't.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:06 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:20 am Then who's it up to, and why do you feel so free to weigh in on this issue of how children should be taught, RC? Is it any of your business?
I have not said anything about how or what children should be taught. I'm only pointing out that forcing children to read and listen to what neither they or their parents have chosen is a violation of free speech, because free speech includes the freedom to read and listen to whatever one chooses. The freedom must be both positive and negative, freedom to say or not say whatever one chooses and freedom to listen or not listen to whatever one chooses. Government school suppresses that freedom.
Ah. So when parents censor, it's good; but when anybody else does, it's bad? Just checking.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:20 am Ah. So parents have the right to say what their children learn.
It has nothing to do with the false concept of, "rights." It is wrong for anyone else to decide, other than a child's parents and the child, what they will or will not read or listen to.
That's an appeal to rights. The parents are being assigned the right to decide, and if it's violated by others, you say it's "wrong".

But you also say you don't believe in rights. So it's not really wrong if others violate it. Because nobody has rights.... :shock:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:46 am You want to blame what Marx wrote for what other people do.
No. I blame him for what he did, and what he taught others to do as well. But it's not really what I "want" that counts here; it's what's the case. Marx will answer for what he wrote...but not to me. God judges.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:06 pm Good thing you don't live in Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas, Seattle or London.
It's not luck, it's part of my self-defense program: "don't be there when it happens."
But you are admitting you know that what I'm saying is true. It's "self-defence" to be somewhere else, because mobs are dangerous, and those who incite them are pointing a loaded gun. You are wise not to be there when it happens. But the reason you can see it's going to happen is because you know darn well what agitators like Marx can do with the masses. Yet you don't hold them responsible.
Now you just wrote:
Kill my wife, and I will give you $10,000.
Did you just commit a crime? Why not? Because it's not the words that matter. You just said what you wrote would be a crime if someone put it in a note. But it's not the words that are the crime, but the fact they were put in a note as a conspiracy to commit murder.
But the murder never took place. Nobody died. So the "conspiracy" is just an exercise of "freedom of speech," according to you?
...if you want to use that view to force others to not say or write something, that is just wrong.
"Wrong"? But secularly speaking, nothing is ever "wrong." There's no such thing.

You say people have a right to free speech. You say that they have a right not to be forced not to say or write something. You say it's wrong for children to be compelled to take public education, and wrong for educators to indoctrinate them...

But you say you don't believe in rights. And I don't believe that. I can see it's not true. You do believe in rights...but selectively, and only about the things you happen agree with or find convenient. You still use the language of rights, while avoiding the word. And you believe that to violate them is "wrong," though there is obviously no secular basis for "wrongness." Nothing can be "wrong" in a purely Materialist world, and you've given no other grounds for rights so far.
It's the ideologies that are the danger, not who originated or promoted them.
That's a distinction without a difference. There's no such thing as an ideology that came from nowhere and nobody. Your argument there is like saying, "Guns kill people; people don't kill people." The ideology is the instrument, the smoking gun in in the hand of the ideologue who generated it.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:18 pm
Show how Jesus led to any of these things you claim.
Jesus has set the entire ideological background...
No, no...no weaselling this one. No "entire ideological background" vagueness. Say exactly what He said that you can show caused what you attribute to Him. Show cause and effect.
If Christianity has not been adopted there would be no Crusades and no Reformation. No missionaries in South American spreading their diseases.
Now - where is your cause and effect with Marx?
Otherwise, you're bluffing. You're just saying, "Well, Jesus came first, so therefore, whatever came after must be his fault."
I'm not bluffing - I've clearly demonstrated you idiocy.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:14 pm If Christianity has not been adopted there would be no Crusades
Show that the Crusades were at the instructions of the Galilean carpenter, and I'll believe you. You can't. They were unChristian actions.
...and no Reformation
Which was actually an excellent event, leading both to human rights and to the scientific revolution, so that would count in favour of Christianity...so maybe you need a rethink on that argument.
No missionaries in South American spreading their diseases.
Do you mean Conquistadors? Show that they were acting as Christians, and I'll believe you. Again, you don't show any connection between what Christ said and what men in that case did.
Now - where is your cause and effect with Marx?
Easy. Those who applied his prescriptions most earnestly, and most ardently subscribed to his theories killed millions and destroyed their economies. And it has literally never worked out any other way.

QED.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:46 am You want to blame what Marx wrote for what other people do.
No. I blame him for what he did, and what he taught others to do as well. But it's not really what I "want" that counts here; it's what's the case. Marx will answer for what he wrote...but not to me. God judges.
Seems like you're the one that's judging. I haven't heard anything from God about it yet, or are you speaking for Him?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:06 pm Good thing you don't live in Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas, Seattle or London.
It's not luck, it's part of my self-defense program: "don't be there when it happens."
But you are admitting you know that what I'm saying is true. It's "self-defence" to be somewhere else, because mobs are dangerous, and those who incite them are pointing a loaded gun. You are wise not to be there when it happens. But the reason you can see it's going to happen is because you know darn well what agitators like Marx can do with the masses. Yet you don't hold them responsible.
Oh, there are plenty of agitators around, but last I heard, Marx is dead and was never a member of ANTIFA.

[IC, I'm not being totally serious here. What Marx and Engels (how come you never mention him) proposed was very wrong. I don't care if you want to attack the personality, I just think your falling into a trap that places the emphasis in the wrong place. In the present day, cultural Marxism is a much more viable danger intellectually than classical Marxism, and the personalities behind that are almost unknown, or otherwise lauded as intellectuals.]
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am
Now you just wrote:
Kill my wife, and I will give you $10,000.
Did you just commit a crime? Why not? Because it's not the words that matter. You just said what you wrote would be a crime if someone put it in a note. But it's not the words that are the crime, but the fact they were put in a note as a conspiracy to commit murder.
But the murder never took place. Nobody died. So the "conspiracy" is just an exercise of "freedom of speech," according to you?
That's right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am
...if you want to use that view to force others to not say or write something, that is just wrong.
"Wrong"? But secularly speaking, nothing is ever "wrong." There's no such thing.
Do you want to reconsider that? Is there no right or wrong way to wash clothes, build a building, cook a meal, design an airplane, etc. Of course there is wrong that has nothing to do with your personal religious beliefs. Do you think your auto mechanic cannot know the difference between the right and wrong part to repair your automobile because he's not a Christian? That's just silly.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am You say people have a right to free speech.
Never said that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am You say that they have a right not to be forced not to say or write something.
Never said that either.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am You say it's wrong for children to be compelled to take public education, and wrong for educators to indoctrinate them...
I definitely said that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am But you say you don't believe in rights.
That's right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am And I don't believe that. I can see it's not true. You do believe in rights...
Well, there is no point in telling you what I believe, is there, if you think you know what I think better than I do? So don't ask me again what I believe, since you can read minds and decide for yourself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am ...but selectively, and only about the things you happen agree with or find convenient. You still use the language of rights, while avoiding the word. And you believe that to violate them is "wrong," though there is obviously no secular basis for "wrongness." Nothing can be "wrong" in a purely Materialist world, and you've given no other grounds for rights so far.
The word, "rights," in politics is the notion that some things are guaranteed to all individuals whether they earn or deserve them or not, which means that some other individuals or some agency is obligated to provide those guaranteed things. That is what I do not believe.

As already explained, there are definitely objective right and wrong ways to do things determined by the objective, purpose, or goal of the action. One objective concerns how human beings can relate to one another in ways that will be benevolent rather than malevolent. For that objective, murder, theft, violence against persons or their property, and oppression cannot be right. If that is not your objective, perhaps your God has not revealed to you it ought to be, than of course you may not see why that is right. I do not think most, "secularists," would have that problem.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:12 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:14 pm If Christianity has not been adopted there would be no Crusades
Show that the Crusades were at the instructions of the Galilean carpenter, and I'll believe you. You can't. They were unChristian actions.

Stalin did no Marxism.
...and no Reformation
Which was actually an excellent event, leading both to human rights and to the scientific revolution, so that would count in favour of Christianity...so maybe you need a rethink on that argument.
No missionaries in South American spreading their diseases.
Do you mean Conquistadors? Show that they were acting as Christians, and I'll believe you. Again, you don't show any connection between what Christ said and what men in that case did.
Now - where is your cause and effect with Marx?
Easy. Those who applied his prescriptions most earnestly, and most ardently subscribed to his theories killed millions and destroyed their economies. And it has literally never worked out any other way.

QED.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:44 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:46 am You want to blame what Marx wrote for what other people do.
No. I blame him for what he did, and what he taught others to do as well. But it's not really what I "want" that counts here; it's what's the case. Marx will answer for what he wrote...but not to me. God judges.
Seems like you're the one that's judging. I haven't heard anything from God about it yet, or are you speaking for Him?
No. Just repeating what He has already said.
IC, I'm not being totally serious here. What Marx and Engels (how come you never mention him) proposed was very wrong. I don't care if you want to attack the personality,...
No, not "the personality." What the man actually wrote. That's enough.
In the present day, cultural Marxism is a much more viable danger intellectually than classical Marxism, and the personalities behind that are almost unknown, or otherwise lauded as intellectuals.
I agree. Classical Marxism is throughly discredited in any intelligent mind, both by the absurdity of what Marx said and the legacy of what he caused; but Cultural Marxists are currently on a massive PR project for Marxism, using such things as sex and race as the new "oppression" language.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am
...if you want to use that view to force others to not say or write something, that is just wrong.
"Wrong"? But secularly speaking, nothing is ever "wrong." There's no such thing.
Do you want to reconsider that?
Not at all.
Is there no right or wrong way to wash clothes, build a building, cook a meal, design an airplane, etc.

Nope. There are ways that work faster or slower, but they imply no judgment at all on what you're doing. Nothing's "wrong" with washing your clothes, or with washing them some other way, or with choosing not to wash them at all...from a secular perspective, that is.

Morally right or wrong. Not merely "too slow" or "instrumentally efficient." Because those latter terms do not provide any information about the moral status of the task chosen...and that's the real problem. A "good" guillotine is still an instrument used to do objective evil. It's not about how well it works, but whether what it it being used for is morally good or bad.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am You say people have a right to free speech.
Never said that.
Then you don't believe it? Then you can't complain if there's a prohibition on particular kinds of speech. You have no grounds, then. But what else have you been arguing for? :shock:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am You say it's wrong for children to be compelled to take public education, and wrong for educators to indoctrinate them...
I definitely said that.
Why? Parents have to right, you say, to guide their children, and children have no right not to be indoctrinated, and educators aren't actually wrong for indoctrinating them, because none of the above have rights...because rights don't exist?

That's your position?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am But you say you don't believe in rights.
That's right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am And I don't believe that. I can see it's not true. You do believe in rights...
Well, there is no point in telling you what I believe, is there, if you think you know what I think better than I do?
It's not that. It's your own words. You're objecting to the violation of certain...what shall we call them? "necessary freedoms"? that you say people have, such as the freedom to say what they want to. But if that's not a right, then you have no grounds for such an objection. So it's the disconnect between what you say you believe and the "freedoms" you claim to be owed that makes it clear you really do believe in rights.

That is, unless you can explain how a person can be owed something to which they have no right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:15 am ...but selectively, and only about the things you happen agree with or find convenient. You still use the language of rights, while avoiding the word. And you believe that to violate them is "wrong," though there is obviously no secular basis for "wrongness." Nothing can be "wrong" in a purely Materialist world, and you've given no other grounds for rights so far.
The word, "rights," in politics is the notion that some things are guaranteed to all individuals whether they earn or deserve them or not, which means that some other individuals or some agency is obligated to provide those guaranteed things. That is what I do not believe.
What do you believe? That you have a right so long as you can personally, physically defend it, but afterwards, you don't?
As already explained, there are definitely objective right and wrong ways to do things determined by the objective, purpose, or goal of the action.
But you don't offer any justification of what is a good action and a bad action. So you'd be saying something equivalent to whatever works for whatever you want to do, that's the good way to do it. In other words, we might say, "There's definitely a wrong way to run an extermination camp, the sort of way that kills fewer than a thousand a day, and a right way to run it where it exceeds a thousand."

There's a goal there, an action, an objective...but look at how hideous and morally reprehensible that is. And you think that's a complete account of right and wrong? No way.
One objective concerns how human beings can relate to one another in ways that will be benevolent rather than malevolent.
Why? In competition, malevolence often beats benevolence, at least in the case of the individual. In the sort of morality-and-rights-free universe you are describing, why should we not kill our neighbour to get ahead, or let him live if it suits us...whether it suits us being the only touchstone of the decision?
For that objective, murder, theft, violence against persons or their property, and oppression cannot be right.

Yet they are often marvellously efficient for achieving particular purposes. So if it's not their instrumental utility that makes them "right," what is it? And what could ever make them "wrong," if they worked admirably for the chosen purpose?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:33 pm Stalin did no Marxism.
That's the funniest thing you've said yet. :D
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:33 pm Stalin did no Marxism.
That's the funniest thing you've said yet. :D
That is only because of your crass ignorance.

I do not feel under any obligation to listen to a person that think Christianity is not christianity.
You really need to get a life from somewhere.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Portrait of an American Hero

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:33 pm Stalin did no Marxism.
That's the funniest thing you've said yet. :D
That is only because of your crass ignorance.
No, no...inform me more. I need to be taught.

Who is it who put Marx into practice, and where did it work out without all the death and economic suicide? Would you point to Cuba? Venezuela? China? North Korea? Angola? Bulgaria? Do tell me just where Marx has "blessed" this world with his wisdom...in what sunny land has he brought forth happiness, equality and prosperity for all... :D
Post Reply