[OT] You Can't Make This Stuff Up Department

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:15:18 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:34:33 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Your "successful, free, happy socialist states" tend to be small and homogenous, not a good model for large, diverse countries.

There is a wide range of countries. And of course, there are far more
small countries than large ones.

Irrelevant.


The reality is, what you call "socialism" (although you clearly have
only the vaguest concept of what the word means) is the political norm
for the majority of the developed world, and there's no sign that's
going to change. The U.S. is- happily- also starting to shift in that
direction.

Socialism doesn't even work very well in such small, homogenous countries. On average, US citizens of Swedish descent have a higher standard of living than Swedish citizens of Swedish descent.

It would certainly represent a disorder if reader's couldn't support the original reasoning which introduced a cause into biological evolution even though it is close to evil. Darwin's doesn't couch his reasoning in jargon that is beyond the ability of any adult nor does its horrors as the rationale for WW2 any less obscure.

The empirical doctrine of 'laws of nature' or any variation on that theme is there for all to see, whether the horror sinks in or not doesn't detract from the fact that it is there -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

There is nobody to convince, the empirical 'Rule III' representing the scientific method took on monstrous proportions by virtue that it give rise to the devastation of the twin enemies of society in the form of extremism and fundamentalism.

Read it -

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:41:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:

More word-salad from peterson.

"Word salad", i.e. an argument too complex for Snell to grasp.

The bottom line is that Hitler wasn't particularly religious so that could not have been his rationale for invading Poland (which is mostly catholic, BTW.)

Who suggested that Hilter was religiously motivated?

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:45:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Socialism doesn't even work very well in such small, homogenous countries. On average, US citizens of Swedish descent have a higher standard of living than Swedish citizens of Swedish descent.

Which means little. More telling is that the average citizen in every
western European nation is better off than the average citizen of the
U.S.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:06:51 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
For example, since Nazism
stirred up public enthusiasm, one could say that it was like a
religion itself.

However, Nazism lacked some central properties of religions: belief
in something supernatural, and belief in some kind of afterlife after
one's physical death.

There are lots of non-religions which can stir up public enthusiasm,
such as sports and succesful pop tunes, but we don't call them
religions just because of that.

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 7:44:14 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:06:51 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
For example, since Nazism
stirred up public enthusiasm, one could say that it was like a
religion itself.

However, Nazism lacked some central properties of religions: belief
in something supernatural, and belief in some kind of afterlife after
one's physical death.


People understand spiritual matters at whatever level they are accustomed to and no less in physical matters that encompass astronomy and terrestrial sciences. We pass through this physical existence knowing the greater life of the Universe existed before us and will exist when our physical life ends however some people tap into the spirit that surfaces in an infinite number of ways in our journey from child to adult.

There is only a tyranny to your supernatural/ afterlife description of religion if you can't appreciate why many people need to put a face to the greater life that encompasses them whereas other religious people sense the Eternal nature of their own existence in the great intangible love that invites us always.

It would be unthinkable for a truly religious person to believe there are more rotations than 24 hour days in a year so at least the non religious have something to gauge the weakness of their own minds before commenting on religious terms.

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour"

William Blake




There are lots of non-religions which can stir up public enthusiasm,
such as sports and succesful pop tunes, but we don't call them
religions just because of that.

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 2:45:59 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:15:18 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:34:33 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Your "successful, free, happy socialist states" tend to be small and homogenous, not a good model for large, diverse countries.

There is a wide range of countries. And of course, there are far more
small countries than large ones.

Irrelevant.


The reality is, what you call "socialism" (although you clearly have
only the vaguest concept of what the word means) is the political norm
for the majority of the developed world, and there's no sign that's
going to change. The U.S. is- happily- also starting to shift in that
direction.

Socialism doesn't even work very well in such small, homogenous countries.. On average, US citizens of Swedish descent have a higher standard of living than Swedish citizens of Swedish descent.

Socialism is primarily an economic model, as is capitalism. They are not types of government. A government can be a socialist democracy or a capitalist authoritarian dictatorship, and vice versa.

America was founded as a liberal democracy

'Liberalism' is a philosophy that focuses on the importance of personal freedom. Institutions like bills of rights, written constitutions, and representative govt were designed to protect those freedoms. Virtually all aspects of modern political discussion fall within the general bounds of liberalism.

In the past, when China was a repressive authoritarian dictatorship under Mao, our politicians like Nixon talked about "liberalizing" their form of government. And indeed China has partially liberalized, and has made great strides with respect to economic growth.

I do business with several Chinese companies, and none of them are government owned. In fact they are private enterprises that got their start by buying government owned factories for 10 cents on the dollar. The government of China was glad to get rid of them and place the workers in private hands so they would not have to take care of them further. Part of Chinese enterprise is still state owned, primarily the banking system, so they are not fully capitalistic, however they have come a long way to "liberalizing" their country. Other than that, there's not much socialism left in China, but liberalism is on the rise.

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 12:17:35 -0800 (PST), Uncarollo2
wrote:

Socialism is primarily an economic model, as is capitalism.

Modern western "socialism" isn't even an economic model. All the
modern western democracies have strongly capitalist economies. For
these countries, "socialism" is about social structures- the
management of public resources, support systems, and the like.

I do business with several Chinese companies, and none of them are government owned.

Indeed. Politically, China is a benevolent dictatorship (whose
citizens enjoy a good deal of individual freedom), and economically
it's substantially an unregulated capitalistic system (and a good
lesson about how bad things are when capitalism is unrestrained).