Oblarg

I somehow doubt millions of people have the exact same hallucination. Call me skeptical. Humans are very susceptible to the power of suggestion. What you are missing here is that everyone has a unique relationship with God. But the general feeling of something greater in the universe is the same, and it's shared by millions and throughout human history. I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle that. No one here is forcing you to believe it, you are the one going after others because of their beliefs. As for the power of suggestion, that argument works great for religion and mass faith, but not so well with personal faith. If my beliefs were just tied to the power of suggestion, why is it easy for me to dismiss all the religious aspects of Christianity I was raised with except the concept of God? Logic would dictate that it would be an all or nothing deal. So, everyone has different hallucinations, but somehow they're all worshiping the same god? You lost me. My gripe was with the offering of a "personal experience" as proof of god. Such an experience is not proof.

I never said I had real evidence of God's existence. I said I know that God exists due to a personal experience. Two completely different animals, Lare. Oh man, it's the "personal revelation" again. Tell me, what differentiates your revelation from a hallucination? If I had a hallucination in which a giant bunny rabbit told me that he controlled the weather, should I believe it? It's a personal revelation that is shared by millions, so that is the difference between God and your giant bunny. I somehow doubt millions of people have the exact same hallucination. Call me skeptical. Humans are very susceptible to the power of suggestion.

Possibly, but that doesn't make capitalism the best option, nor does it make communism evil.

American "freedom" didn't exist when the country was founded. It was an "ideal." Should we not have fought the revolutionary war because "we should only go by what is real?" You can fight for "ideals," but the "ideal" will never manifest because humans are a less than ideal species. So you're arguing that theory can never work in practice? You're very naive.

American "freedom" didn't exist when the country was founded. It was an "ideal." Should we not have fought the revolutionary war because "we should only go by what is real?"

"I'm tired of losing, so I'm going to tip the board over." Very mature.

"being necessary to the security of a free State." Sure sounds like it's intended to protect State's rights and not individual rights to me. I think you need to take US history again, bud.

I am not the one resorting to personal attacks which usually means the one making such attacks don't have a real argument in the first place. If you are so smart name one nation that is communistic that has all the freedoms that a US citizen has. Show me how smart you are, Obbie. Just name one. Personal attacks are only fallacious if presented instead of an argument, not in addition to an argument. I clearly stated why you're not too bright directly above the aforementioned insult. The insult may be "unsportsmanlike" etc., but it's certainly not a reason to discredit the argument. And your anecdotes are irrelevant. We're arguing about the merits of ideal communism and capitalism - the current state of each in the world today is irrelevant. Furthermore, you don't even seem to correctly grasp what communism actually is - it is not, as you believe, "the government taking everything you own and having to wait for the government truck to dish out your resources." Such a view is naive to the point of stupidity.

Oh, so you're one of those... I suppose you also think amendments to the constitution are worthy of revolt, too? It's mind-boggling that someone could actually think that rights contained a document written 200+ years ago are infallible. Your "rights" are nothing more than a social phenomenon that makes the society as a whole more stable and productive; when those same rights become ineffectual due to changing conditions, there is no divine mandate that you should be able to keep them. Oh, and there's still no constitutional right to own a gun for the purpose of rebelling against the government. Sorry.

What an intelligent post! You deserve a medal! "la-la land." Honestly. That post shows more intelligence than any of LoF's post's. "Communism is bad" is not an axiom, nor is it a very informed viewpoint. So far, no one but LoF has done anything to support their views other than overuse meaningless anecdotes and strawmen. Drugs are bad, mmkay? Believe it or not, just because you agree with LoF doesn't mean that everyone else fails at life. LoF just tells everyone they're wrong, but never gets around to explaining why. I, at least, explicate why I think Communism needs to go die in a fire. Assumptions, assumptions, and more assumptions. I never have said "I agree with LoF," nor do I agree with LoF. I enjoy debunking your horrible arguments just as much as he does, however. You obviously aren't reading LoF's posts if you think he doesn't back up his opinions. You, however, rely on non-sequitur appeals to emotion with your tear-jerking anecdotes about how communism is evil and kills people.

"Some communist governments are bad, ergo communism is bad." You're not too bright, are you? Oh, and China isn't communist. At all.

Because it is our right to protect ourselves from anyone who seeks us harm. Even the government. That is the purpose of the Second Amendment. Sorry, that reasoning became obsolete after the civil war. Are you a member of a well-regulated, state-government run militia? Because that's what the second amendment was intended to do - give states the ability to keep a well-regulated militia as a check on the federal government's power, and that ceased to be an issue with the change of focus from a collection of states to a nation at the end of the civil war. The second amendment is not intended to protect an individual's right to "protect himself against the evil government" at all, and if you think that you are abysmally ignorant of your own nation's history. Oh, and here you go, back to the self-defense claim. The self-defense argument has been thoroughly debunked time and time again, you're more likely to be killed by a gun if you own a gun than if you don't.

What an intelligent post! You deserve a medal! "la-la land." Honestly. That post shows more intelligence than any of LoF's post's. "Communism is bad" is not an axiom, nor is it a very informed viewpoint. So far, no one but LoF has done anything to support their views other than overuse meaningless anecdotes and strawmen.

What an intelligent post! You deserve a medal! "la-la land." Honestly.

A firearm is just a tool. If a person hellbent on murder didn't have a firearm he would use a different tool. A bat, a knife, or even a spork if needed. Do not blame the tool. Blame the one using the tool. Bats, knives, and sporks are not designed for the purpose of killing people. A gun is. Why should you have a right to own something which is intended to kill other people if you don't have the right to kill other people?

I never said I had real evidence of God's existence. I said I know that God exists due to a personal experience. Two completely different animals, Lare. Oh man, it's the "personal revelation" again. Tell me, what differentiates your revelation from a hallucination? If I had a hallucination in which a giant bunny rabbit told me that he controlled the weather, should I believe it?

Well, if you're just going to strawman I don't think I'll waste my time.

Hurrrrrr, Communism is evil and dictatorial by definition and obviously cannot exist without brutally suppressing its people. HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. And you call LoF the troll? It can't exist without oppression. How in the hell else is its "everybody has the same amount of money" stupidity enforced? I mean, I'm sure as hell not giving up the majority of my money. "Everybody has the same amount of money." Are you kidding? Did you even read the "ask me about communism" thread? And even if that were the goal of Communism (it isn't), money is a social construct. It's doesn't have any innate value, and there is no innate right to own it.

um, democracy was invented in 510 BC by cleisthenes, the beginning of the period referred to as "classical greece." taks You might want to read up on the history of Greece and Rome before you make up your little hypotheses. Democracy then was often very different to democracy now (and largely not about individual rights). Not to mention that democracy didn't last that long - much of the time the Greek and Roman empires were run by dictators and emperors. And Rome had quite a few competent, successful "dictators" as well. Something to think about before you jump on the "dictatorship is violent and evil" bandwagon.

Hurrrrrr, Communism is evil and dictatorial by definition and obviously cannot exist without brutally suppressing its people. HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. And you call LoF the troll?

Poorly trained paramilitaries are hardly the threat you seem to think they are. Besides, if there's a revolution, it will have an appearance of propriety. Your reaction would seem disproportionate and wild to most. A revolution here is not going to occur tomorrow in some kind of socialist putsch. It will be the product of a generation's work, and of months of hard labor before the actual act. In 1904, it would seem as bizarre and insane to think of a socialist Russia as it is today to think of a socialist America. No sense of humor! Evidently you did not get it, you are the one who said there are no rights that are sacrosanct. Gun owners beleive the right to keep and bear is. So the ones who beleive in rights are the ones that own the guns. It was meant to be a little joke but I guess I did not set it up all that well. Besides, you strike me as a humorless fellow anyway. People who push for "second amendment rights" are usually nutcases. Give me one good reason why it should be an unquestionable right to own a device which exists almost exclusively to kill other people? Even if they were illegal, the true psychos would have them anyway. Since I don't want to be defenseless if someone breaks into my house with a gun, I should have one too. For every one time a legally owned gun is used in self defense, there are about 5 murders involving firearms. Don't give me the "self defense" bull****, there would be fewer gun related deaths if guns were more tightly regulated. To deny this is stupidity.

Poorly trained paramilitaries are hardly the threat you seem to think they are. Besides, if there's a revolution, it will have an appearance of propriety. Your reaction would seem disproportionate and wild to most. A revolution here is not going to occur tomorrow in some kind of socialist putsch. It will be the product of a generation's work, and of months of hard labor before the actual act. In 1904, it would seem as bizarre and insane to think of a socialist Russia as it is today to think of a socialist America. No sense of humor! Evidently you did not get it, you are the one who said there are no rights that are sacrosanct. Gun owners beleive the right to keep and bear is. So the ones who beleive in rights are the ones that own the guns. It was meant to be a little joke but I guess I did not set it up all that well. Besides, you strike me as a humorless fellow anyway. People who push for "second amendment rights" are usually nutcases. Give me one good reason why it should be an unquestionable right to own a device which exists almost exclusively to kill other people?

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.

Oh boy, out of all the things wrong with that post, this one stood out the most. Do you even think before you type? What does trading places with a starving African child have anything to do with the flaws of capitalism? Hell, it's even irrelevant in the context of attempting to solve world poverty, as it would accomplish absolutely nothing. You still end up with one starving person and one well-off person. It's painfully ironic that you said this directly following a call for an end to appeals to guilt.

Always one step behind, aren't you? I'm perfectly aware of your stance on human rights. What I was asking is how modern democracy, an institution grounded on those rights is compatible with a political "philosophy" that necessitates the abolition of said rights. Because, you see, unlike those "other worlds" and alternate historical scenarios you are so fond of, in the real world people don't want socialism. Otherwise, we would have it. Heh, I wish I had some "economic victories" to boast of. But the community has only done those things very indirectly. And so, we have taxes, to pay for things nobody can afford individually, like aircraft carriers and nuclear power plants. Another perspective from which socialism is superfluous...