Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489469)	11/8/2003 2:32:21 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

A COMMUNITY OF PATRIOTS FIGHTS OFF THE TORIES: buzzflash.com Our Mission A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL October Was a Record Month of Readership for BuzzFlash.com More than 2.8 million reader sessions were recorded on BuzzFlash.com last month (that's readers; the hits are a higher number). That's a record for BuzzFlash -- and good news for countering the Republican dominated media that continues to prop up a man whose only excuse for failure-after-failure seems to be, "God made me do it!" We don't consider ourselves an "Anti-Bush" site. We are a pro-democracy site, committed to truth, justice and the American way. At this point in time, however, Bush is trampling on all four of these ideals, so he gets a lot of space on BuzzFlash. We are proud of our readers, proud to be part of a vibrant group of Internet news sites that champion democracy, proud to make our daily contribution to providing news, commentary and editorials seen through the prism of Americans who cherish liberty, freedom and the concept of one-person, one-vote. As we grow, we promise that we will continue to carry a lantern shedding light on the truth and to continue fighting like a junkyard dog. If this were 1776, we would be standing with the Minute Men at Concord, fighting off the Tories. It is 2003, and we have a Tory party who seized power and wrapped itself in a disguise of cultural populism and demagogic tax cuts. Then it slathered on several layers of fear, claiming that only the Tory party could protect Americans from all the evils lurking "out there in the world." The Tories in the White House adapted propaganda strategies honed by the Soviets and Goebbels and broadcast them through an "amen choir" media. BuzzFlash will be here long after the leaders of the Tory Party are gone from power -- and hopefully imprisoned. It will be here because we didn't come into existence to battle Bush. We created BuzzFlash to stand up for America. And that requires vigilance, no matter who is in power. BuzzFlash is what it is today because of our readers, who contribute so much to the site in their writings, feedback and financial support. BuzzFlash is more than just a news and commentary site. It is a community of patriots.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489469)	11/10/2003 11:26:46 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Gee, I wonder if this means you are opposed to inherited wealth (didn't 'work' for it, ya know). "If that wealth is stolen wealth, then the person who stole it errs. Otherwise, it is perfectly moral to receive wealth given in accordance with the will of the giver. Think deeper. This is really not that hard." >>> OK, so you don't believe that work is necessary in that regard. Fine. do you also believe --- as I do --- that all forms of income should be taxed at the same rate? Wonder 'what JC would say' about tossing the infirm and the ill over-board? "Jesus Christ is complete nonsense for non-Christian nations, governments and heathen people, including you. So He has no more authority than Ayn Rand to demand we take care of anyone." >>> Oh, so you don't believe that JC's 'portfolio' extends to everyone --- it's just for his current believers? And you also don't believe that his followers should practice 'Christian principles' when dealing with non-Christians? How peculiar (and how in contradiction with Christian philosophy...) Sorry guy, I'm NOT with you on that one. Say, $10 Billion vs., what?, $100 Grand? "It is much more than 100 Grand. That much goes to only one desecrating artist. I only used art as one of thousands of examples. Nevertheless, it is the principle that counts - always. So then if you refuse to support the principle, stop whining about your petty 10 Billions." >>> What principle? That people get taxed, and that money gets spent on lots of things that they, as individuals, might not support? No kidding! Yeah, right... whatever you say. When I learn to read your mind I'll get back to you. "Well, the point of all this is that you first need to read period, and then get back to me." >>> Well... I read your words (but not your mind.) Plenty of 'rich people' try to steal that 'power' called money too... (sigh) Then they are wrong, of course - which correlates with my contention. >>> OK.... (By the way, what 'contention' was it?) My point is that, left or right, you've got plenty of people sitting there ready to steal. Get used to it. "Irrelevant." >>> Irrelevant to what, exactly? You contradict yourself here. How can it be 'unimpressive' if the society (and individuals within it) are achieving their relative success 'in the face of extraordinary human oppression.'!!!!!!!!!!!! "Because the systems to which you have referred maintain their state as we know it by in part literally crushing the lives of other humans. In the face of this sort of oppression, 'economic functionality' is unimpressive. It would be far more impressive were these systems capable of producing the same levels of functionality, but ethically. They don't - so your point dies. It is also irrelevant." >>> Well.... I beg to differ. I'm all for ideal, Platonic societies (goals are GOOD).... It's just that the only actual examples we have are the real societies.... Part 1

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489469)	11/10/2003 11:28:08 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Now here is my argument: such a society (with all wealth in 1% of the hands) would FAIL... "Perhaps it would - perhaps it would not. That is an argument that simply does not interest me at the moment. The fact is, there is absolutely nothing, not one single thing, that is morally wrong with my owning everything and you owning nothing if I acquire my wealth without myself taking your rights." >>> Your sense of 'morality' appears rather constricted..... [a system wherein 1% of the population controls everything] must have many internal contradictions and inherent weaknesses to have never even developed even ONCE in all of history). "Well, it has developed and many people have died within such systems." >>> Really? Can you name one now? "Many starve today as a result of having nothing. Their having nothing has no bearing at all on the wealth of their more favored neighbors if those neighbors acquired their wealth without removing the rights of those who starve." >>> Wink, wink... nudge, nudge. And it would most likely FAIL VIOLENTLY... either from external conquest, or internal revolution. "If those who rise in violence harm those who ethically own everything, they err." >>> SOME revolutions are morally justified... just ask Thomas Jefferson. If failure and disaster is an inherent feature of such an economic model and distribution of wealth... than I would argue that that particular model represented an 'immoral choice' for human societies "Your "failure" and "disaster" here are both religious hogwash." >>> WRONG AGAIN! I am merely measuring by death, destruction, and opportunity cost --- that which is foregone by less than adequate societies. Objective, factual, criteria --- no 'religion' necessary for the judgement.... just math. "Here is objective failure, the direct slaughter of countless innocent children, all of whom had an innate right to have the lives you directly took from them. That is a disaster against human character. Acquiring 100% of the wealth is no objective disaster. That others may die of natural causes such as starvation is a fact of nature - a fact that is not our obligation to remedy at all." >>> Yeah, right, <G>. We ARE a part of nature. We build the world around us... so we are responsible for whatever we can control, for the choices we make. Obviously you don't care, but I reject your 'leftist' characterization as demonstrably false and illinformed. You are most correct: I do not care. >>> Fine.... Then you will not object if I call you some name that is demonstrably also not true..... "But of course my calling you a leftist is no great issue. It is just an opinion that you've already rejected. I think it is quite accurate however." >>> Feel free to attempt to prove your characterization.... Part 2

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489469)	11/10/2003 11:31:08 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"When you sanction the removal of the innate rights of other humans, you are indeed a leftist, despite your little "tests."" >>> And, just where did I ever do that????????? Like Hell it does. You can't 'wish away' an argument you merely don't want to address. "I don't "wish" it away. It is just that it hasn't a thing to do what my point. If you wish to discuss it, discuss it elsewhere - or catch me when I am interested in it - which at the moment I am not." >>> LOL! You are still arguing with yourself here... It presents a greater challenge than arguing against you. >>> Hope you have a good time... just don't confuse your fantasies with me. Tell me when and if you decide that the USA is the country you wish to legally enroll in... or if you have your eyes cast to some other spot on the Globe. "The United States is the single greatest nation in the history of civilization. I choose to remain enrolled in it. But I wish to make it greater by consistently pressing it to reject the ever encroaching leftist doctrines of human oppression and death." >>> My point exactly. "If you love the country, work to make it better every day." (Though we apparently disagree on the major disagreements we have with America's policies. Sorry, the existence (the continued existence ) of human society is not 'irrelevant' to me. "But it is certainly irrelevant to the argument at hand, to wit, it is not wrong at all for only 1 person to own 100 percent of a nation's wealth so long as that wealth accumulation has occurred without that person's having taken anyone else's right." >>> LOL!!!! If you want to count the number of angels on the heads of pins... feel free. Most of the rest of us will not reject real world issues, however. In other words: you CAN'T... you are BEFUDDLED. (You sing hossanas to this 'music of the spheres', this 'language of nature'... but you are illiterate in it). "I am certainly not "illiterate" in math. I am just too weak in it to describe existence." >>> OK. Part 3

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489469)	11/10/2003 11:31:49 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It's OK, nothing to be ashamed of... but you will now forgive me if I don't believe you have any direct pipeline into the thinking of Nature and 'Natural Law', and consequently, your 'observations' on the teachings of the Universe may safely be disregarded. "Fine, but simply disregarding the fact that is in your own flesh on the basis of my poor credentials is no fitting argument. And it still does not remove the truth." >>> I do not 'disregard' it... I wait to be convinced. I didn't ask for all of it... just the least little part! "And that is precisely what I have given - the least little part, precious little, so little that even you should be able to understand it. But it seems I must give even less." >>> No comment. Logic, too, can be expressed formally. Have at it, I'm listening. "Indeed, and I am certainly not "illiterate" in formal logic. But even here, the use of formal logic to transmit so broad an idea as human character and existence would consume the entire forum. You first understand and accept in your bones the broad ideas, and I will certainly make an attempt to formalize sections of them for you. In fact I do this all the time." >>> I generally start working with the 'small', the 'mundane', before working up to the divine mind of the Universe... perhaps you work in the opposite direction? R-I-G-H-T.... you don't want to scare off the poor, ill-educated natives here with your fountains of wisdom. I get it..... "It is not a matter of scaring off anyone, Buddy. But to get involved with formal symbolic logic here is just foolish." >>> Logic is never 'foolish', if it is valid. "Surely you understand this. We are just too broad at this point. I am trying to make a very large argument and have you (or anyone) see the biggest picture. If that happens and you can pick apart the big picture, show its flaws, allow me to retool it, we can certainly formalize and then hash it out in detail. I do have that ability - at least some of it." >>> See previous (or consider 'scientific method'). Part 4

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489469)	11/10/2003 12:21:04 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

?????????? How have I 'redefined humanity'?????????? "See below." So, your personal morality is relativistic... based upon human forms and norms? ... Not derived from anything greater than our pitiful little species of hairless ape? "It relativistic only inasmuch as it relates to the existence of that certain family of creatures in possession of the genetic marker that uniquely identifies them as human - as "us." Apes simply do not have that character." >>> We are apes. Sorry, I tend to take what I believe is a longer view... and look to things like speciation events..... "If creatures do not possess the logic that accounts for all human creatures in our family, morality does not apply to them. They are not us. And that is objectively apparent, Buddy." >>> And, if an objectively superior creature (or at least a more powerful or 'advanced' one) happened upon the scene... would 'morality' not longer apply to us? No longer be derived from the human context? Be surplanted? I looked. Nothing I wasn't already in the know about. As I said: I prefer to look at larger complications, beyond any narrow species-centric focus or mythology. You are welcome though. "And this is how you redefine humanity. You reduce what you are in nature to that which is as significant as everything. That is effective nihilism and serves as a basis for nothing." >>> No, no Nihilist. Am Optimist. You have two objective choices before you - and they are literally all we have in nature. You may choose morality based upon human identity, or morality based upon the identity of everything. Should you choose the latter, then nothing human really matters at all. >>> I reject the false dicotomy... though, it's true, my definition would fall somewhere between your two poles. >>> I would choose to have a moral sense that transcended mere humanity... though as long as we have feet of clay, that might ever remain more goal than reality.