Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
There are a lot of factors that lead to poverty. Capitalism leads to prosperity. Where has there been a system that has brought prosperity to so many? I'd like to know what you'd replace the system with.
And whenever we speak of capitalism, I speak of it as it relates to the US. I don't care about the rest of the world. It's good for the US and that's the context of this discussion. If you want to drag in developing countries, talk to someone else about that. I have no interest in that discussion.
When you speak of equality, you don't mean middle class equality. What you mean is poor equality. And 2/3 of the people in the US are not living in poverty. Show me the stats. BTW, it's true that you can be considered poor even though you own a house, and have more than one TV, and other expensive gadgets. That's laughable.
I"m saying that atheists have no basis for right and wrong.
Who says it's wrong to kill? On what basis?
Who says it's wrong to exploit the weak? Tough crap on them. Why are humans subject to such a rule but the animal kingdom lives by exploiting the weakness of others.
"This is a matter of belief. A person can believe that it is OK to kill for money. That does not make it right. Everybody has a sense of right and wrong. If exploiting others is right, then do not feel bad when somebody comes and exploits you or your family. If it is OK for somebody to profit by using others, then it is OK for everybody to do the same. It is the final conclusion of the existentialist ethic. My actions make a statement about the whole world. If it is OK to be selfish for one person, then it is OK to be selfish for everybody."
On what basis is any of this true? Who is to say what is right or what is wrong? You? How can you hold me to that standard apart from threat of violence? Is it objectively wrong or is that just an opinion that most have agreed to? And if in time, society decides it's OK to kill babies for fun, then is that act still wrong in your view? How so? Based on what?
"Who says? Well, you can ask 6 million Jews and 8 million gypsies that died in the Holocaust. If ANY cause is acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with the Nazis."
This is exactly the argument I am making. If there is an actual wrong here, who decides? Why couldn't the Nazis decide that for their culture, killing Jews is just fine?
"Why is exploitation wrong? Because it goes against the one principle that nobody can deny: human beings are equal."
This principle? Who made this principle? Who says people are equal? In the animal kingdom, if I'm stronger, you're toast. Sad for you but you get to die. So what separates us as human beings? How do the godless justify principles? Based on what???
"The only way a person can make a profit from others is by not paying them a fair wage for their labor."
This is a false statement.
"If wages were perfectly fair, nobody could make a profit."
You must have failed economics. If there were no profits, there'd be no business expansion. You couldn't restock the shelves. You couldn't keep up the store or save to open a second one.
You have a very simplistic view of how an economic system works.
"Our ideology is nothing but empty words. It is only through actions that we ultimately display our true sense of right and wrong."
Again with your "right and wrong." Why should I care what you think about right and wrong? What if my view differs and I want you to see my view of right and wrong? Why should I accept what you say as an objective fact? Reply (box)
(piilota) Oletko kyllästynyt menemään kahden tai kolmen sivun kautta päästäksesi tietylle sivulle? Maksavalla asiakkaalla on mahdollisuus lisätä suorat linkit heti pääsivulle. (pauloaguia) (näytä kaikki vinkit)