Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Funniest /. article in a while 32
http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/07/22/0236213/experiment-shows-people-exposed-to-east-german-socialism-cheat-more
As my wife is German and my in-laws are visiting, we had a good laugh about it.
Formerly East Germans have a less than stellar reputation.
My wife also wished that the research had included a question of religious affiliation, as Germany is split between Protestant and Catholic regions, and she felt that there might be a similar statistical significance along those lines.
I don't care to offend either group by revealing her suspicion. As a Baptist, I only support the Pope when he's rightly dividing the Word of Truth, but don't recognize him enough to feel there is anything to Protest against.
As my wife is German and my in-laws are visiting, we had a good laugh about it.
Formerly East Germans have a less than stellar reputation.
My wife also wished that the research had included a question of religious affiliation, as Germany is split between Protestant and Catholic regions, and she felt that there might be a similar statistical significance along those lines.
I don't care to offend either group by revealing her suspicion. As a Baptist, I only support the Pope when he's rightly dividing the Word of Truth, but don't recognize him enough to feel there is anything to Protest against.
You missed the point by a mile (Score:2)
I by no means missed the point (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's the same with Christianity; I don't feel particularly bound by anything done by Rome, either.
And yet, people who haven't understood that the Christ is the meaning of life are going to blow all kinds of smoke.
The best we can do is patience, and attempt not to sound too peevish about it.
You're going to continue to vary Marx's theme of "the Kingdom of God, hold the God", and I'm going to mock yo
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that Socialism is your faith
Wrong.
and you don't feel personally bound by any of its sordid history.
Democracy has a body count many orders of magnitude higher than socialism.
It's the same with Christianity
No, it really isn't. We have seen before what rulers do when they wrap their arms around their favorite books of mythology and use them to justify their wishes, twisting them at will.
And yet, people who haven't understood that the Christ is the meaning of life are going to blow all kinds of smoke.
If Christ is the meaning of life then why do you cherry pick only some of his words and deeds when describing things you consider virtuous? Shouldn't you take him in his entirety?
You're going to continue to vary Marx's theme of "the Kingdom of God, hold the God"
Wrong again. While I will continue to point out that Marx's co
Re: (Score:1)
If Christ is the meaning of life then why do you cherry pick only some of his words and deeds when describing things you consider virtuous? Shouldn't you take him in his entirety?
What makes you think I don't?
While I will continue to point out that Marx's communist ideals have essentially never even come close to being realized for any population over a few hundred anywhere at any time, your continued insistence on confusing communism and socialism is quite simply silly.
Trumped by your desperate attempts to differentiate them by, like, an order of magnitude. National Socialist German Workers Party. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Own it.
Re: (Score:2)
If Christ is the meaning of life then why do you cherry pick only some of his words and deeds when describing things you consider virtuous? Shouldn't you take him in his entirety?
What makes you think I don't?
You. Cannot. Be. Serious. Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others. While I know there are times when my actions don't reflect all of His ideals, I don't pretend to be a motivated disciple.
While I will continue to point out that Marx's communist ideals have essentially never even come close to being realized for any population over a few hundred anywhere at any time, your continued insistence on confusing communism and socialism is quite simply silly.
Trumped by your desperate attempts to differentiate them by, like, an order of magnitude.
The greatest similarity between them of any significance to this discussion is that you don't understand either of them.
National Socialist German Workers Party
Wow. Playing the Nazi card? That used to be below you.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
I have already pointed out how that has no connection to socialism or communism.
Own it.
Re: (Score:1)
Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.
As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a political party - or a politician - can call itself whatever it wants.
Denying that the Nazis and Soviets claimed Socialism would be akin to rejecting Pres'ent Obama when he refers to "my Christian faith". I don't know precisely what he means by that formulation, to look at his record, but I have to own the fact that, by his words, at least his lips are "saved". I'm certainly lacking the divine database to evaluate the claim, and thus mus
Re: (Score:2)
Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.
As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.
Just as I cannot force you to read what I write, I cannot force you to read what you write, either.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a political party - or a politician - can call itself whatever it wants.
Denying that the Nazis and Soviets claimed Socialism
You can use whatever words you want in naming your political party. That doesn't mean you actually reflect the beliefs associated with those words. There are plenty of obvious contradictions both in the present and in history between party names and party actions.
However, history plainly demonstrates that neither the Nazis nor the Soviets were actual socialists by any meaningful definition of the term. I
Re: (Score:2)
Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.
As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.
Just as I cannot force you to read what I write, I cannot force you to read what you write, either.
Translation: "crap, you caught me in a lie again, so I'll just lie some more and pretend that I wrote it and you just ignored/missed it."
Of course, this is the same idiot who lied about Democracy being responsible for more deaths than Socialism, even though the essentially socialist regimes Soviets and Chinese in the 20th century killed many times more than all democracies put together. Right, right, they aren't True Socialists. Well, there's never been a True Democracy either -- thankfully -- so it's a d
Re: (Score:1)
Well, every time you (and not just you, but a lot of conservative Christians) protest against the Left or Progressives or wish somebody go after Obama or Congress or the Feds for all the illegal shit they do (and I'm not saying they aren't doing it), you are not following the Lord's word to turn the other cheek.
Some principles of Biblical analysis are:
(a) take the whole counsel of God, that is, every principle you draw should be in harmony with the rest of it, and you shouldn't be cherry-picking lone bits, merely because they seem to make a convenient point,
(b) take every utterance in context, the full who/what/where/when/why/how.
And so (you) make a good point that running around being vengeful is not in keeping with
Re: (Score:2)
crap, you caught me in a lie again
I was just thinking (you might want to try this sometime, it might help you look a bit less silly in your comments here) that it had been a while since you had last come in a few layers in to a conversation to accuse me of lying. Welcome back.
Of course, this is the same idiot who lied about Democracy being responsible for more deaths than Socialism
I'm sorry that you struggle so mightily with facts.
even though the essentially socialist regimes Soviets and Chinese in the 20th century
If only there actually were socialist regimes in either case, you might have a point. Unfortunately anyone who knows what socialism actually entails knows that you are dead wrong. Not that this is surprising.
Well, there's never been a True Democracy either
Dem
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is people voting for their leaders.
False. In fact, "democracy" means people making decisions collectively. As Publius wrote in Federalist 10, it's a society of people assembling and administering the government in person. For example, in Massachusetts, the residents, at a town meeting can pass any rules they wish for the town (subject to state and federal law, etc.). That's, arguably, actual democracy. But voting for your leaders is not. We call it "representative democracy," to highlight the fact that we're collectively voting for peo
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is people voting for their leaders.
False. In fact, "democracy" means people making decisions collectively
It appears to be - again - you versus the dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy:
a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting [merriam-webster.com]
So you fail again.
As Publius wrote in Federalist 10
Too bad he didn't refer to a dictionary, or he could have known what democracy actually means.
But voting for your leaders is not.
Except it is. I'd ask you to stop lying but that would be a futile request.
there are plenty of socialist regimes in this world.
There are plenty of countries with socialist leanings, but none that you have mentioned in this discussion so far (for that matter one you mentio
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to be - again - you versus the dictionary.
Once again, you do not know how dictionaries work: they do not prescribe definitions, telling us what words must mean; they merely describe how words are commonly used. Dictionary authors are reporters, not dictators. And if we identify common usage that is not captured by the dictionary definition, that is proof that the dictionary is wrong or incomplete. Further, if we can identify common usage, we literally have no need for a dictionary at that point, because it would at best be redundant, and at wors
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, you do not know how dictionaries work: they do not prescribe definitions, telling us what words must mean; they merely describe how words are commonly used.
Without a common source on the meaning of words, how do words have meanings at all? You can argue for a different source - and I have noticed that you have not yet done so - but the dictionary is a generally agreed-upon source for the meanings of words. And as I demonstrated, the definition that is given by one of the most commonly cited dictionaries of the English language agrees with me and not you. Your hatred of facts is - again - noted.
Further, if we can identify common usage, we literally have no need for a dictionary at that point
Wrong. It means that the dictionary needs to be updated. You
Re: (Score:3)
Without a common source on the meaning of words, how do words have meanings at all? You can argue for a different source - and I have noticed that you have not yet done so ...
Actually, in fact, I did. I was very explicit. You just don't understand language, so you missed it. But because I am so generous, here it is again: common usage. That determines the meaning of all words. We can be prescriptive in a given context -- for example, "organic" has a specific legal definition when applied to food for sale -- but generally, we simply have to go with how words are commonly used. We use dictionaries to discover common usage if we don't know it, but not to prescribe it.
the dictionary is a generally agreed-upon source for the meanings of words
Not by a
Re: (Score:2)
Without a common source on the meaning of words, how do words have meanings at all? You can argue for a different source - and I have noticed that you have not yet done so ...
But because I am so generous, here it is again: common usage
Only someone as arrogant as you would claim themselves as a source. Just because you use a word in a particular way does not mean that your use of the word is correct.
In fact, your repeat butchering of the English language is the common thread throughout this discussion (at least, since you injected yourself into it). There really isn't any reason to respond to anything else you wrote in your latest comment as everything you wrote was just more drivel in your futile attempt to twist and distort the E
Re: (Score:3)
Only someone as arrogant as you would claim themselves as a source.
Only someone who doesn't understand language would assert that I am not a source. Everyone who uses language is a source of meaning of that language. That's how our language actually works.
We both know you're wrong
We both know you're lying, because I quoted other sources agreeing with me, and you pretend I didn't, just like you pretend I didn't reference Madison in regards to "democracy."
Re: (Score:2)
Your own bit on
you shouldn't be cherry-picking lone bits, merely because they seem to make a convenient point,
Is exactly what I'm trying to get you to do.
Re: (Score:1)
It is a false dilemma to say one is a doormat just because they don't protest or fight.
My opinion of the Bible and its teachings is that we are supposed to love and do good to one another, including our enemies. Instead of trying to bring down Obama or the Left or the Progressives or whoever, spend that time lifting up the poor and the needy.
The absolute best thing we can do to lift up the poor and needy is to promote policies (and by "policies" I mean the public law and governance that is religion-neutral in nature) providing equality of opportunity, not the equality of condition found upon the Progressive plantation.
Concern for the poor and the needy is something we need to do on an individual and church basis.
Among the hilarious conceits of the modern liars is that we have to have "separation of church and state", but then apply the doctri
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A Christian who "takes the Gospel more seriously than anything else" would interpret those words as never responding to aggression with violence or legal defense. The latter implies you wouldn't even go after government who is violating the Constitution.
HOW ON EARTH DID YOU MAKE THAT LOGICAL LEAP?
Just becaus
Re: (Score:1)
HOW ON EARTH DID YOU MAKE THAT LOGICAL LEAP?
Just because Christians are commanded to not respond to violence with violence does not mean that we cannot seek a peaceful, legal remedy.
What logical leap? It's right in the beginning of the wiki I linked: "responding to an aggressor without violence or legal defense."
It is the libertarian doctrine that believes in using the law (and even your constitutionally protected guns) for self defense. Libertarianism is not the same as Christianity, or religion in general. It's no coincidence the US government, founded on libertarian ideas, adheres to the concept of separating church and state (at least, it's supposed to). It's also no coincidence th
Re: (Score:2)
This may help: http://cathleenfalsani.com/obama-on-faith-the-exclusive-interview/ [cathleenfalsani.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Democracy has a body count many orders of magnitude higher than socialism."
Only if you take abortion into account.
Re: (Score:2)
"Democracy has a body count many orders of magnitude higher than socialism."
Only if you take abortion into account.
How many wars have been waged or led by democracies in the past 200 years? Quite nearly all of them.
How many wars have been waged by actual socialist countries - not just ones who were playing with words - in the past 200 years? Almost none of them.
Hell just the number of people that our democracy has killed in war in the past 15 years is likely larger than the total number killed by all the military actions of all actual socialist states in the past 200 years.
Re: (Score:2)
"How many wars have been waged or led by democracies in the past 200 years? Quite nearly all of them. "
Or none of them. The ones democracies participated in, were started by dictatorships invading their neighbors. But even if you add up all the dead in all the wars of the last 200 years- you're still at only a fraction of the 56 million that we've lost to abortion in America alone since 1973.
"How many wars have been waged by actual socialist countries - not just ones who were playing with words - in the p
Re: (Score:2)
"How many wars have been waged or led by democracies in the past 200 years? Quite nearly all of them. "
Or none of them. The ones democracies participated in, were started by dictatorships invading their neighbors.
It may be that we are using different definitions of war. I include the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars started by democracies. If you want to exclude them due to the fact that the US did not declare war (and indeed it is well known that we haven't done so since WWII) then you might be closer to accurate in your statement.
But even if you add up all the dead in all the wars of the last 200 years- you're still at only a fraction of the 56 million that we've lost to abortion in America alone since 1973.
What does that have to do with anything? That number on its own is also meaningless as it tells us nothing of how long those 56 million would have lived had they not been ab