Why are people so against the alleged New World Order / World Government. I understand that it proposes one global country. Fewer languages. No religion. No nations. Democracy. Capitalism. No patriotism. No fundies.

File: 589 KB, 800x522, Day3_Scene9_1-DVR_Express_CLFC_f4_1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:32:54 2011 No.2897187 [Reply] [Original]

Why are people so against the alleged New World Order / World Government.
I understand that it proposes one global country. Fewer languages. No religion. No nations. Democracy. Capitalism. No patriotism. No fundies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:33:54 2011 No.2897194 >>2897187 >No religion >No fundies Add to this Solar System Exploration and I'm sold. Why the fuck we need to spend trillions on military each year?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:34:54 2011 No.2897198 >Democracy Well, looks like I can stop searching for a reason to oppose it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:36:54 2011 No.2897204 >>2897194 Humans would rather engage in circle jerk of corruption and reciprocal hatred than to "attack" the stars.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:36:54 2011 No.2897206 >implying democracy works now >implying it would work with that amount of people

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:36:54 2011 No.2897207 >>2897198 What other form of government do you support?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:38:54 2011 No.2897214 >>2897206 Democracy doesn't work because people are corrupt and abuse their power for their personal interests. The same situation is present in a communist regime.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:39:54 2011 No.2897216 >>2897207 Maybe something where influence in an area is based on the person's merits in that same area. An accomplished electrical engineer's opinion on what power source to use shoulc be valued over bill the hippie, or clancy the inbred methhead.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:40:54 2011 No.2897221 Because not everybody wants to do it your way. That simple.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:42:54 2011 No.2897223 I support a world government, but I don't see how one can be established now that there are multiple countries with devastating weapons. Democracy would be no issue, the world is a small place nowadays.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:44:54 2011 No.2897231 >>2897221 >Because not everybody wants to do it the way that is most efficient in reaching agreed upon goals according to current data. Fixed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:44:54 2011 No.2897235 I would support the government of God-Emperor if one should reveal himself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:52:54 2011 No.2897256 Imperialist Americunts trolling their pseudo-democracy. It's a republic, you faggots!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:54:54 2011 No.2897264 File: 276 KB, 300x300, 1300545250088.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897256 I'm not even american.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 13:57:54 2011 No.2897269 >>2897216 So you're suggesting a blend of technocracy and meritocracy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:03:54 2011 No.2897284 >>2897269 Sounds brilliant

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:10:54 2011 No.2897298 >>2897269 >>2897284 Go to Singapore. http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/215341/Selth-Regional-Outlook-25.pdf

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 16 14:14:54 2011 No.2897306

>>2897187
Extreme concentration of power, that's where the problem is.

Get rid of nations and everything sure, but make sure that there is no centralized leadership. Implement a socioeconomic protocol and small scale regional polticial management systems, but don't let any moron implement assymetric additions such as patriot acts and whatnot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:15:54 2011 No.2897309 >>2897298 I could but I would be arrested for gay sex

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:24:54 2011 No.2897332 >>2897187 >Democracy >Capitalism Feudalism

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:25:54 2011 No.2897334 >>2897332 Feudalism was neither democratic nor capitalistic.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:32:54 2011 No.2897363
File: 82 KB, 750x562, 1302815391183.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2897306
Yeah that wouldn't be a such problem for me and you but
the way people are brainwashed these days I doubt this could ever work
.
People fear for such a sudden transition. And those in power will never renounce their power.

Only aliens or robots could force humankind in this direction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:33:54 2011 No.2897369 >>2897334 Feudalism = primitive society

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:35:54 2011 No.2897377 >>2897369 more like Futilism, amirite?

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:35:54 2011 No.2897382

>>2897187

>I understand that it proposes one global country. Fewer languages. No religion. No nations. Democracy. Capitalism. No patriotism. No fundies.

In other words, a world-wide socialist state. You wouldn't want that; it would just look like North Korea on a global scale.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:37:54 2011 No.2897390 Democracy doesn't work because 49% have to listen to 51%, and that sounds like a breeding ground for civil war.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:39:54 2011 No.2897394 >>2897187 >Capitalism >niggahyoumustbeshittingmenooneisthatstupid.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:40:54 2011 No.2897402 >>2897363 >Only aliens or robots could force humankind in this direction. Friendly SkyNet ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:42:54 2011 No.2897406 >>2897369 Feudalism implies a landed nobility, state religion, and a monarchy. This was essentially what Europe was through the 18th century, and of course it eventually gave way to democracy, secularism, and industrial capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:46:54 2011 No.2897415 Higher order is better in theory, less order is better in practice.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 14:49:54 2011 No.2897436

Frankly I am scared by the idea, only because I dont think there should be one country that powerful.

Another thing is culture is diverse and I dont think one set of rules can apply to all peoples.

Anyway I bet it would breed a lot of corruption. For example, there are a lot of stock exchanges around the world. At all times of the day somewhere there is a stock exchange open and people are trading. Thanks to the internet people have been able to exchange very fast and efficiently. It was once a proposed idea that we should just replace all the world's exchanges with one large 24 hour global exchange.

It never went through because people expected big problems to occur. The biggest was corruption. Right now in the US, drug dealers have a harder time getting their profits out of the country, then they do getting drugs into the country. It would be significantly easier to launder money if you could just buy a bunch of shares in one country and sell them in another. And Im sure there are a bunch of schemes you could do that I cant think of. Another problem would be that in america there is the SEC, and it cant police the world's stock exchanges.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:53:54 2011 No.2897460 >>2897415 fullretard.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:54:54 2011 No.2897466 >>2897406 Essentially, the rise in the 19th century of capitalism, a middle class, and universal education produced a better, more stable society without religious fanaticism or nonstop wars.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:54:54 2011 No.2897468 >Feudalism implies a landed nobility, state religion, and a monarchy. Yes, primitive.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:57:54 2011 No.2897476

>>2897436

1) it doesn't matter how powerful that one country is, it's the only country (power only matters if you have someone to compete with)

2) Such a political change on earth could only occur if humanity itself changes significantly - we realize the inefficiency of corruption and unite

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 14:58:54 2011 No.2897481 >>2897436 How exactly would a global stock exchange help money laundering? How are they catching them now?

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:00:54 2011 No.2897487

The feudal system came about in the Dark Ages because poor communications and weak governments meant that every community had to be able to defend itself from barbarian invasion.

Feudalism eventually because obsolete as central governments strengthened. The principles of secularism could also be seen as early as the Late Medieval Period (13th-14th centuries) when kings began wanting to be the master in their own house and not beholden to the Papacy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:02:54 2011 No.2897501 >>2897363 More? Sauce?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 15:03:54 2011 No.2897503

>>2897476

1. It does matter. This isnt a relative thing. I know its the only country so its not relatively greater than any other country (because there arent any). Its absolutely more powerful. Also, its relatively more powerful than the people of the earth, than the previous countries were to their people.

2. Yeah good luck with that.

>>2897481

We dont know have a global stock exchange right now. Im not sure if you are aware of that. I cant sell shares of Ford Motor Company in China. If ford wants to sell stock in china it has to issue a special china-relative stock there.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:06:54 2011 No.2897517

>>2897460

Haha okay retard, look at all the fucking instances of communism and the like where they started strong and fucking plummeted afterward. It never lasted, it never worked. How happy were the people? They fucking hated life. Who the fuck do you know who lives in a communistic country and is satisfied with their government?

How was life in early America with lots of liberty and a great distribution of wealth? The strongest nation this planet has ever known.

Get your head out of your ass and stop watching the discovery channel you stupid degenerate.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 15:08:54 2011 No.2897527 >>2897517 I dont know what you guys are talking about, but it could be argued that communism never really materialized.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:09:54 2011 No.2897530

>>2897517

You're a complete fucking idiot.

You keep implying that this world order would be communist. OP specifically said "Democracy. Capitalism." thereby totally nullifying your argument.

Also, if you think the USA is the most powerful nation the world has ever known then >laughinggirls.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:13:54 2011 No.2897552 >>2897530 but teh ave teh bombabas

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:15:54 2011 No.2897558

>>2897530

Haha okay kid, this might be a little beyond you, but the best form of democracy is diversity. When there are different countries with different governments, you can go to whichever suits your preference. A one world government completely sheds you of this to where if something doesn't work for you, you're fucked and there's nowhere to go.

Yeah, you're right, that's democracy. That's representative of the people. You're smart. It's also not opposite day, faggot.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:18:54 2011 No.2897564

>>2897558

>Implying everything would be identical under the world order.

Is everything identical throughout the US, for example, or are policies and acts different in different states? You've obviously never heard of regional governments under an overarching federal one.

How old are you? 14? You certainly act like it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:18:54 2011 No.2897566 >>2897558 FUCK YOU RETARD I'M DONE TALKING TO YOU

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:18:54 2011 No.2897567 >>2897530 OP here: "Democracy. Capitalism." - it's what I believe NWO is mainly about. But for the sake of this topic anything else is allowed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:19:54 2011 No.2897572 >>2897527 It could also be argued that capitalism never fully materialized.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:21:54 2011 No.2897578 >new world order Sorry but you have crossed the line from grey area fields like economics and political science into total non-science

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:21:54 2011 No.2897579 >>2897572 Neither did, and this is a well known fact. Americans are loathe to admit it but the US operates a mixed economy leaning towards capitalism. It's certainly not entirely capitalist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:21:54 2011 No.2897582 >>2897564 Well you act TWELVE, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:22:54 2011 No.2897586 >>2897582 Oh the irony. I think this is over.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:24:54 2011 No.2897597

>>2897564

Sure, sure, the system would never be the same throughout, but two things here: 1) the laws that are governed by the state (or whichever division of government) tend to be trivial, and the big important laws are controlled by the centralized parts of government. 2) Should this not be the case, and there was lots of division of powers of government across the nation, would it really improve things over how it is now considering the effort it would take to implement it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:26:54 2011 No.2897609 >>2897597 The main improvements would be in things such as trade and military. A military would still need to be operated, but on nowhere near as grand a scale, for example. In terms of administration it would not improve things much, I admit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:29:54 2011 No.2897621 >Democracy. Capitalism. Choose one.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 15:29:54 2011 No.2897623 >>2897572 Sure I will accept that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:32:54 2011 No.2897639 >>2897582 >>2897586 samefag

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:43:54 2011 No.2897680 Individualism, baby!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:52:54 2011 No.2897727 >>2897639 No, no it wasn't you idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 15:54:54 2011 No.2897745 >>2897639 insecure paranoid fag

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:00:54 2011 No.2897778

Democracy works, with a few additions...

Such as the possibility to vote to put the current leader to death, should a random pick of the population want it. Basicly, if the vote was called, a random number of people within the world/country/state would be a voting ticket sent home... but far from everyone. Something like 100.000 would be enough. Aslong as the randomization process works, this would put the fear of death into every world leader, and they wouldnt be so fucking corrupt and power-hungry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:02:54 2011 No.2897783 utopianism is naive. this is anthropology 101 culture will not conform to standardization it is futile.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:03:54 2011 No.2897789

It might sound allright in theory, but you must acknowledge this fact: Governments are inherently evil, whenever possible they seek money and power, and only pretend to care for their citizens if it happens to benefit them in achieving these goals. Small government is the way to go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:04:54 2011 No.2897795 Thats bullshit... If I had absolute power I wouldnt abuse it. The most I would do is push for space exploration and expansion of life... If I have pure intentions, Im sure other people do...

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 16:06:54 2011 No.2897805 >>2897795 Pure intentions dont mean anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:07:54 2011 No.2897809 File: 408 KB, 1680x1050, 1302962711931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897795 Everybody says that. But when you're in a position of power shit gets a little complicated.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:08:54 2011 No.2897813

So we seem to agree that space exploration would be one of the benefits. Why not just create an international space organization now, and leave governments are they are, a bunch of smaller groups of varying levels of corruption instead of one big one with absolute power and ever increasing corruption as time goes on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:09:54 2011 No.2897822 >>2897778 yeah and also: a) limited rule, excluding lifetime at all levels b) mandatory rule of random citizens in lower levels

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:10:54 2011 No.2897826 >>2897813 Expect only a continuous bitching about the insufficiency of funds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:13:54 2011 No.2897837 >>2897826 It seems to have worked out for CERN, though.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:13:54 2011 No.2897840

>>2897809

Why? Maybe some poor scumbag who doesnt appreciate life, but anyone else in my position, why not? I am very well off, no need for money, in fact I actually despise it but no its a necessity.

Use to believe in God hugely, but realized the truth, made me appreciate life sooooo much more.

Yea, I dont see how anything would corrupt me. I want us to be in space, making colonies and traveling. How can that be corrupt?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 16:15:54 2011 No.2897843 >>2897840 Good intentions =/= good results. Besides, I honeslty wouldnt like someone in power who refers to their own beliefs as "the truth"

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:23:54 2011 No.2897870

>>2897840
The problem is you're probably not the kind of person politicians would let in their club. If you look at people of power, they all come from money, they're all smooth talking manipulative bastards, who can make you think their your friend pretty quick, who know the right things to say. And 99% of them are corrupt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:26:54 2011 No.2897882 >>2897837 Indeed but CERN is.. well... on earth :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:32:54 2011 No.2897910 >>2897882 I don't see why it makes any difference if funds are the issue. They're still billion dollar projects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:33:54 2011 No.2897922 my new world order: only 400 million humans on earth. machines perform all tasks. humans create machines. machines build machines. machines colonize space. humans party!

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:39:54 2011 No.2897961

>>2897187

Assuming there was a world gov't

>Fewer languages.

No

>No religion.

No

>No nations.

"Nations" will still exist, like the Quebec nation, the Basque nation, the Chechnyan nation, the South African nation, etc. Getting rid of borders doesn't get rid of nationalism per se

>Democracy. Capitalism.

Yeah, I guess

>No patriotism.

Maybe

>No fundies.

There are ALWAYS fundies

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 16:43:54 2011 No.2897978 File: 24 KB, 560x400, 1285661428400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897961 >mfw when the basque nation would still exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:46:54 2011 No.2897995 >all wars become civil wars and nothing else changes

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:50:54 2011 No.2898033 File: 47 KB, 375x320, Boxxy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897978 What about Navajo Nation :O

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:52:54 2011 No.2898047 >>2897978 ¡Viva la Basque!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:52:54 2011 No.2898050 >no religion >implying you can take the Christians and Muslims >implying this wouldn't end in a backlash and a new Inquisition

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:54:54 2011 No.2898062 File: 8 KB, 363x360, 1300625280777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898050 you can take them down, but it will require a few centuries

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:55:54 2011 No.2898069 To be honest the world is a much better place when there are two or more competing superpowers. At the moment it should be the USA, the EU, Russia and China. At least then we might see a decent rate of technological progress.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:56:54 2011 No.2898070 >>2898047 I have some bad news... the basque nation is the first to go

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 16:57:54 2011 No.2898078 File: 21 KB, 350x375, stalin[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Forcing Atheism on people is just as bad as forcing any other belief system on people.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:00:54 2011 No.2898089

>>2897870

I come from money, not wealth, but money. I am very intellegent, and I do have the gift of charisma from my dad, who was also a baseball coach so I know a lot about sports and I also know how to talk to people.

Hmmm... maybe I should give it a shot. I mean, why not? Worst case scenario, I stay were I am at, best case, we are going Mars.

Cant beat that, right?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:01:54 2011 No.2898100
File: 27 KB, 512x341, basquenation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2897978
>>2898070
>>2898047

Im laughing...

This is very funny

> A government that encompasses the whole world and has access to resources political and raw across the earth

...

>The Basque nation will still exist

>their face when the basque nation ever manages to exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:02:54 2011 No.2898108 >>2898078 It's not forcing atheism. People should be free to believe (in) anything. Except not organized and not in public. Otherwise even a legitimate cult will grow into a worldwide cancer.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:03:54 2011 No.2898116 File: 71 KB, 357x290, 1273466965825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898089 >mfw

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:05:54 2011 No.2898122 >>2898100 The basque nation shall be left alone. But we'll place a giant dome on it. Has anyone seen the simpsons movie? :D

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:06:54 2011 No.2898136 world government would only ever fucking exist if there were roughly equal incomes across the globe.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:07:54 2011 No.2898142 File: 14 KB, 238x217, 1284281504388.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898122 The world has two countries. The United States of Everybody, and... Basque

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:08:54 2011 No.2898147 >>2898108 >Except not organized and not in public. ie. Sweden; a society where religion is never discussed in public. Of course, that would also exclude the Dawkins brigade.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:10:54 2011 No.2898165 >>2898147 Dawkins and his posse shall become obsolete then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:10:54 2011 No.2898166 >>2898142 lol my grandpa was basque and he would fucking love that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:11:54 2011 No.2898171 >>2898062 >defeating fanatics who believe God is on their side and that they will go to heaven if martyred Someone here has an extreme ignorance of history.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:12:54 2011 No.2898178 >>2898165 Of course if that happens, some new religious fanaticism will arise as they inevitably always do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:14:54 2011 No.2898186 >>2898147 And Sweden still has a state church.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:14:54 2011 No.2898187 >>2898171 Overexposure to the western civilization and it's value in time will slow radical Islam. The other problem still remains with those christian fundamentalists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:17:54 2011 No.2898197 >>2898187 To put it succinctly, we (the western world) need more religion and the ragheads need less religion.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:20:54 2011 No.2898217

>>2898187

Of course, it's the nature of western civilization that's what's pissing off the Muzzies. They would rather pick up an AK-47 or strap on an explosive pack than let their daughter become Paris Hilton.

Dummies will tell you of course that they hate us because of Israel, but that's a pin on an elephant's behind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:21:54 2011 No.2898220 >>2898197 i'd say you are wrong about the western world

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:25:54 2011 No.2898236
File: 47 KB, 400x300, drunk-girls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898220

The ragheads are not very cool on this kind of thing. Of course, we could use a little more religion to curb the pictured kind of behavior.

Note: These drunk girls are from the UK (ie. Dawkins country) and are a perfect example of what happens when you let atheism gain the upper hand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:28:54 2011 No.2898250 >>2898236 it's awesome isn't it. just look at them tits

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:28:54 2011 No.2898253 File: 48 KB, 600x400, mosque.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898147 >Sweden; a society where religion is never discussed in public cool story infidel

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:29:54 2011 No.2898255 >>2898236 There's nothing wrong with hedonism, as long as you take responsibility for your actions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:29:54 2011 No.2898257 >>2898236 we're fucked :(

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:31:54 2011 No.2898264

#1 US economy fails, NATO is not all that credible anymore
#2 China and India get powerful
#3 Russia becomes close allies with EU to counter China
#4 China has to spread communism to become independent on resources
#5 Eventually China fizzles out like the Soviet Union
#6 Practical NWO

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:31:54 2011 No.2898265

>>2898250

Call it what you like, but it pretty much proves that atheism doesn't lead to scientific enlightenment. The great mass of sheeple will simply turn to hedonism in the absence of religion.

And then scuzzie Muzzies eat your nation for breakfast.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:33:54 2011 No.2898271 >>2898253 It wasn't discussed until the Muslims came to town. Unlike Christianity, Islam can't be a private matter by its very nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:34:54 2011 No.2898279 >>2898265 hedonism != going to a bar

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:35:54 2011 No.2898284 >>2898265 More research into mind control ops and anti-propaganda.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:35:54 2011 No.2898285 >>2898255 >drinking, using drugs, and fornicating >responsibility Pick one.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:36:54 2011 No.2898291

>>2898255

In my opinion, there is everything wrong with hedonism.

Simplifying life into "aquire more pleasure for the sake of pleasure" is not different to me then those silly ayn randroid utility maximizing economics fools.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:36:54 2011 No.2898292 >>2898284 >More research into mind control ops Unfeasible and would by definition lead to a totalitarian society

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:36:54 2011 No.2898295 >>2898285 Have you ever considered doing them in moderation? You might not be able to do it but some of us can.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:38:54 2011 No.2898303
File: 51 KB, 640x480, Sunday Church Service.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898265
Neither does this. But what the hell, we all like to have fun, these girls, like a lot of people, like having fun and being promiscuous, you like bowing to an overlord and sitting in a building talking about this mythical creature.
Each to his own.
I will add that getting drunk and having fun is much healthier for humanity than abiding to a cult.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:38:54 2011 No.2898304 In order to get a 1 world government going the governments of the world would have to kill at least 90% of the population. In b4 retards think they are in the other 10%

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:38:54 2011 No.2898305

>>2898295

I dont think the problems with hedonism are about quantity. I think its a qualitative problem about how you think about things.

"Ill recklessly engage in drugs, sex, with disregard for consequences... in moderation"

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:39:54 2011 No.2898308

>>2898291

>In my opinion, there is everything wrong with hedonism

Well sorry, but that's what a lack of religion does. You throw God out the window and that's what happens. The only way to have an atheistic society with any social discipline is a police state. And nobody wants that.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:40:54 2011 No.2898312 >>2898308 I dont see why you would believe people can be secular and not hedonists. It seems completely feasible to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:40:54 2011 No.2898313 >>2898305 >"Ill recklessly engage in drugs, sex, with disregard for consequences... in moderation" Fuck yea

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:42:54 2011 No.2898321 >>2898305 I'm just saying that it's possible to do them responsibly, is all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:43:54 2011 No.2898325 >>2898303 that picture, the depiction of oppression

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:43:54 2011 No.2898328 >I'll fuck who I want, drink what I want, and lol at all of the morons who believe in sky fairies >this will prevent me from being beheaded or blown up because _____

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:43:54 2011 No.2898331 >>2898303 Old people.... uhm.. ex-hedonists? xD

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:45:54 2011 No.2898336

>>2898328
>implying i will be beheaded or blown up

>number of people killed in terrorist attacks over last 20 years on american soil
>number of deaths cause by heart disease over last 20 years

surely mcdonalds is a bigger terrorist, they've killed more people as an organisation than any arab

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:46:54 2011 No.2898340 >>2898305 >>2898328 you won't make it long in this hypothetic technocratic regime ;)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:46:54 2011 No.2898343 >>2898328 how will being a certain type of religious stop me being blown up or having my head cut off?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:48:54 2011 No.2898350 >>2898336 >on American soil See, I thought we were talking about how abandoning Christianity has already brought Europe into a new golden age free from ignorance and oppression.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:49:54 2011 No.2898356 File: 29 KB, 300x300, the-dude.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2897187 THE DUDE ABIDES.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:50:54 2011 No.2898367 >>2898321 Id agree, it is possible to engage in promiscuous behavior, and take drugs responsibly and not hedonistically I just dont think the "hedonist" attitude really cares.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:50:54 2011 No.2898373 >No patriotism. No fundies. No religion. No nations. Enjoy getting butchered by somebody who actually believes in something just because he spends every waking moment of his life building a war machine, and you are Le Tired

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:51:54 2011 No.2898376
File: 4 KB, 300x57, image1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ok then
terrorism kills how many over 20 years
heart disease kills how many over 20 years

you're still stupid for being afraid of terrorists. this captcha probably goes some way to answering why

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:52:54 2011 No.2898381 >>2898367 ok i've never been exposed to religion in any way. what is a hedonist and why should i care if i am one? because from what you're saying, it sounds like i am, and i still don't care

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:53:54 2011 No.2898387 >>2898376 >say "lol heart disease is a faggot" >heart disease comes to your house and murders you >burn a book about heart disease >heart disease gets really butthurt and blows up an embassy

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:53:54 2011 No.2898390 >>2898381 A hedonist is someone who values pleasure, and pleasurable things above everything else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:55:54 2011 No.2898398 >>2898390 what's wrong with that? we've only got the one life, may as well make the most of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:55:54 2011 No.2898401 I liked the discussion about a hybrid technocracy/meritocracy, go back to that guys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:56:54 2011 No.2898404 >>2898387 you guys do the same thing, instead of blowing up an embassy, you destroy a country. stop being hypocritical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:57:54 2011 No.2898410 >>2897187 People are afraid that a singular government would breed corruption and abuse on a grand scale leading to some form of enslavement. Jokes on them, considering that's what we technically have now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:58:54 2011 No.2898412 >>2897778 But as seen by the recent election of the Conservative Party to power in Britain, the masses can be influenced to do pretty much anything. Thus the leader could be easily killed if they were perfectly innocent of any wrongdoing.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:58:54 2011 No.2898413
File: 68 KB, 562x750, 172848_201327863218465_100000237584832_715812_495347_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898390
Egocentric, selfish, self-hating, self-destructing and generally a pathetic loser. A minority that shall not be tolerated but will be promoted as the new man in the countries of Islam.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:58:54 2011 No.2898420

>>2898404
Maybe I'm not articulating myself properly here. I'm not criticizing Islam, I'm criticizing libfags.

The more self-involved atheist fucktards there are on Earth, the more potential victims of Islam there are.

When a country's 1% Muslim population can totally assrape everyone else, I don't think the 1% are the ones with the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 17:59:54 2011 No.2898422 >>2898412 >But as seen by the recent election of the Conservative Party to power in Britain, the masses can be influenced to do pretty much anything. As opposed to what? Voting Labour. Yea. No.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 17:59:54 2011 No.2898423

>>2898398

Because I think there is more to life than just being happy. And frankly, I view it as immaturity in the people around me who express similar feelings.

Like, for instance I have a friend who hates disagreement, and I try and made disagreement as obvious as possible. In my opinion, disagreement may not be pleasant, but its more important to have a good understanding of each other than to be blissfully ignorant about future conflicts. Understanding > over pleasure.

You could say that the pleasure I get from understanding and openness is more than my pleasure from agreement. And maybe you are right, but if you keep going down that line of thinking would you ever say something like "I married my wife because I did a little calculation in my head and figured she would give me the most pleasure" or "I love my children and family unconditionally because I thought it would give me greater utility"

No, I think thats an insulting way of looking at the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:00:54 2011 No.2898426 >>2898410 Slavery is still slavery. No matter what's it wrapped in. So it won't matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:01:54 2011 No.2898431 >>2898420 stop worrying about it. you will never have sharia law forced upon you or whatever you guys seem to be so afraid of.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:01:54 2011 No.2898437 >>2898423 I don't think you understand what pleasure means. It can be argued that every action is selfish.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:02:54 2011 No.2898439 >>2898431 >you will never have sharia law forced upon you Yeah, because my country is ruled by a bunch of crazy angry greedy Protestant fucktards, not a bunch of effeminate lazy secular Atheist fucktards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:03:54 2011 No.2898440 >>2898423 >No, I think thats an insulting way of looking at the world. You are being a total hypocrite. It goes against your previous statement of "Understanding > over pleasure." It may be insulting to you, but that does not make it wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:03:54 2011 No.2898446 File: 160 KB, 900x691, 1300543000146.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898422 ROFL picture related

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:04:54 2011 No.2898450 >>2898439 Oh dear. Why is it Americans never understand what liberal means?

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:05:54 2011 No.2898452

>>2898423
That is fucking stupid. Pleasure isn't ignorance, you can know bad shit happens and still enjoy the good things in life.
For you than may be going to church and hoping for what ever it is that you need.
For me it's making the most out of the good bits and the bad bits and accepting that I can't really change anything and I'm only here once, that's it, and I don't need a book to tell me otherwise.
Ching ching gentlemen, I'm having some more alcohol.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:05:54 2011 No.2898455 >>2898437 I think I am addressing the idea that "every action is selfish" I am an economics major. my major if full of people who look at the world like that.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:06:54 2011 No.2898458 >>2898440 Its not wrong because its insulting. Its wrong because its unrealistic. Its insulting because it degrades real human problems. And real human emotions and struggles. These are two seperate things.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:07:54 2011 No.2898466

>>2898450
Fine. Give me a word to describe a pussy who buys a hybrid car with "Free Palestine" bumper stickers, literally cries when someone tells him abortion should be illegal, hates white people with a passion because of how much exploitation and oppression they've done in history, and thinks that Communism would work "if they would just do it right".

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:07:54 2011 No.2898468 >implying every action isn't selfish

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:07:54 2011 No.2898471 >>2898446 Ah, so you're just against voting?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:07:54 2011 No.2898473 >>2898455 Economy teaches you how to a$$ rape other fellow humans, and you'd love to do it, because it's pleasurable for you. Economy means zero empathy.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:08:54 2011 No.2898474

>>2898452
>Pleasure isn't ignorance

I didnt equate the two. I just used a personal example.

>For you than may be going to church and hoping for what ever it is that you need.
For me it's making the most out of the good bits and the bad bits and accepting that I can't really change anything and I'm only here once, that's it, and I don't need a book to tell me otherwise.
Ching ching gentlemen, I'm having some more alcohol.

wut

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:08:54 2011 No.2898475

>>2898458

How is it unrealistic? It is exactly the calculation you do in your head when evaluating every situation. It may be done through feelings, but then it is what most satisfies those feelings as opposed to what gives the most pleasure in the long run.

Either way it is still done with the intention of pleasure and you cannot deny it.

"Its insulting because it degrades real human problems. And real human emotions and struggles."

I'm sorry, are humans above and beyond logic in your world?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:08:54 2011 No.2898477 >>2898466 Not all those things are the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:09:54 2011 No.2898481 >>2898466 A fucking idiot. Technically he's a neo-liberal, and as a classic liberal I find his sort insulting.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:09:54 2011 No.2898482

The is losing popularity in Europe because even the lower classes live very comfortably there. When they pick a party wealth redistribution is just a bullet point among others. A sound foreign policy or the promise of a strong economy are important too in a globalized world.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:10:54 2011 No.2898486

Look, if you want to snort coke and have sex with a horse, that's your business and you can do whatever you want, but don't try and claim that atheism will lead to anything more than that. Because it doesn't.

That said, I'd still rather have a hedonistic atheism than an atheism that leads to a mountain of skulls in Cambodia.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:10:54 2011 No.2898488

>>2898473

>Economy teaches you how to a$$ rape other fellow humans, and you'd love to do it, because it's pleasurable for you.

No it doesnt.

You wouldnt say someone with a hammer would love to crack the skulls of every human being they see with the hammer. It just means they have the capacity to use a hammer however they want.

Ive met some really sympathetic and good natured economists. Its people who go into a field where they study simply basic feelings, like utility maximizing so they can utilize these tools to serve people (which is there interest).

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:10:54 2011 No.2898490
File: 19 KB, 300x225, 12_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898471
I'm against N parties being financed by various groups, including religious entities. Voting in such a system is mockery.

Total political class reset, man.
One in a lifetime terms only per each citizen.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:12:54 2011 No.2898503

>>2898475

I am critizing the idea that people run these calculations to make decisions, or decide on values etc.

You can satisfy a feeling and not gain pleasure.

>I'm sorry, are humans above and beyond logic in your world?

No, and I think its perfectly acceptable to account for things like emotions, and feelings, in a logical analysis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:13:54 2011 No.2898508 >>2898488 yeah.. on Wall Street there's guys sucking cock and snorting cocaine filled with remorse after they fucked your economy. Going all: feels bad, bro, let's adopt a pet and plant a flower.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:13:54 2011 No.2898515

>>2898482

>The is losing popularity in Europe because even the lower classes live very comfortably there.

Well, yeah. Communism ceased to be taken credibly by most people once the Soviet Union fell.

It's also worth noting that no developed first-world country was ever taken over by a communist government, only backwards, underdeveloped ones.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:14:54 2011 No.2898516 >>2898503 You don't seem to understand that it is done with the intention of pleasure. Not pleasure in the sense that most think, but pleasure in the sense of achieving whatever you want to achieve whatever that might be.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:14:54 2011 No.2898519

>>2898490
But that's all of them. Unions or banks, take your pick they're all fuckers. But what can you do? Live below the radar, take cash when you can, remove yourself from the state as much as possible, claim no benefits or get any help from them which means it's harder for them to pry on your personal affairs. You can't defeat the system, only cheat your way around it for your own gain.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:14:54 2011 No.2898521 >>2898508 Yeah but wall street has more to do with finance than economics. Nor does saying "these finance people did bad things" prove anything about finance being inherently evil. You got something else for me to retort?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:15:54 2011 No.2898526 >>2898516 Alright define pleasure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:15:54 2011 No.2898527 >>2898508 (somehow) RELATED: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4166429 "Two weeks after AIG bailout, execs party in style [..]"

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:17:54 2011 No.2898532 >>2898420 When religious faith in Europe was stronger, the Muslim world was their bitch (19th century). And now it's coming to be the exact opposite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:17:54 2011 No.2898533 >>2898526 Enjoying myself. Which is subjective, so no you can't analyse every aspect of humanity and fit it in a nice box into which you can sneer from your religious alter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:20:54 2011 No.2898540 >>2898532 >When religious faith in Europe was stronger, the Muslim world was their bitch Google: "ottoman empire" / 1299–1923

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:20:54 2011 No.2898541 >>2898312 Simple. No religion=no moral code=sheeple having sex with everything that moves.

Jim Profit !cMAAqC5VYY Sat Apr 16 18:20:54 2011 No.2898543
File: 46 KB, 720x480, EvilJimProfit5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2897187
Don't be moronic. Just because something SAYS it's democratic, and non-fundamentalist, doesn't mean it is. You know where the problem lies? Lack of diversity, which means lack of opposition when humanity ultimately DOES show it's ass!

As much as you atheist fags bitch and piss and moan about religious fundamentalists, the worst thing they've ever done in your cushy western countries is hold up offensive signs at a funeral. Oh poor fucking you... pussy...

Otherwise, religious fundamentalism is REQUIRED to liberate people from brutal secular dictatorships. People would rather trust their lives to The Taliban then Iranian dictators and Libyan autocrats. Where exactly is your proof that atheists=nice people?

Religious indoctrination might be full of stubborn, violent, maybe even stupid people. But Darwinism isn't so open-ended where we can simply say being a pretencious snob who values "science" is better. It's a frightening fucking world indeed when the control freak fascist types use "science" to convince people to pull the own trigger against their heads, then have people violently screaming and butchering each other in the name of Allah.

Where there is "peace", there is also "enslavement". War IS peace damnit. Bloodshed and strife breeds instinct and the will to survive, to grow. Human beings need blind and senseless faith. Or else we'll evolve into submissive, pathetic, little dogs who serve the rich masters that can use drug enhancements to keep themselves slightly above the curve.

Oh wait... we pretty much do that the fuck now. And the west is jelly the whole world isn't full of fat, self loathing, slobs who can't imagine not listening to authority or going to work everyday like a nigger to bust their ass for the bare minimum.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:22:54 2011 No.2898551 >>2898540 Yep. The guys that rolled back the Ottoman tide at Vienna were called "The Holy League". Sounds totally secular to me.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:22:54 2011 No.2898554

>>2898540

The Ottoman Turks were rising just as Spain finished driving the last Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula, so the Islamic world wasn't really gaining ground. They couldn't take Europe by force then, but now they're taking it over from within thanks to liberal social policies.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:23:54 2011 No.2898556 >>2898533 Alright. Well I dont think human beings should always enjoy themselves. But anyway, Im glad you are recognizing this as a subjective thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:23:54 2011 No.2898557 >>2898515 Are you honestly saying Russia wasn't a leading country before the communist revolution?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:23:54 2011 No.2898558 >>2898541 >implying you need a religion to have a moral code And calling people sheeple for not having a faith is sectionably retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:24:54 2011 No.2898565 >>2898526 I already did. It's doing something with the intention of achieving the outcome you desire in a situation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:25:54 2011 No.2898569 >>2898540 >Implying they weren't under the thumb of Germany and Austro-Hungary.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:25:54 2011 No.2898570 >>2898558 >implying you need a religion to have a moral code Atheism: Have no morals except those of the religions you don't believe in

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:25:54 2011 No.2898571
File: 157 KB, 952x894, 36092_1164042016_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898543
On diversification:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”

Your buddy Goering ;)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:26:54 2011 No.2898572 >>2898541 >Implying sex is immoral. When are you living? The 1800s?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:26:54 2011 No.2898577 >>2898570 Yes because if there was no bible no one would know it was bad to kill people. I guess you should tell all the Christians who kill people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:27:54 2011 No.2898578 >>2898556 Whyever not?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:27:54 2011 No.2898582 >>2898570 Ever heard of utilitarianism? Thought not.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:28:54 2011 No.2898584

>>2898565

I dont like that definition. I think pleasure has a much shallower connotation.

Because then you are saying a suicidal person killed themselves for pleasure. Or the woman had an abortion for the pleasure of it. It really doesnt match the conventional usage of it. pleasure implies some overall feeling and result of joyfulness.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:28:54 2011 No.2898585
File: 196 KB, 703x600, statism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The problem is statism. We live win an ever-expanding bureaucracy, where the majority of government employees are not voted for. The government only exists to increase the power of the state. If capitalism was actually a goal, then I would be fine with globalization. But it's state capitalism and crony capitalism. The government is permanently entwined with the corporate elite, and one government would make corporatism a reality. The leaders of the US and the EU know that a true free market would be a threat to their power, so through lobbying, corporate welfare, bailouts and subsidies, they remain safe from democracy and market forces.

>>	Jim Profit !cMAAqC5VYY Sat Apr 16 18:28:54 2011 No.2898586 >>2898572 >It always comes back to fucking pediphiles and sexual deviants trying to justify their disgusting fucked up in the head views.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:29:54 2011 No.2898590 >>2898584 get dopamine shots, kthxbye

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:29:54 2011 No.2898592

>>2898578

Because sometimes they have real reason to be unhappy withthemselves. Sometimes what people need to do, and willingly do, resulting in them being unhappy with the outcome, and not do to any mistake or unexpected circumstance.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:30:54 2011 No.2898593

>>2898557

Russia was a great power mostly due to sheer size. Other than that, it was pretty ass-backwards compared to Western Europe.

When Stalin announced the first Five Year Plan in 1928, he said "We're at least 50 years behind the United States and Western Europe. If we do not catch up quickly, we'll be crushed."

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:30:54 2011 No.2898594 >>2898586 So you're a virgin? Or at very most have consensual sex in the missionary position with your hairy wife. Glad I'm not you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:30:54 2011 No.2898595 >>2898543 I like how you interchange "atheism", "darwinism" and "the west". I don't think you know what any of these mean.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:31:54 2011 No.2898598 >>2898590 >implying that dopamine = chemical happiness >implying injected dopamine would reach the brain

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:31:54 2011 No.2898599 >>2898572 Never said sex was immoral.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:31:54 2011 No.2898600 >>2898584 It's achieving what they want. Call it what you like, but it is still a selfish action.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:32:54 2011 No.2898602 >>2898586 What? There is nothing wrong with sexual deviancy until it harms others. Or would you rather everyone practised sex in the missionary position with the lights off for the purpose of procreation just because a book tells you it's bad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:32:54 2011 No.2898603 File: 848 KB, 766x766, zebra.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898585 Capitalism is not a goal. It's just the white pimp suit that SLAVERY wears nowadays ;) Communism did the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:33:54 2011 No.2898604 >>2898577 >I guess you should tell all the Muslims who kill people Yeah, probably.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:33:54 2011 No.2898605 Being an atheist, I think all money should be diverted in sending us all away to colonise another planet, let the theists battle it out on earth and we'll start a new life away from here. We'll all be happy to see the back of each other.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:33:54 2011 No.2898606 >>2898602 There's nothing wrong with Islam until it harms others.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:34:54 2011 No.2898609 >>2898599 >no moral code=sheeple having sex

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:34:54 2011 No.2898611

>>2898600

So lets say you are a normal guy. And you sacrifice your life to save a complete stranger?

Thats selfish?

Okay... so... Im going to assume that you dont believe ANY action can be selfless. If that is true, why even have a word for selfish if it implies absolutely nothing, and applies to every possible action.

"Why did he take the last slice of pizza?"
"because he is selfish"
"Why did he leave the last slice of pizza?"
"because he is selfish"

Using selfish like that describes absolutely nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:35:54 2011 No.2898612 File: 3 KB, 140x140, c9730308adab83c45e87855d78a5d94e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898605 I'm a theist not affiliated with any religious movement and won't say a word about my beliefs. Can I come? :D

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:35:54 2011 No.2898613 >>2898602 >What? There is nothing wrong with sexual deviancy until it harms others. Hey, you can do whatever you want in your bedroom. Not my problem if you want to destroy yourself. I'm a sexual libertarian in that regard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:35:54 2011 No.2898615 >>2898606 I agree. I don't understand the hatred of religion until something gets in the way of progress or is harmful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:36:54 2011 No.2898620 lol at the one guy in here who seems to equate everything evil as per the bible to islam HAVING SEX, JUST LIKE THOSE LIBERAL RAGHEADS WOMENS RIGHTS, YOU MUSLIM FUCK ABORTION! I WONT HAVE THAT SHARIA LAW HERE

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:36:54 2011 No.2898621 >>2898612 No theists allowed! >:( !!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:36:54 2011 No.2898622 >>2898611 By selfish I'm implying that it is done with the intention of achieving something the person doing the action wants. That is not to say it could not have greater benefits for others. That's because what I'm saying is not intuitively true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:37:54 2011 No.2898623 >>2898609 I mean, sane sexual practices. Because I know you think that naked men whipping each other in a leather parade is equal to what your grandmother did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:38:54 2011 No.2898627 File: 96 KB, 491x513, ethicsspanish.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898541 From the country that suffered the Inquisition, I came just to leave this here

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:38:54 2011 No.2898628 >>2898621 Fine, I'll lie then. >:)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:38:54 2011 No.2898630 >>2898606 >There's nothing wrong with Islam until it harms others. Of course not. I never said there was.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:38:54 2011 No.2898632 >>2898623 There's nothing wrong with either, though. If everyone is happy then I don't see the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:39:54 2011 No.2898635 >>2898627 Well, that's pretty much equal to what the dune coons do, and I'm certainly not advocating religious fanaticism.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:39:54 2011 No.2898637

>>2898622

>By selfish I'm implying that it is done with the intention of achieving something the person doing the action wants. That is not to say it could not have greater benefits for others.

Okay I understand that.

I am saying if you define selfish like that:

1. It doesnt mean anything
2. It has no application of definition
3. It describes nothing about human beings or their intentions
4. It solves no philosophical inquiries

Its like saying "They did that thing, because they wanted to do that thing"

If I saw someone break down and cry, and I asked a stranger "Why are they crying?" and they said "Well you see, they are worrying about their interests (selfishness), and to them, it is in their interest to cry" it wouldnt explain anything at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:41:54 2011 No.2898644 >>2898632 >There's nothing wrong with either, though. As long as it stays in your bedroom.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:43:54 2011 No.2898654 >>2898644 But I enjoy fucking in public. You can do religion in public, I can fuck in public. Unless you think religion should also be confined to your bedroom.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:45:54 2011 No.2898663
File: 58 KB, 766x511, _46621116_polarbear_usfws.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Islam
It's an organized religion. Its fans won't mind their religious heads to mess around with the activities of the state by financing politicians.

Why wait until it harms someone when you can cut the evil off at its root with excessive promotion of an anti-religious attitude or at least indifference towards religion among youth.

This is where hedonism kicks in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:45:54 2011 No.2898664 >>2898654 >But I enjoy fucking in public. Fair enough. Enjoy a society of degenerates who end up being annexed to Saudi Arabia because they're too weak to fight back.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:45:54 2011 No.2898665

>>2898637

I know you are. It does have a meaning - just because something always applies does not make it meaningless.

For example, by your logic saying "Words either form sentences or not-sentences" is meaningless.

It does have an application of definition. It's one that happens to always be the case.

It describes a lot about their intentions and is itself a philosophical inquiry. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

That last statement is exactly true. Just because it is not what springs to mind when someone is crying does not mean it is not something that occurred through subconscious means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:45:54 2011 No.2898667 >>2898644 Why not? The only reason we are disgusted by it is that we are taught to be disgusted by it.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:47:54 2011 No.2898671

>>2898663

>Why wait until it harms someone when you can cut the evil off at its root with excessive promotion of an anti-religious attitude or at least indifference towards religion among youth.

Naw, that'll just make the fanatics more fanatical.

>This is where hedonism kicks in.

Making you too weak and dissipated to fight the fanatics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:48:54 2011 No.2898672 >>2898664 >too weak to fight back. Yea cause having sex makes you weak. Unlike being badass and going to church...

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:49:54 2011 No.2898678 File: 3 KB, 80x80, 3645_1152423347_small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898671 you target the fanatics and the process will be slow

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:49:54 2011 No.2898679 >>2898667 >he still thinks going into a bathhouse and having anal sex with multiple men is good for you

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:49:54 2011 No.2898681 >>2898671 I've yet to see the connection between hedonism and lack of religion. Hedonism has always existed, it's just been covered up for the most part until very recently due to stronger repurcussions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:49:54 2011 No.2898683 >>2898671 You sound like a fanatic. I'm more worried about you than about the entirety of islam combined.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 18:50:54 2011 No.2898685

>>2898665

>just because something always applies does not make it meaningless.

I think it does. If you were an aerospace engineer, and you were desigining a plane, you wouldnt ask yourself at the start of every design decision to go "well, through what medium will this be traveling through?"

It should be obvious its air.

> by your logic saying "Words either form sentences or not-sentences" is meaningless.

And I would agree. Besides the fact that you said words form. That conveys something. But if you said "Words may or may not form, what are sentences or not sentences" yes I would agree it is meaningless.

>It does have an application of definition. It's one that happens to always be the case.

What application is that?

>It describes a lot about their intentions and is itself a philosophical inquiry

Just because there is a wikipedia entry on what a bunch of fools thought doesnt mean it solves a philosophical inquiry. Some of these philosophers would be the first to come up with a non-answer like "selfishness"

>Just because it is not what springs to mind when someone is crying does not mean it is not something that occurred through subconscious means.

So are you saying the subconscious has to ask itself ridiculous questions about whether or not someone is acting in self interest?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:50:54 2011 No.2898687 >>2898679 it is if you're gay

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:51:54 2011 No.2898693 File: 41 KB, 468x413, drunk_brit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898672 Yeah, like these people are capable of fighting anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:51:54 2011 No.2898695 >>2898681 Hedonism is in the theological sense nothing more but a life of sin, therefore incompatible with a religious way of life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:51:54 2011 No.2898696 >>2898679 Why is it bad for you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:52:54 2011 No.2898699 >>2898678 See >>2898197

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:53:54 2011 No.2898703 >>2898696 coughAIDSepidemiccough

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:53:54 2011 No.2898704 >>2898693 I like that you think you are somehow tougher than any non believer. Does our faith give you super powers?

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:54:54 2011 No.2898707

>>2898685

Of course you don't, because you subconscious already asks itself that when you bring it to mind.

It's not meaningless. It shows an interesting idea that we always do something for ourselves in every action, which is not something that is intuitive.

See above.

A bunch of fools that are saying exactly what I am saying and that you have yet to show to be wrong.

Of course it does. That's one of the things it's there for.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:54:54 2011 No.2898708 File: 95 KB, 916x687, 1277055779613.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898696 Evolutionary, dicks were developed to be inserted in the select parts of the female genitalia. Inserting a dick in a male's ass is just wrong xD

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:55:54 2011 No.2898710 >>2898693 >drunk_brit it's funny as americans think they're hard. i'd love to see them down the pub with a bud lite getting all preachy, only to bekicked in by some skinheads.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:55:54 2011 No.2898711 >>2898693 They might be soldiers for all you know. They might just be having a laugh on a night out. I get the impression that you don't understand what moods and emotions are, and that you can change between them.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:56:54 2011 No.2898713

>>2898401
I'd like to, but there's not very much to discuss. The problems are well-known and without any convenient solutions.

Decreasing the influence of the common man on current events increases the influence of corruption and self-serving votes in order to reduce the stupidity inherent to any democracy.

Experts on a subject obviously can't decide to which extent society should finance that subject since their personal economy is wholly dependent on that decision. If you let them, there'd be many people voting their own subject up out of pure self-interest. Of course, outside of this group you won't find people capable of making an informed decision, but without significant bias due to self-interest.

Then there's the issue of deciding who's qualified for the extra influence expertise in an area grants. Obviously we can't give the vote of a medical doctor and a homeopathic scam artist equal value, but how do we decide when opposing groups both have merit, and when one group shouldn't qualify?

The only way a technocracy is realistic is if you agree upon a set of values and use them as axioms for the logical system that's to decide the actions of the government.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:56:54 2011 No.2898715

>>2898704

It's not so much that; it's the fact that a dissolute lifestyle makes people weak, self-indulging scoundrels. And since they tend to not marry or have children, their nation experiences a population implosion while the religious fanatics are knocking out 7-8 kids.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:57:54 2011 No.2898719 >>2898715 Welcome to Western Islamic Europe \o/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:58:54 2011 No.2898724 >>2898715 Do you honestly think that most people who aren't religious live dissolute lives? Most of the people I know that I would describe as hedonist still manage to make something of themselves. Quite a lot of them are religious, too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:59:54 2011 No.2898727 >>2898715 We have plenty of kids. Plenty of divorces too but who wants one partner. And I'd come here and see for yourself before calling us weak. Were the most stoic fuckers on the planet.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 18:59:54 2011 No.2898733

>Why are people so against the alleged New World Order
Because it will just mean another system of control of the populace and another layer of shit telling us what to do without actually dealing with the consequences.

In essence, the new world order will be created by the old world order, just now our necks will be higher up in shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:00:54 2011 No.2898737 Some one said something along the lines of: Democracy is the best WORST government people can have.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:00:54 2011 No.2898740

>>2898708

This isn't even about religion; it's totally biological and medical. The anus was never designed to have stuff inserted in it. That is not it's physiological purpose and that kind of behavior will leave you needing to wear adult diapers because you can't hold in your dook.

How sad that an alleged science board allows their unquestioned belief in liberal social policies to override any scientific or medical sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:01:54 2011 No.2898742 >>2898737 Churchill, I believe.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 19:01:54 2011 No.2898744

>>2898707

>Of course you don't, because you subconscious already asks itself that when you bring it to mind.

How do you know that?

In my opinion the subconscious could either be described as so simple, it has no capacity or mechanism of asking such a question. Or it is so complicated it would be ridiculous to assume it "asks" itself something like that.

>It shows an interesting idea that we always do something for ourselves in every action, which is not something that is intuitive

I dont understand this sentence. Sorry.

>A bunch of fools that are saying exactly what I am saying and that you have yet to show to be wrong.

Wrong? You have yet to show that this is how people behave. That they constantly and continuously considering their self interest, despite the fact that their self interest will apply to every scenario. I think the burden of proof is on you.

>Of course it does. That's one of the things it's there for.

I dont know how you define subconscious, or what you think about it. So I cant agree or disagree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:02:54 2011 No.2898745 >>2898740 Why can't people do what they want with themselves? Do you have a problem with straight couples pracising anal or gay couples that don't?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:02:54 2011 No.2898746 >>2898740 Ah lighten up, you're not a man until you've had to run to the shower with a chocolate lolipop. Which ever way you swing, anal is good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:02:54 2011 No.2898748 Question: What will happen to our Democracy when the majority of voters will come from countries with awful human rights records and traditionally oppressive and corrupt governments?

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:04:54 2011 No.2898755

>>2898724

>Most of the people I know that I would describe as hedonist still manage to make something of themselves. Quite a lot of them are religious, too.

Chances are though that their religion curbs the worst of their excesses.

I mean, everyone has urges; we're only human. It's how well we're able to control them.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:04:54 2011 No.2898757

>>2897187
So far gov't has been the second biggest cause of death and suffering in the world. Second only to religion and only so because of it's relatively short life.

What makes you think it will be better or good one of them monopolizes the initiation of force throughout the world?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:05:54 2011 No.2898758 >>2898755 lol best troll all night.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:05:54 2011 No.2898760

>>2898744

The subconscious is everything our brain does apart from our conscious decisions. These consist of both very simple and very complex acts.

I was saying that it shows that we always do something for ourselves in every action based on the circumstances. This is obviously not meaningless.

This is how people behave. There is no way they can not behave like this. As I said, they are not actively considering it in their mind, but every action they make is based on it.

See first paragraph.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:06:54 2011 No.2898761 >>2898745 See >>2898613

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:07:54 2011 No.2898764 >>2898758 Inability to refute noted.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:09:54 2011 No.2898772

>>2898764
It's just stupid. What's wrong with acting on your urges.
You want to have sex. Have sex
You want to get drunk. Get drunk
What's the big deal?
inb4 something to do with islam, they take the exact same viewpoint as yours on these matters, they are just as nuts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:10:54 2011 No.2898778 >>2898761 see >>2898667 Note that you can't use the "It's not natural" argument anymore as you've admitted that it's ok in the bedroom.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:12:54 2011 No.2898788
File: 45 KB, 468x325, uk-drunk-chicks2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898772

>It's just stupid. What's wrong with acting on your urges.

Nothing, but don't try and pretend it's good for you. Those who end up doing whatever feels good tend to end up in either jail or a hospital.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:14:54 2011 No.2898799 >>2898788 Never happened to me. And I'm shit faced half the week. Life is for living, not for being a prude who's scared of foreigners and cloud unicorns.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:15:54 2011 No.2898811 >>2898778 I didn't say it was ok or natural, I said that it's your business if you want to destroy yourself in the privacy of your own home. Just so long as children aren't involved of course.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:16:54 2011 No.2898814 >>2898799 >Never happened to me. Not yet anyway.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 19:17:54 2011 No.2898817

>>2898760

>The subconscious is everything our brain does apart from our conscious decisions

Oh God.

Well how do you define consciousness?

Dont answer that.

> This is obviously not meaningless.

Well I think it is. Its a statement which revealed nothing about past human behavior, and it has no reprocussions for the future. Saying "It means they did that out of self interest" doesnt reveal anything when self interest meants "what encourages one to do something"

Definitions can be self referential like that. If I said a person is a human being, and a human being is a person (like my childhood dictionary said) it wouldnt convey anything.

>This is how people behave. There is no way they can not behave like this

Well I dont believe it. I dont believe we need some voice in the back of our head that says "Do that thing you want to do!" I think we can describe human behavior perfectly without such a voice in the back of your head. You could just say "Humans do what they want to do" far easier than you could say "Human beings want to do things, and they do things, and there is a voice that tells them to do what they want." Its like an unnecessary middle man. This "philosophical middle man"ness is what makes it false.

Back in the day people like Newton believed in what we could describe as "intelligent falling" that they they had the laws of motion and equations that described how the planets orbit. But they couldnt understand how matter could move that way. Some people believed God pushed every particle exactly as it needed to to satisfy these formulas. But thats crazy. Why do you need God in this circumstance? You dont, you could say, "We will presume matter behave this way on its own" instead of "Matter behaves, and it behaves according to God, and God always makes it behave the same way everytime" which can be simplified to "Matter behaves the same way everytime"

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:19:54 2011 No.2898827 >>2898811 Why is it not ok? In fact it is quite natural anyway. Many animals practise it too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:21:54 2011 No.2898830 >>2898827 >Why is it not ok? Because disease and using your body in ways nature never intended it to be used.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:22:54 2011 No.2898838

>>2898817

It is what you are aware that you choose to do in this context.

That is up for debate but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

It isn't a middle-man. It is merely saying that we do what we do because it is what we feel like doing. In fact, saying "Humans do what they want to do" is exactly what this is saying. They do not do what they do not want to do, as they do do what they do want to do. This is, of course, circumstantial. They choose what looks like the best option.

You have, in fact, shown that you do believe what I am saying. Whether it is meaningless is up for debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:24:54 2011 No.2898845 File: 51 KB, 468x342, uk-drunks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Would you want to marry and have children with these girls? I wouldn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:25:54 2011 No.2898848 >>2898830 Is mother nature gods wife? Will she tell us off for using our bodys in a way that way not described in the safety and regulations check list for humans bible thing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:26:54 2011 No.2898849 >>2898830 Disease can be guarded against. You're implying it was intended to be used any way at all. Learn what evolution is before you throw around words like "intent".

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:28:54 2011 No.2898857 >>2898845 That's your choice. They might be completely different in different situations. You're extremely judgmental.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:28:54 2011 No.2898858 >>2898757 >second only to religion I dunno, bro. Mao killed 100 million people. I don't think there were even that many people in existence during the Crusades.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:29:54 2011 No.2898860 >>2898848 >he still doesn't think that certain behaviors carry undesirable physical and/or mental consequences

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:30:54 2011 No.2898868 >>2898857 >They might be completely different in different situations. Hey, maybe some day they'll reform their ways and find religion. Until then...

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 19:31:54 2011 No.2898869

>>2898838

>It is what you are aware that you choose to do in this context.

So your subconscious is everything that doesnt have to do with awareness or choice?

Dont answer that either.

>That is up for debate but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

You are right. That doesnt mean it isnt true. But that also doesnt mean we should believe it.

If I said I want things, and there is a diety named Carl that tells another diety named Roger that I should do what I want, and Roger writes and intangible metaphysical space letter to my brain which reads and obey's all of Roger's commands, and Carl just always tells me to do what I want. You would call me crazy. And thats what I think of this notion of self interest.

>In fact, saying "Humans do what they want to do" is exactly what this is saying

No its not. Because you are saying humans follow their self interest, as dictated by their subconscious, which is what they want to do.

I do believe people do what they want. I dont believe there is some some deep reminder, or calculation that goes into deciding our deepest desired or intentions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:33:54 2011 No.2898874 File: 28 KB, 500x342, fox-news-infromed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You seem to keep picking pictures of people from the uk. Now lets not start with that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:34:54 2011 No.2898879 >>2898858 The world population at the turn of the second millennium was around 310 million. I'd guess 400 million by the time of the crusades.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:34:54 2011 No.2898884 File: 47 KB, 494x301, patriotic-resisance1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898874 I guess this must be one of those amazing people who can fight the threat of Islam.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:35:54 2011 No.2898886 >>2898860 Why are they undesirable? >>2898868 You've still yet to demonstrate the causality between lack of religion and hedonism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:36:54 2011 No.2898887 >>2898879 Hmm. Fair enough. Did 25% of the world's population die due to Crusader/Jihadist violence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:37:54 2011 No.2898898 File: 572 KB, 2100x1368, Us_marines_mout_practice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898884 Maybe not them, but I'll bet these guys can.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:38:54 2011 No.2898903

>>2898869

Exactly.

Yes it does, actually. Humans do follow self-interest, and their self-interest is dictated either by logic (a conscious decision) and so self-evidently in self-interest, or by emotion (the desire to feel elated, to follow others etc. etc.) and so is also in self-interest.

Your middle-man interpretation is wrong.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:40:54 2011 No.2898909
File: 80 KB, 682x413, cambridge_drunks1_6_825324a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898886

>Why are they undesirable?

Already explained in >>2898830

>You've still yet to demonstrate the causality between lack of religion and hedonism.

I'd be willing to bet you these people don't go to church on Sunday.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:41:54 2011 No.2898914 File: 27 KB, 384x374, get_a_brain_morans.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898898 Judging their previous forays around the world they'll probably just shoot each other by accident then lose.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:42:54 2011 No.2898917 File: 48 KB, 750x600, 1300286172514.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898898 fighting Islam to spread the Christian cancer

>>	Captain Olimar !!ooztLPjQLnv Sat Apr 16 19:42:54 2011 No.2898919 >>2898909 I'd be willing to bet they call themselves Christian. You're the same moron from the other night, aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:42:54 2011 No.2898920 File: 7 KB, 251x190, 1290997063713s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Who would a world government be accountable to?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 19:43:54 2011 No.2898923

>>2898903

I dont even know what we are talking about.

I believe in self interest, as in, I believe people do that they want. I do not descriminate between self interest and what people want. And I do not believe that what people want is dictated by logic.

I can see how we are agreeing at this point, I think its only because we have broken everything down into stupidly simple terms. I dont think this has anything to do with with hedonism anymore. Which I still think is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:43:54 2011 No.2898924 File: 29 KB, 450x536, protester-unarmed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898917 It's the America dream.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:44:54 2011 No.2898928

>>2898909

That's blatant circular logic.

We asked why it was undesirable. You said it caused disease and your body wasn't intended to be used that way. We said that disease could be prevented and your body is not intended to be used in a particular way because that's not how evolution works. Your reply? It is undesirable.

>laughinggirls.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:44:54 2011 No.2898931 >>2898924 It's not what the american used to be no sir

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:44:54 2011 No.2898933

I tell you; /sci is just as stupid and fanatical as the ragheads and young earth creationists. There's no intelligent life on this board. You can't reason with those who don't want to be reasoned with.

Luckily this shitty thread is almost at the bump limit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:45:54 2011 No.2898937 >>2898923 I think we are agreeing too. I'm basically saying that everything is done with some degree of self-interest, which is effectively "people do what they want". I agree that hedonism is stupid unless it is moderated to a degree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:46:54 2011 No.2898941 >>2898924 Isn't America supposed to have freedom of religion?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:46:54 2011 No.2898946 >>2898937 moderation goes with everything

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:47:54 2011 No.2898949 File: 550 KB, 1720x2724, 1302964478731.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898941 yeah, the freedom to be a christian! :D

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:48:54 2011 No.2898951 >>2898928 On paper you can prevent disease. In the real world, not so much. Google "herpes rates" and you'll find plenty of links pointing to the growing spread of this disease.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 19:48:54 2011 No.2898952

>>2898937

Okay, this is great I think we can establish a new foundation for our discussion.

I agree, everything people do is done with self interest, but because self interest applys to all actions, its pointless to refer to selfless actions, like self sacrifice, as inherently selfish. And because of this I avoid the term self interest.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:49:54 2011 No.2898954
File: 24 KB, 450x336, government-medecine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898941
Fucked if I know, I'm just comparing a few drunk teenagers in my country (a fate worse than death apparently) with these...people...who seem to represent a large proportion of the American population.

Jim Profit !cMAAqC5VYY Sat Apr 16 19:50:54 2011 No.2898957
File: 10 KB, 480x360, EvilJimProfit6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2898602
I'm not your whore mother. This is your first and last warning. You speak to me like that again and I will grab you by the collar of your shirt, and smack the shit out of you. You'll tell your friends you fell down some stairs, and if you keep it up, you'll be telling them you fell down a flight.

All sexuality harms people. So stop talking out your asshole RIGHT NOW... I'm sick and tired of you nihilists using the same regurgitated arguments. Sex has hormonal, emotional, and physical implications. Always. Even if we ruled out STDs, there'd still be psychological trauma. Just because someone says "yes" does not mean SHIT... if you truly appreciated science, you would know that. Things go a whole lot deeper then how we "feel" or what we "want". Science exists to improve those things where we're not trapped in those feelings and wants. Not using science to methodically justify them.

And I love how you just assume I'm religious just because I refuse to validate your sick and depraved psychosis. No, I'm very secular. That's bad for you. Because that means there's nothing but the law holding me back from putting a bullet in your demented little head. I'm very pro-eugenics. Religious people tend to get bogged down by abstracts of good and evil. Guys like us? Don't.

The difference is I'm smarter, better, and superior to you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:50:54 2011 No.2898959 File: 131 KB, 681x600, British_SAS_Bravo_Two_Zero_(team_photo).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898898 So can these guys. Your point?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:51:54 2011 No.2898960 >>2898954 >the situation room lol america, it's the news, not a action movie

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:51:54 2011 No.2898963 >>2898952 what about collective selfishness or collective hedonism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:52:54 2011 No.2898967 >>2898957 INTERNET TOUGH MAN Come at me, bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:52:54 2011 No.2898968 >>2898959 Don't worry they're also pushing Christianity on other people's throats since way back.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:53:54 2011 No.2898974 >>2898952 You're right in a practical sense. In every-day usage of course these actions should be referred to as selfless. However, it is true that technically these are done with a level of self-interest (the desire to save another's life).

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:53:54 2011 No.2898975 >>2898957 lol what a pussy

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:53:54 2011 No.2898976 File: 354 KB, 300x300, 1300398209057.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898957 0/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:54:54 2011 No.2898980 >>2898968 The SAS? Try again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:54:54 2011 No.2898982 File: 19 KB, 290x226, flagwaving_med.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What about these guys?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:54:54 2011 No.2898983 >>2897187 We'd all be fucked if it was run by ignorant, religious fundies though. I'm all for a 'one world government' if it means that we go forward in our space programs

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:55:54 2011 No.2898987 >>2898980 Yeah the Anglican chaps.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:55:54 2011 No.2898990 >>2898957 >"Science exists to improve those things where we're not trapped in those feelings and wants." What? No. Science exists to find the truth. How we use that is up to us.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 19:56:54 2011 No.2898992

>>2898963

What does "collective" selfishness mean? Isnt that a contradiction?

>>2898974

Okay great, I think we are at an understanding.

I would value a conventional, or practical sense far far far more than any kind of philosophical sense. I dont think I am the only one to express this criticism, Ive read similar sentiment from Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:56:54 2011 No.2898993 >>2898990 Science is controlled by the elites.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:57:54 2011 No.2898994 >>2898982 They won't defend you from Muslims, they're old as fuck now. And having a moon base won't help, you haven't even got a way of getting there with out the Russians.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:57:54 2011 No.2898995 File: 447 KB, 1024x714, 3203075863_289d5c565c_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898992 consider a collective as an individual that would display selfish behaviour

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:58:54 2011 No.2898996 >>2898994 Bad pic. I meant scientists :)

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:58:54 2011 No.2898999

Fascism. People are afraid of a NWO, and feel that they are "free" under their current whatever. Look at Braveheart: the Scottish fighting to be "free" to live under their own autocrat. Even the US is, technically speaking, a confederation of 50 soveriegn nations (though that went south with the Civil War). As for the fundies, the only way to get rid of them is a Final Solution, which isn't exactly moral, despite the good it would do the world. And there will always be patriots: people out to do what they think is in everyone's best interest. We can't agree as to what is in everyone's best interest right now, so how do you think we will resolve these differences later? I believe that in an ideal society, people should be allowed to own guns that they will have no need for. Others believe that getting rid of the guns is a step towards that ideal society. Finally, most people fear large institutions that they have no control over: in the US, Democrats fear corporations that, they feel, are controlled by a few stakeholders, while Republicans fear the US government, that, they feel, is controlled by Democrats. Remember, the Arabs were, for a time, the most advanced civilization on Earth. Now they are too busy fighting amongst themselves over shit that no one cares about to be a world power. Will the NWO turn out the same?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:59:54 2011 No.2899001 >>2898987 How have you concluded they are all members of the protestant church?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 19:59:54 2011 No.2899003 >>2898992 Oh definitely. I agree too. However, I value philosophical truths because they are that: truths. A philosopher cannot live their entire life thinking in that way or he'd get incredibly depressed. They are human, after all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:02:54 2011 No.2899019 >>2898949 Urgh. You disgust me.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 20:02:54 2011 No.2899021

>>2898995

I dont think a collective can adequately replace an individual, and it if was in the collective interest, it would be... well.. collective interest.

>>2899003

>I value philosophical truths because they are that: truths.

Alright I got a new question. Does something true inherently making it worth discovering?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:03:54 2011 No.2899023 >>2899001 They WORK of a country that will promote Christian values. Their individual beliefs remain irrelevant. They are legally trained assassins.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:04:54 2011 No.2899027 >>2899021 It depends entirely on your perspective. I have an innate curiosity, and so have the desire to discover things. However, I respect that there may be reasons why it is worth not knowing something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:04:54 2011 No.2899030 >>2899023 If the UK started actively promoting Christian values more than in a very mild way there would be a massive uproar.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:06:54 2011 No.2899037 >>2899019 I was joking bro. >>2899021 Isn't that what countries are? We can see them as competing "individuals". One country -> One "individual" minding his life.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:09:54 2011 No.2899049

>>2899030
"David Livingstone maintained that one of his primary aims was to stamp out the 'trade of hell'. Indeed, he maintained that the bedrock of British liberal imperialism was 'commerce and Christianity' and that the two strands were inseparable."

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/evangelicalempire.htm

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 20:10:54 2011 No.2899054 >>2899027 Im curious too, but I think sometimes discovering information comes at an undesirable cost.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:10:54 2011 No.2899055 >>2899049 That's one person.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:11:54 2011 No.2899062 >>2899054 Sometimes it does. However, it's a risk that I'm happy to take.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 20:11:54 2011 No.2899066

>>2899037

No wouldnt define a country as an individual.

I see a lot of sciency types look at nations like that. I think its a really really bad way of seeing what a country is, because it views individuals as components in a group, whether or not they like the group or accept the behavior of the group.

From there you can lead to arguments for killing certain people, and inflicting certain policies upon everyone for the groups benefit.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Apr 16 20:12:54 2011 No.2899074 >>2899062 Okay, makes sense. Im glad we worked all this out. I would have expected to be called a fag at least 9 or 10 times by now. I appreciate this kind of conversation. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:12:54 2011 No.2899075 >>2899055 Oh, so you want a written statement signed by both houses of the Parliament?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:14:54 2011 No.2899080 >>2899074 I'm the same, bro. I must say I was relieved when you said you didn't know what we were talking about anymore, because I was getting lost myself by that point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:15:54 2011 No.2899088 >>2899075 Well of course they will say it. However, as I said before, I meant they only promote it in the mildest sense. They aren't doing any of this stuff like founding churches in Iraq like the Americans or anything like that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:16:54 2011 No.2899094 >>2899049 you could find something a little up to date

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:16:54 2011 No.2899095 File: 131 KB, 1800x1200, 1302964363761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2899074 Ad hominem never solves a thing, this is /sci/ after all. My hope was that you had been expecting a civilized discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:17:54 2011 No.2899103 >>2899088 Dunno. Indirectly perhaps. Follow the money :)

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:21:54 2011 No.2899126

>>2899095

Insults aren't ad hominem, my friend.

Insults are just that, insults.

Ad hominem is disregarding someone's argument because of an unrelated fact about that person. For example, because they are black or because their favourite colour is blue.

Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:24:54 2011 No.2899141
File: 42 KB, 400x400, 1300385530548.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Ad hominem is disregarding someone's argument because of an unrelated fact about that person.

> I would have expected to be called a fag at least 9 or 10 times by now.
> I would have expected to be called a fag
> to be called a fag
> a fag
> fag

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:24:54 2011 No.2899144 >>2899103 Maybe. I've got to say I hope not though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:26:54 2011 No.2899152 >>2899141 Calling him a fag is calling him a fag. That's not to say they think it's wrong solely because they think he's a fag. There's a key difference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:27:54 2011 No.2899159 >>2899152 By calling him a fag you would have discarded his arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:28:54 2011 No.2899163 >>2899159 Yes, but not for the reason that he is a fag.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:31:54 2011 No.2899176 >>2899163 Whatever dude.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 16 20:38:54 2011 No.2899212 File: 318 KB, 3000x2436, 1301955517749.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2898933 What's the bump limit on /sci/ ?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math