IntenseDebate - greengitters

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 0 replies · +1 points

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism

They said it better than I could. And it could be the definition of Stalin himself.

Your definition of socialism is right in what it says, but is incredibly over-simplified.

Iraq and Afghanistan had elections recently. They are democracies. That's it. Let's not look any further into it. They are democracies based on one tiny little facet, and we should all accept that.

What you're missing in your definition of socialism is that it advocates state control of production AND EQUAL DISTRIBUTION of its goods to its citizens. That's a big and extremely important part of the definition, and certainly, Stalin did not do this. He wasn't a socialist. He was a fascist.

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 2 replies · +1 points

I really do like the new system, but I have a couple of problems. First, I seem to have a limit on my postings (perhaps only on replies, I'm not sure), which is kind of annoying, and that's why I end up posting multiple times. You don't seem to have this limit. Is that because you are the site owner? Is there something I can change, or do I have to live with it? That's just minor, and I don't care that much.

My bigger problem is that anytime I view a page on this site, after a certain amount of time, (I would guess about five minutes), the page automatically reloads. Often, I'm in the middle of typing a comment, which I lose completely. Then I go a little berzerk. Does this make sense? Does it happen to anyone else, or only to me? It might just be on my end, but I have no idea what's causing it, and it's definately limited to Listverse.

Anyhow, I do love the new format. I think it's great!!

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 1 reply · +1 points

"If an infinite number of days existed before today, today would never come because one can never traverse the infinite." One does not traverse the universe, or exist over that infinite amount of time. It's a weird statement that tries to prove something, and comes nowhere close to doing so. It's like saying if time is infinite, then tomorrow will never come. But, of course, tomorrow will come. And the next day, and so on. (Understood that days rely on the earth's rotation, but you know what I mean). Just because infinite time means something might happen a long long long long time in the future, doesn't mean that that time will not come. This is the same for time before today. It's just harder to understand, because it's human nature to want to find a beginning to everything.

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 1 reply · +1 points

Everything you're saying is only a proof if one believes in god. The faith is necessarry to believe in the supposed proof you're providing. For example, "It cannot be true that there was an infinite number of days before today, therefore there had to be a beginning, and it had to be god created that beginning. See? Proof." I know that's a very dumbed down version of what you were saying, and I promise you that I mean no disrespect.

If the Big Crunch is a reality, and, admittedly, it is looking like it might not be, there is no reason to think that an infinite amount of time before today exists. I see no reason at all not to believe that. My mother, a long time ago, said to me, "It is easy to think of no ending, but it is hard to think of no beginning." She's right, and I think that's the problem you are having here. You refuse to believe that there is no beginning (except for god, who exists outside of all the rules, for which there is no explanation other than 'because he is god.'

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 5 replies · +1 points

I will finish by saying that I enjoy this. It is the respectful exchange of ideas, and not the disrespectful refutation of beliefs. I avoid religious argumens for the most part because (1) I don't believe that I have the right to try and change anyone's mind, and (2) I could never change anyone's mind with regards to their faith even if I wanted to. And I really, really don't want to.

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 5 replies · +1 points

WHOOAAAAA!!!! There is such a jump between (2) and (3). Why can there be no infinite cause/effect chains? This may be my ignorance now, but if there is a continual Big Bang/Big Crunch chain, then why does there have to be a beginning? And even if there was a beginning, why does it have to be initiated by a god?

Now, even if (2) and (3) are valid, which automatically makes (4) true, the jump to five is incredible.

If there is a first cause, then a god must have caused it?

Ok, let's assume that your description of god is that of anything that caused the Big Bang to happen. Because even if Aquinas is correct, it does not describe the Christian/Judeo god, but merely something, anything, that "caused" the Big Bang to happen. So if the energy that caused a Big Crunch alternatively caused a Big Bang, that would be god. So energy, or at least the initial, incomprehensible energy (and god is surely incomprehensible) is god. So god is energy, which makes sense, because he can neither be created or destroyed. I will accept this. I will not accept an assertion of a higher intelligence.

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 1 reply · +1 points

There is only one cause, really, that is in question, and that is what caused the Big Bang. We (atheists, or Big Bangists, if you prefer) don't know. We can fairly accurately assume what happened up to 10^-43 of the first second, but we don't know how to explain what happened before that (or how the four unified forces separated). The search is on for the GUT Theory, but we don't have it. We've gone far (well, not "we". I ain't gone nowhere. I've read some books. I have no idea how to get to Planck's time, much less before it), but we can't get to the beginning (yet). We say, "We don't know".

But believer's say:

(1) Some events cause other events.
(2) If an event happens, then it must be caused by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.
(4) So, there is a first, uncaused cause.
(5) Therefore God exists.

.

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 0 replies · +1 points

"Willful ignorance is evil regardless of the position one espouses as it goes against human nature. I am sure we both agree on that point if no others." Most certainly, sir, and that is why I've felt confident debating certain things with you. I believe you an intelligent man, and would not have stated my position on anything had I not believed that it would be received by someone intelligent enough to respect my opinion regardless of whether we were in agreeance or not.

Which we are not (once again:)) in reference to Aquinas.

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 1 reply · +1 points

I also agree that it is virtually impossible for Communism to exist in practice. I believe I've said it above. I think the faults of man (greed, corruptable, power hungry) prevent it from actually happening. That does not mean, however, that communism and socialism, in their most pure ideals, are not, in fact, something worth aspiring to. I certainly do not believe that Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao are the ultimate results of a true communist or socialist society. They are most certainly fascist leaders that took control of countries that lent themselves to such occurences. None of Germany, Russia, China, or any of their puppet governments ever came close (or attempted to come close) to socialist or communist societies.

To attain a leadership role, one must have a certain amount of a cutthroat persona. Nice guys truly do finish last. That said, it was unlikely that the one that would truly lead Russia, or Germany, etc. into the idealic socialist world would never achieve that great a power. This is perhaps the greatest weakness with socialism/communism.

Social democracy is the ideal I must aspire to for now. It is the best I can hope for.

13 years ago @ Listverse - 10 Stories Behind Beat... · 1 reply · +1 points

And you say that Stalin wasn't a fascist because he wished Russia to become a stateless society? See, this is you confusing actual socialism (or communism) with what it was that Soviet Russia did. Stalin didn't wish for a stateless society, no matter what he said, and the attrocities he committed within political circles proves that without a doubt. He had all political opponents killed or sent to Siberia, he approved to Five Year Plans which largely facilitated the non-socialist collectivization programs mentioned above, and he installed himself as supreme leader, despite, as you say, that "a communist state is leaderless." Stalin was most definately a right-wing thinker in that the extreme right of right wing is that of fascism, where power lies completely in the hands of one man, above all others. Stalin may have espoused communist (or socialist) ideas, but he was a fascist, and it's near ignorance of anyone to deny that.

So, you are merely assuming, since Stalin was leader of Russia, and since he state communist goals, that he had communist ideals. Obviously, this is not true. Stop confusing the two.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with greengitters

People I'm following

greengitters