Discussion:
What is the most dangerous false belief in the world today ?
(too old to reply)
Zardoz
2003-07-01 14:32:24 UTC
Permalink
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?

By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
h***@nospam.com
2003-07-01 16:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Christianity.

Hal




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-01 18:21:21 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@nospam.com
says...
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Christianity.
If you're going to take potshots at religions, Islam would be a more
appropriate target nowadays...
Dave O'Neill
2003-07-01 18:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
says...
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Christianity.
If you're going to take potshots at religions, Islam would be a more
appropriate target nowadays...
How about all formally structured religions?
Jack Linthicum
2003-07-01 21:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave O'Neill
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
says...
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Christianity.
If you're going to take potshots at religions, Islam would be a more
appropriate target nowadays...
How about all formally structured religions?
I mentioned Islam specifically because the original request referred to
"dangerous".
To cut the danger even finer it's the belief that your religion and
the belief in it somehow makes your actions (however gross) excusable.
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-01 22:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Dave O'Neill
How about all formally structured religions?
I mentioned Islam specifically because the original request referred to
"dangerous".
To cut the danger even finer it's the belief that your religion and
the belief in it somehow makes your actions (however gross) excusable.
Quite. I was guilty of sloppiness. I should have qualified that with
something like "The Wahabbi sect of Islam".
Saqib Virk
2003-07-02 15:56:35 UTC
Permalink
If Bush relly wants to bring peace to the Middle East he should put an end
to the racist nationalism by Christianising all the Jews and Muslims.
Neither Islam or Judaism preach peace, confession and repentance of sins, or
forgiveness.
SV
You are ignorant of Islam. You have no knowledge and are merely
repeating nonsense.

"But whoso repents after his transgression and amends, then will God
surely turn to him in mercy; verily, God is most Forgiving and
Merciful" [Quran 5:40]

"...and seek forgiveness from God; surely God is most forgiving,
Merciful" [Quran 2:220]

--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 16:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saqib Virk
If Bush relly wants to bring peace to the Middle East he should put an end
to the racist nationalism by Christianising all the Jews and Muslims.
Neither Islam or Judaism preach peace, confession and repentance of sins, or
forgiveness.
SV
You are ignorant of Islam. You have no knowledge and are merely
repeating nonsense.
"But whoso repents after his transgression and amends, then will God
surely turn to him in mercy; verily, God is most Forgiving and
Merciful" [Quran 5:40]
God. What has this got to do with god ?

I am talking about man forgiving his fellow men. Where does the Koran tell
you to unconditionally forgive people who have sinned against you. Where
does its say turn the other cheek. In fact is expressly say the opposite.
Don't forgive and seek revenge not justice.
Post by Saqib Virk
"...and seek forgiveness from God; surely God is most forgiving,
Merciful" [Quran 2:220]
Only if you submit to Mohammed.
Post by Saqib Virk
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
efishta
2003-07-01 23:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave O'Neill
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
says...
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Christianity.
If you're going to take potshots at religions, Islam would be a more
appropriate target nowadays...
How about all formally structured religions?
I mentioned Islam specifically because the original request referred to
"dangerous".
Yes, because right wing religious groups aren't dangerous at all, right?
Anti-Choice groups? Also the reason why Emergency Contraceptives are hard to
find! - Note I'm not even implicating them in politics, but rather just
women's rights.
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-02 00:08:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <QOmdnX7UY4bovZ-***@comcast.com>, ***@sorrydude.com
says...
Post by efishta
I mentioned Islam specifically because the original request referred to
"dangerous".
Yes, because right wing religious groups aren't dangerous at all, right?
Anti-Choice groups? Also the reason why Emergency Contraceptives are hard to
find! - Note I'm not even implicating them in politics, but rather just
women's rights.
dangerous? sure, some right-wing prolife nut occasionally shoots an
abortion doctor. as opposed to the 3000 people killed by wahabbis on
9/11? and that's only one incident. what part of "most" didn't you
understand?
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 00:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave O'Neill
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
says...
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Christianity.
If you're going to take potshots at religions, Islam would be a more
appropriate target nowadays...
How about all formally structured religions?
I suggest you read the Koran before you make stupid statements like that.

The Koran tells Muslims to hate all Jews, Christians and Polytheists for no
good reason just because they did not submit to Mohammed and to violate and
disobey the laws of the country they reside in both common and statutory
just because Mohammed did not manage to conquer it. It condones racism,
intolerance, slavery, kidnapping, and child marriage. It tells Muslims to
kill instead of make peace. It is demeaning to women. It tells Muslims to
seek revenge instead of seeking justice and forgiveness and it elevates a
bandit, mass murderer and sinner who never repented of his sins to the
status of being a prophet of god. If the Koran had been publish today for
the first time it would be banned from circulation for incitement to
terrorism, religious hatred and racism.

On the Channel 4 news on Sunday there was an item where a father whose
daughter had been murdered by the Jews in Palestine said that he forgave the
Jewish murderers for their crimes. Instantly I know this person was a
Christian and could not possibly be a Muslim because forgiveness in not part
of the Muslim or the Jewish religions. The camera then cut to an icon of
Christ which proved me right.
Fabian
2003-07-02 07:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
On the Channel 4 news on Sunday there was an item where a father whose
daughter had been murdered by the Jews in Palestine said that he forgave the
Jewish murderers for their crimes. Instantly I know this person was a
Christian and could not possibly be a Muslim because forgiveness in not part
of the Muslim or the Jewish religions. The camera then cut to an icon of
Christ which proved me right.
If you believe Christianity only has a forgiving side, better read
Leviticus and see what it says about how to treat your neighbours. Islam
and Judaism, and Christianity, all have forgiving and harsh aspects. It
is teh religious leaders, and politicians inspired by those religions,
that present the face of religion commonly seen by us.


--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 15:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
On the Channel 4 news on Sunday there was an item where a father whose
daughter had been murdered by the Jews in Palestine said that he
forgave the
Post by Agamemnon
Jewish murderers for their crimes. Instantly I know this person was a
Christian and could not possibly be a Muslim because forgiveness in
not part
Post by Agamemnon
of the Muslim or the Jewish religions. The camera then cut to an icon
of
Post by Agamemnon
Christ which proved me right.
If you believe Christianity only has a forgiving side, better read
Leviticus and see what it says about how to treat your neighbours.
Isn't that the one where you are supposed to slaughter a certain number of
sheep or cows for you crimes.That does not amount to confession of sin or
forgiveness because Christ taught forgiveness without sacrifice.

Islam
Post by Agamemnon
and Judaism, and Christianity, all have forgiving and harsh aspects. It
You better read the Koran. Islam has noting of the kind. If they follow
Allah and recognise Mohammed as his only prophet then forgive them (for
being Christians, Pagans or Jews) is what the Koran says, otherwise
slaughter them.Is that what you think is acceptable.
Post by Agamemnon
is teh religious leaders, and politicians inspired by those religions,
that present the face of religion commonly seen by us.
--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-02 15:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
On the Channel 4 news on Sunday there was an item where a father whose
daughter had been murdered by the Jews in Palestine said that he
forgave the
Post by Agamemnon
Jewish murderers for their crimes. Instantly I know this person was a
Christian and could not possibly be a Muslim because forgiveness in
not part
Post by Agamemnon
of the Muslim or the Jewish religions. The camera then cut to an icon
of
Post by Agamemnon
Christ which proved me right.
If you believe Christianity only has a forgiving side, better read
Leviticus and see what it says about how to treat your neighbours. Islam
and Judaism, and Christianity, all have forgiving and harsh aspects. It
is teh religious leaders, and politicians inspired by those religions,
that present the face of religion commonly seen by us.
If you want to get picky, you really shouldn't be selecting from the Old
Testament, as that predates Christ by a good long while.
Fabian
2003-07-03 07:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
If you want to get picky, you really shouldn't be selecting from the Old
Testament, as that predates Christ by a good long while.
OT does indeed predate Christ, but seeing as it is universally
acknowledged as Canon by all major Christian groups, you can't really
ignore it in any serious commentary on Christianity.


--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Agamemnon
2003-07-03 16:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
If you want to get picky, you really shouldn't be selecting from the
Old
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Testament, as that predates Christ by a good long while.
OT does indeed predate Christ, but seeing as it is universally
acknowledged as Canon by all major Christian groups, you can't really
ignore it in any serious commentary on Christianity.
The OT was overruled by Christ who negated all of it except for 2
commandments. Respect your parents and God. Christians do not have to
sacrifice sheep to be admonished of their sins. All they have to do is
repent which is a act of mind and means mote than killing a sheep if you
have thousands in your flock. Christians do not have to engage in the
barbaric act of circumcision to show their faith either.
Post by Fabian
--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Agamemnon
2003-07-04 16:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
The OT was overruled by Christ who negated all of it except for 2
commandments. Respect your parents and God. Christians do not have to
sacrifice sheep to be admonished of their sins. All they have to do is
repent which is a act of mind and means mote than killing a sheep if
you
Post by Agamemnon
have thousands in your flock. Christians do not have to engage in the
barbaric act of circumcision to show their faith either.
Im curious now. Can you show me teh NT line where Jesus says the OT is
bollocks?
Read the NT and you will see it is written everywhere.
--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Fabian
2003-07-04 23:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
The OT was overruled by Christ who negated all of it except for 2
commandments. Respect your parents and God. Christians do not have to
sacrifice sheep to be admonished of their sins. All they have to do is
repent which is a act of mind and means mote than killing a sheep if
you
Post by Agamemnon
have thousands in your flock. Christians do not have to engage in the
barbaric act of circumcision to show their faith either.
Im curious now. Can you show me teh NT line where Jesus says the OT is
bollocks?
Read the NT and you will see it is written everywhere.
The NT is rather big. Since you say it is written everywhere, I'll
believe you if you can cite a mere five lines, including chapter and
verse.


--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Agamemnon
2003-07-05 03:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
The OT was overruled by Christ who negated all of it except for 2
commandments. Respect your parents and God. Christians do not have
to
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
sacrifice sheep to be admonished of their sins. All they have to
do is
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
repent which is a act of mind and means mote than killing a sheep
if
Post by Agamemnon
you
Post by Agamemnon
have thousands in your flock. Christians do not have to engage in
the
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
barbaric act of circumcision to show their faith either.
Im curious now. Can you show me teh NT line where Jesus says the OT
is
Post by Agamemnon
bollocks?
Read the NT and you will see it is written everywhere.
The NT is rather big. Since you say it is written everywhere, I'll
believe you if you can cite a mere five lines, including chapter and
verse.
Christ says in more that five lines. Read the whole thing.
Post by Fabian
--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
James A. Donald
2003-07-03 17:00:47 UTC
Permalink
--
Post by Fabian
OT does indeed predate Christ, but seeing as it is
universally acknowledged as Canon by all major Christian
groups, you can't really ignore it in any serious commentary
on Christianity.
Christians have license from Jesus, Paul, and Peter to
disregard any parts of the Old Testament they do not like.

Jews, of course, have no such license, but it does not seem to
stop them.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
986X54eyvUR242i0IlZJhZYDbDhjkQjqnn4HtO4h
4gpi2x+qcYOLQNKQZzi9BDmsaiOEfN8rpNANgCEdr
Saqib Virk
2003-07-02 18:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dave O'Neill
How about all formally structured religions?
I suggest you read the Koran before you make stupid statements like that.
SV
Good suggestion. It is ovious you have not followed your own advice.
Post by Agamemnon
The Koran tells Muslims to hate all Jews, Christians and Polytheists for no
good reason just because they did not submit to Mohammed and to violate and
disobey the laws of the country they reside in both common and statutory
just because Mohammed did not manage to conquer it.
SV
Really? Odd that in all my years of studying the Quran I have never
seen such things. In fact Islam teaches the opposite of your ravings.
Post by Agamemnon
On the Channel 4 news on Sunday there was an item where a father whose
daughter had been murdered by the Jews in Palestine said that he forgave the
Jewish murderers for their crimes. Instantly I know this person was a
Christian and could not possibly be a Muslim because forgiveness in not part
of the Muslim or the Jewish religions. The camera then cut to an icon of
Christ which proved me right.
SV

"Remember that the recompense of an injury is an injury the like
thereof; but whoso forgives and thereby brings about an improvement,
his reward is with God. Surely, HE loves not the wrongdoers. There is
no blame on those who defend themselves after they have been wronged.
The blame is only on those who wrong men and transgress in the earth
without justification. Such will have a grievous punishment. And he
who is patient and forgives - that, surely, is a matter of high
resolve." [Quran 42:40-43]

--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 20:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saqib Virk
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dave O'Neill
How about all formally structured religions?
I suggest you read the Koran before you make stupid statements like that.
SV
Good suggestion. It is ovious you have not followed your own advice.
Post by Agamemnon
The Koran tells Muslims to hate all Jews, Christians and Polytheists for no
good reason just because they did not submit to Mohammed and to violate and
disobey the laws of the country they reside in both common and statutory
just because Mohammed did not manage to conquer it.
SV
Really? Odd that in all my years of studying the Quran I have never
seen such things. In fact Islam teaches the opposite of your ravings.
Post by Agamemnon
On the Channel 4 news on Sunday there was an item where a father whose
daughter had been murdered by the Jews in Palestine said that he forgave the
Jewish murderers for their crimes. Instantly I know this person was a
Christian and could not possibly be a Muslim because forgiveness in not part
of the Muslim or the Jewish religions. The camera then cut to an icon of
Christ which proved me right.
SV
"Remember that the recompense of an injury is an injury the like
thereof; but whoso forgives and thereby brings about an improvement,
No turn the other cheek then.
Post by Saqib Virk
his reward is with God. Surely, HE loves not the wrongdoers. There is
no blame on those who defend themselves after they have been wronged.
The blame is only on those who wrong men and transgress in the earth
without justification. Such will have a grievous punishment. And he
who is patient and forgives - that, surely, is a matter of high
resolve." [Quran 42:40-43]
They why didn't Mohammed set an example.
Post by Saqib Virk
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Saqib Virk
2003-07-02 15:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave O'Neill
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by h***@nospam.com
Christianity.
If you're going to take potshots at religions, Islam would be a more
appropriate target nowadays...
How about all formally structured religions?
SV
How about almost any ideology people believe strongly in? Nazism,
Communism, American Patriotism; all non-religions.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Thomas Curmudgeon
2003-07-02 17:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
says...
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Christianity.
If you're going to take potshots at religions, Islam would be a more
appropriate target nowadays...
How about this ... all religions which are based upon the worship of the
god of Abraham. That would be Christain, Muslim and Jewish.

They create almost all the troubles in the world, at least those which
effect us, and generally are conflicts "in the name" of the same god.
Steve Hayes
2003-07-03 04:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Curmudgeon
How about this ... all religions which are based upon the worship of the
god of Abraham. That would be Christain, Muslim and Jewish.
They create almost all the troubles in the world, at least those which
effect us, and generally are conflicts "in the name" of the same god.
That is a very succinct statement of the most dangerous false belief in the
world.




Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Fabian
2003-07-04 07:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Christians worship Jesus Christ as their God. The god of Abraham was
the
Pharaoh of Egypt, in fact two of them. Tutmeses IV was the god of
Abram and
Abrahams god was Amenhotep III. That's the reason for the name change.
What's your PoD?


--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Agamemnon
2003-07-04 16:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
Christians worship Jesus Christ as their God. The god of Abraham was
the
Pharaoh of Egypt, in fact two of them. Tutmeses IV was the god of
Abram and
Abrahams god was Amenhotep III. That's the reason for the name change.
correction Amenhotep II
Post by Fabian
What's your PoD?
My what ?
Post by Fabian
--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Agamemnon
2003-07-04 16:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
Christians worship Jesus Christ as their God. The god of Abraham was
the
Pharaoh of Egypt, in fact two of them. Tutmeses IV was the god of
Abram and
Abrahams god was Amenhotep III. That's the reason for the name change.
What's your PoD?
My what ?
Post by Fabian
--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Fabian
2003-07-04 23:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Fabian
What's your PoD?
My what ?
point of departure. You might want to check which newsgroups you are
trolling in. Some have group-specific terms. I just enjoying playing
with guys who live under bridges.


--
--
Fabian
There is a force that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.
Joseph K.
2003-07-01 19:22:15 UTC
Permalink
--
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and
dangerous false belief in today's world?
Christianity.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of the
people for their God.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max Stirner,
convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to the core, demanding
from the individual to follow the example of the founder and sacrifice
him/herself for an idea, thus deeply influencing political ideologies
to become paradigms of collectivist irrationalism.

Joseph K.
Matt
2003-07-02 04:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of
the people for their God.
Joseph K.
Post by Joseph K.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max
Stirner, convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to
the core
OK.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
how about taosim?
--
Matt
Constantinople
2003-07-02 06:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of
the people for their God.
Joseph K.
Post by Joseph K.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max
Stirner, convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to
the core
OK.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
how about taosim?
Constantinopolism is pretty harmless. Donations through paypal to
***@yahoo.com. Give to me, I'm harmless.
michael price
2003-07-02 10:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constantinople
Post by Matt
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of
the people for their God.
Joseph K.
Post by Joseph K.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max
Stirner, convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to
the core
OK.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
how about taosim?
Constantinopolism is pretty harmless. Donations through paypal to
Or you'll all burn in HELL!!!
Constantinople
2003-07-02 15:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by michael price
Post by Constantinople
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 03:28 GMT, James A. Donald
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of
the people for their God.
Joseph K.
Post by Joseph K.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max
Stirner, convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to
the core
OK.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
how about taosim?
Constantinopolism is pretty harmless. Donations through paypal to
Or you'll all burn in HELL!!!
There is no Con but Con and Michael will get half of the proceeds. Hey
man.
michael price
2003-07-04 06:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constantinople
Post by michael price
Post by Constantinople
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 03:28 GMT, James A. Donald
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of
the people for their God.
Joseph K.
Post by Joseph K.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max
Stirner, convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to
the core
OK.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
how about taosim?
Constantinopolism is pretty harmless. Donations through paypal to
Or you'll all burn in HELL!!!
There is no Con but Con and Michael will get half of the proceeds. Hey
man.
So this is a prophet-making venture?
Matt
2003-07-02 16:36:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 06:10 GMT, Constantinople
Post by Constantinople
Post by Matt
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of
the people for their God.
Joseph K.
Post by Joseph K.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max
Stirner, convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to
the core
OK.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
how about taosim?
Constantinopolism is pretty harmless. Donations through paypal to
I'm only in the market for a religion that promises many virgins after
death (before death would be nice, as well). My god needs to bribe me
with sexual favors. How many virgins does Constantinoplism promise?
--
Matt
Constantinople
2003-07-02 17:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 06:10 GMT, Constantinople
Post by Constantinople
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 03:28 GMT, James A. Donald
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of
the people for their God.
Joseph K.
Post by Joseph K.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max
Stirner, convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to
the core
OK.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
how about taosim?
Constantinopolism is pretty harmless. Donations through paypal to
I'm only in the market for a religion that promises many virgins after
death (before death would be nice, as well). My god needs to bribe me
with sexual favors. How many virgins does Constantinoplism promise?
I have a virgin-matching policy. If a competitor offers virgins, I will
double that. However, virgins are non-returnable after you have broken
the seal.
Matt
2003-07-02 22:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constantinople
Post by Matt
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 06:10 GMT, Constantinople
Post by Constantinople
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 at 03:28 GMT, James A. Donald
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of
the people for their God.
Joseph K.
Post by Joseph K.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max
Stirner, convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to
the core
OK.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
how about taosim?
Constantinopolism is pretty harmless. Donations through paypal to
I'm only in the market for a religion that promises many virgins after
death (before death would be nice, as well). My god needs to bribe me
with sexual favors. How many virgins does Constantinoplism promise?
I have a virgin-matching policy. If a competitor offers virgins, I will
double that. However, virgins are non-returnable after you have broken
the seal.
:-)
--
Matt
mikel
2003-07-02 14:58:41 UTC
Permalink
--
Post by Matt
Post by Joseph K.
Christianity is the least evil of religions.
Matt
Post by Matt
how about taosim?
OK, I guess taoism is less less evil Christianity, being free
from either gods or sacrifice.
Philosophical Taoism doesn't, but Philosophical Taoism isn't really a
religion; it's more like a framework for contemplative
philosophies. Everyday Taoism, one of the three practical religions of
lots of Chinese, has more gods and sacrifices than you can shake a
stick at. It has an entire bureacracy of gods (shared with
Confucianism), at least one for every possible thing a human being can
do. These gods all have offices in a giant celestial government, which
includes an office for the Emperor. That's maybe not quite so
harmless.

Buddhism is relatively harmless, though in its most harmless form it's
arguably not a religion, but something more like a program of
psychological treatment. It has gods, but ask any educated monk and
he'l explain that the 'gods' are just metaphorical representations of
various psychological states. It doesn't necessarily involve any
beliefs at all, apart from the belief that certain disciplines are
likely to reduce suffering. There haven't been a lot of great and
bloody Buddhist crusades and inquisitions; the best known example of a
Buddhist conqueror is Asoka, who stopped conquering shortly after
converting to Buddhism.
However, around these parts we do not have many taoists, and
one of the largest religions is the state sponsored religion of
environmentalism.
Fair enough.
James A. Donald
2003-07-02 16:54:47 UTC
Permalink
--
mikel
Post by mikel
Buddhism is relatively harmless, though in its most harmless
form it's arguably not a religion, but something more like a
program of psychological treatment. It has gods, but ask any
educated monk and he'l explain that the 'gods' are just
metaphorical representations of various psychological states.
It doesn't necessarily involve any beliefs at all, apart from
the belief that certain disciplines are likely to reduce
suffering. There haven't been a lot of great and bloody
Buddhist crusades and inquisitions
Burma and Ceylon have something that could arguably be
described as a Buddist inquisition. In Burma non Buddists are
apt to be enslaved and worked without food or rest, just as in
the Sudan non Muslims are.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
K5izXly6qDjbj+qsZ7+DMPiFgr26rJc76dGwfJJq
4pxudKfMmXCfQLhKobVyC1Qi9FNd3ToImVBfYolCC
Saqib Virk
2003-07-02 18:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Christ was murdered by his own people because he demanded an end to
hypocrisy, peace and respect for the law. Christ was a pacifist which
something unknown to Islam and Judaism. Christ preached a message of
repentance and forgiveness which is something unknown to both Islam and
Judaism.
SV
Tell me who was the man that raged into the Temple, knocking over
tables of good merchants and whipping poor folk trying to make a
living? Preaching peace on one hand and going about beating innocent
people on the other?
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 20:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saqib Virk
Christ was murdered by his own people because he demanded an end to
hypocrisy, peace and respect for the law. Christ was a pacifist which
something unknown to Islam and Judaism. Christ preached a message of
repentance and forgiveness which is something unknown to both Islam and
Judaism.
SV
Tell me who was the man that raged into the Temple, knocking over
tables of good merchants and whipping poor folk trying to make a
living? Preaching peace on one hand and going about beating innocent
people on the other?
The temple was being violated by the money lenders. Christ was clearing it
of sinners. So I repeat cite just one example where Christ sinned against
God.
Post by Saqib Virk
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
michael price
2003-07-03 01:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph K.
--
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and
dangerous false belief in today's world?
Christianity.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of the
people for their God.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max Stirner,
convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to the core, demanding
And Max Stirner would be Jewish right.
And that has what to do with his arguments?
He was a Zionist anti-Christian. Thanks to him over 40,000 Orthodox
Christians were put to death.
Bullshit. Max Stirner was never in a position to put anyone to death.
Post by Joseph K.
from the individual to follow the example of the founder and sacrifice
him/herself for an idea, thus deeply influencing political ideologies
Christ was murdered by his own people because he demanded an end to
hypocrisy, peace and respect for the law.
Ok, I'm going to assume that you meant he demanded peace, respect for
the law and an end to hypocrisy rather than an end to peace, repect for
the law and hypocrisy. Then why did he say he brought not peace but a
sword? Christianity can and has be used to promote peace or war.
Christ meant that following him would me families would be torn apart.
Then why did he say he brought not peace but a sword? Sounds warlike to
me. The idea that Christianity is a "peaceful" religion relies on a selective
reading of the text. But then so do all ideas of it.
Christ was a pacifist which something unknown to Islam and Judaism.
Well he didn't fancy going up against the Roman Empire sure, but the
evidence of his pacifism is questionable. In any case that doesn't mean
Wrong. Tell me of just one instance where Christ commits as sin against God
in the New Testament ?
And what does committing sins agaist God have to do with pacifism? In any
case surely his "My father, my father why have you foresaken me?" on the cross
is blasphemous?
his message, either original or as distorted by others isn't evil.
Christ preached a message of repentance and forgiveness which is
something unknown to both Islam and Judaism.
Actually repentance is part of Judaism as I understand it as is
forgiveness.
Only on condition. Christ forgave and sought repentance without conditions.
So you were wrong. Repentance is not something unknown to Judaism. Fine
nice to see you admit it. As for unconditional repentance I don't see that
as neccesarily a good thing.
It is because of the racist nationalism of Islam and Judaism that the
middle
east is son unstable and why half the population of Africa and Asia are
starving.
Because it was so stable and peaceful when the Christians had it.
Hardly anyone was gassed or machine gunned.
They were perfectly peaceful and thriving before Mohammed started his
internecine trade war against his own family which resulted in the creation
of Islam as a form of Arab Nationalism.
And the Christians did not rule the Arab Peninsula at the time. When they
finally did after WW1 there was quite a lot of gassing and machine gunning.
Post by Joseph K.
to become paradigms of collectivist irrationalism.
Joseph K.
Agamemnon
2003-07-03 01:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by michael price
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:19:30 GMT, James A. Donald
--
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and
dangerous false belief in today's world?
Christianity.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of the
people for their God.
The ramarkable individualist philosopher and anarchist, Max Stirner,
convincingly argued that Christianity was evil to the core, demanding
And Max Stirner would be Jewish right.
And that has what to do with his arguments?
He was a Zionist anti-Christian. Thanks to him over 40,000 Orthodox
Christians were put to death.
Bullshit. Max Stirner was never in a position to put anyone to death.
I was referring to Zionism.
Post by michael price
from the individual to follow the example of the founder and sacrifice
him/herself for an idea, thus deeply influencing political ideologies
Christ was murdered by his own people because he demanded an end to
hypocrisy, peace and respect for the law.
Ok, I'm going to assume that you meant he demanded peace, respect for
the law and an end to hypocrisy rather than an end to peace, repect for
the law and hypocrisy. Then why did he say he brought not peace but a
sword? Christianity can and has be used to promote peace or war.
Christ meant that following him would me families would be torn apart.
Then why did he say he brought not peace but a sword? Sounds warlike to
me. The idea that Christianity is a "peaceful" religion relies on a selective
reading of the text. But then so do all ideas of it.
POPPYCOCK. Read the New Testament. Christ was a pacifist. Turn the other
cheek. Make your swords into ploughshears.
Post by michael price
Christ was a pacifist which something unknown to Islam and Judaism.
Well he didn't fancy going up against the Roman Empire sure, but the
evidence of his pacifism is questionable. In any case that doesn't mean
Wrong. Tell me of just one instance where Christ commits as sin against God
in the New Testament ?
And what does committing sins agaist God have to do with pacifism? In any
case surely his "My father, my father why have you foresaken me?" on the cross
is blasphemous?
POPPYCOCK. Christ WAS God. God cannot blaspheme against himself.
Post by michael price
his message, either original or as distorted by others isn't evil.
Christ preached a message of repentance and forgiveness which is
something unknown to both Islam and Judaism.
Actually repentance is part of Judaism as I understand it as is
forgiveness.
Only on condition. Christ forgave and sought repentance without conditions.
So you were wrong. Repentance is not something unknown to Judaism.
Fine
Post by michael price
nice to see you admit it. As for unconditional repentance I don't see that
as neccesarily a good thing.
Then you are clearly not a Christian.
Post by michael price
It is because of the racist nationalism of Islam and Judaism that the
middle
east is son unstable and why half the population of Africa and Asia are
starving.
Because it was so stable and peaceful when the Christians had it.
Hardly anyone was gassed or machine gunned.
They were perfectly peaceful and thriving before Mohammed started his
internecine trade war against his own family which resulted in the creation
of Islam as a form of Arab Nationalism.
And the Christians did not rule the Arab Peninsula at the time. When they
finally did after WW1 there was quite a lot of gassing and machine gunning.
POPPYCOCK. The Byzantine Empire was Christian and ruled the middle east all
the way to India.
Post by michael price
to become paradigms of collectivist irrationalism.
Joseph K.
Bart
2003-07-01 21:47:41 UTC
Permalink
--
Post by h***@nospam.com
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and
dangerous false belief in today's world?
Christianity.
Christianity is the most harmless of religions, for in
christianity God is sacrificed for his people, instead of the
people for their God.
The various replacements for Christianity, notably "ecology"
are far more dangerous, for in ecology, as in the old volcano
god and Aztec sun god religions, the word is that the Sun god
will not rise tomorrow unless human sacrifices are provided,
and I, as the Sun God's earthly representative, get to select
who gets sacrificed.
Yes, there is going to be an eco catastrophe unless you all
start doing what I tell you, and punishing those ignorant
sinners who will bring catastrophe on us all my defying my holy
word. The number of species is diminishing at an enormous
rate, and if it declines to a certain critical level, the sun
will not rise.
--digsig
James A. Donald
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history newsgroup? How
about Crusades, conquest of the new world, inquisition, reformation,
slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is that? Innocent playfullness?
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-01 22:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history newsgroup? How
about Crusades, conquest of the new world, inquisition, reformation,
slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is that? Innocent playfullness?
Uh, hello? The original request was for "... in today's world." To my
knowledge, the Crusades, Inquisition, etc have been over and done for a
good long while. And how in the heck do you blame christianity for
slavery?
efishta
2003-07-02 00:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Bart
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history newsgroup? How
about Crusades, conquest of the new world, inquisition, reformation,
slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is that? Innocent playfullness?
Uh, hello? The original request was for "... in today's world." To my
knowledge, the Crusades, Inquisition, etc have been over and done for a
good long while. And how in the heck do you blame christianity for
slavery?
Because people were told that the Bible supported slavery (and for that
matter, also the concept of women as property). That enough for you?
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-02 00:09:35 UTC
Permalink
In article <qcWcnUqwFvGEvJ-***@comcast.com>, ***@sorrydude.com
says...
Post by efishta
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Bart
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history newsgroup?
How
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Bart
about Crusades, conquest of the new world, inquisition, reformation,
slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is that? Innocent playfullness?
Uh, hello? The original request was for "... in today's world." To my
knowledge, the Crusades, Inquisition, etc have been over and done for a
good long while. And how in the heck do you blame christianity for
slavery?
Because people were told that the Bible supported slavery (and for that
matter, also the concept of women as property). That enough for you?
Back when christianity supported slavery, so did everyone else,
including Islam. Next try, please?
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-02 15:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Back when christianity supported slavery, so did everyone else,
including Islam. Next try, please?
I think you missed the point here. This thread was about Christianity being
harmless. You can hardly call condoning slavery harmless, can you?
I'm not the one missing the point here. Whatever was written in the Old
Testament millenia ago hardly applies to the current practice of
Christianity, which does NOT condone slavery.
Woodard R. Springstube
2003-07-02 16:03:22 UTC
Permalink
What is the most dangerous belief in the world? The most
dangerous belief in the world is the belief that we can create a
utopia. Any and all forms of utopianism, when coupled with the
belief that "the ends justify the means" are likely to result in
mass murder.

From this, we can conclude that it is irrelevant whether the
utopians are the Taliban or Christian Fundamentalists or right-
wingers or left-wingers or Marxists or Trotskyites or socialists
or fascists or Nazis or whatever. All that is needed is for
some group to decide that they have the answers to all of the
world's problems and then try to impose those answers on
everybody else by force.

Furthermore, any ideology or belief system can be co-opted by
the greedy for selfish purposes. Does anybody really believe
that the Spaniards who conquered Mexico were really motivated by
a desire to spread Christianity as much as by the desire to grab
the natives' gold for themselves? Remember that one Spaniard
told a native chief that the Spaniards had a disease that could
only be cured by gold. The Fourth Crusade, ostensibly to free
the Holy Land from the Muslims, was diverted against the
Byzantine Empire by the Doge of Venice. The goal of looting
Byzantium was what was paramount--not the ostensible
justification. By the way, the bronze horses in front of St.
Marks in Venice are just a tiny part of the loot taken from
Byzantium. Time and time again, throughout history, the greedy
and brutal have used whatever was the popular belief of the day
to justify the thefts that those particular pirates had already
decided to commit.
Joseph K.
2003-07-02 18:37:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:22 GMT, "Woodard R. Springstube"
Post by Woodard R. Springstube
What is the most dangerous belief in the world? The most
dangerous belief in the world is the belief that we can create a
utopia. Any and all forms of utopianism, when coupled with the
belief that "the ends justify the means" are likely to result in
mass murder.
From this, we can conclude that it is irrelevant whether the
utopians are the Taliban or Christian Fundamentalists or right-
wingers or left-wingers or Marxists or Trotskyites or socialists
or fascists or Nazis or whatever. All that is needed is for
some group to decide that they have the answers to all of the
world's problems and then try to impose those answers on
everybody else by force.
I find it remarkable that you didn't mention the most relevant of all
utopias, the utopia that has been realized and is expanding and aim to
rule over the whole world: liberal democracy.

Joseph K.
Woodard R. Springstube
2003-07-03 01:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph K.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:22 GMT, "Woodard R. Springstube"
Post by Woodard R. Springstube
What is the most dangerous belief in the world? The most
dangerous belief in the world is the belief that we can
create a utopia. Any and all forms of utopianism, when
coupled with the belief that "the ends justify the means"
are likely to result in mass murder.
From this, we can conclude that it is irrelevant whether
the utopians are the Taliban or Christian Fundamentalists
or right- wingers or left-wingers or Marxists or
Trotskyites or socialists or fascists or Nazis or whatever.
All that is needed is for some group to decide that they
have the answers to all of the world's problems and then
try to impose those answers on everybody else by force.
I find it remarkable that you didn't mention the most
relevant of all utopias, the utopia that has been realized
liberal democracy.
Joseph K.
You are right. Too many people wave the word democracy around
as if that were the cure for all of the world's ills. We
should remind ourselves that, if put to a vote, Galileo might
have been burned at the stake instead of merely imprisoned for
publishng his work. Democracy is too easily coopted by
demogogues. I, myself, have a problem with liberal democracy
as opposed to a a liberal republic of limited powers. On the
whole, I favor the republic of limited powers. The reason
involves the pragmatic recognition that an excess of power,
concentrated in too few hands, usually results in an abuse
occuring sooner or later--usually sooner. The problem is how,
under a republic of limited powers, to keep too much power
from flowing into the hands of a few private individuals.
And, there is the key; power must be kept diffused. With the
great economic power of some being counter-balanced by
political power in other hands. For that reason, I am willing
to see even a limited republic vested with some fairly strong
anti-trust legislation.
Steve Hayes
2003-07-02 17:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Back when christianity supported slavery, so did everyone else,
including Islam. Next try, please?
I think you missed the point here. This thread was about Christianity being
harmless. You can hardly call condoning slavery harmless, can you?
This thread is about what is the most dangerous false belief in the world.


Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Dan Clore
2003-07-03 20:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Bart
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history newsgroup? How
about Crusades, conquest of the new world, inquisition, reformation,
slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is that? Innocent playfullness?
Uh, hello? The original request was for "... in today's world." To my
knowledge, the Crusades, Inquisition, etc have been over and done for a
good long while. And how in the heck do you blame christianity for
slavery?
For a good while the major moral justification for slavery
was the conversion of the poor benighted heathens to
Christianity. We can't let them pagans go to Hell, no can
we?
--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Constantinople
2003-07-03 20:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Clore
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Bart
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history
newsgroup? How about Crusades, conquest of the new world,
inquisition, reformation, slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is that?
Innocent playfullness?
Uh, hello? The original request was for "... in today's world." To
my knowledge, the Crusades, Inquisition, etc have been over and done
for a good long while. And how in the heck do you blame christianity
for slavery?
For a good while the major moral justification for slavery
was the conversion of the poor benighted heathens to
Christianity. We can't let them pagans go to Hell, no can
we?
But it's silly to blame rationalizations for the rationalized evils.
Chomsky and others rationalized the 9/11 bombings as an attempt by people
to free themselves from US evil. Shall we, then, blame the concept of
freedom for the murders of 9/11? Because it was used in the rationalization
of it?

Answer: no.
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-03 20:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constantinople
Post by Dan Clore
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Bart
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history
newsgroup? How about Crusades, conquest of the new world,
inquisition, reformation, slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is that?
Innocent playfullness?
Uh, hello? The original request was for "... in today's world." To
my knowledge, the Crusades, Inquisition, etc have been over and done
for a good long while. And how in the heck do you blame christianity
for slavery?
For a good while the major moral justification for slavery
was the conversion of the poor benighted heathens to
Christianity. We can't let them pagans go to Hell, no can
we?
But it's silly to blame rationalizations for the rationalized evils.
Chomsky and others rationalized the 9/11 bombings as an attempt by people
to free themselves from US evil.
About to the same extent that Dan Clore has just rationalized slavery by
pointing out that one of the reasons it was done was Christian conversion.
Constantinople
2003-07-03 21:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Constantinople
Post by Dan Clore
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Bart
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history
newsgroup? How about Crusades, conquest of the new world,
inquisition, reformation, slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is
that? Innocent playfullness?
Uh, hello? The original request was for "... in today's world."
To my knowledge, the Crusades, Inquisition, etc have been over and
done for a good long while. And how in the heck do you blame
christianity for slavery?
For a good while the major moral justification for slavery
was the conversion of the poor benighted heathens to
Christianity. We can't let them pagans go to Hell, no can
we?
But it's silly to blame rationalizations for the rationalized evils.
Chomsky and others rationalized the 9/11 bombings as an attempt by
people to free themselves from US evil.
About to the same extent that Dan Clore has just rationalized slavery
by pointing out that one of the reasons it was done was Christian
conversion.
Whatever that means.
Constantinople
2003-07-04 04:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Constantinople
But it's silly to blame rationalizations for the rationalized
evils. Chomsky and others rationalized the 9/11 bombings as an
attempt by people to free themselves from US evil.
About to the same extent that Dan Clore has just rationalized slavery
by pointing out that one of the reasons it was done was Christian
conversion.
Precisely. As Norman Solomon put it: "Since Sept. 11, the
distortions have been predictable: Although he's an
unequivocal opponent of terrorism in all its forms, Chomsky
is portrayed as an apologist for terrorism."
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/011206.html
Oh, I see now, my point was being ignored and people were latching onto my
criticism of Saint Chomsky, despite that being beside the point. Gotcha.
Bart
2003-07-02 05:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Christianity harmless? And you say that on an ancient history newsgroup?
How
Post by Bart
about Crusades, conquest of the new world, inquisition, reformation,
slavery, etc etc etc etc. What is that? Innocent playfullness?
All of these had absolutely NOTHING to do with Orthodox Christianity.
Nothing? They used the same book as the Orthodox. You call the bible
nothing?
Slavery was introduced into Africa by the Muslim Arabs long before the
American slave traders came there and bought slaves from the Arab slave
trades who were running the place since the 7th century. Slavery had been
banned in Europe, and the Christian lands of Africa and the Middle East by
the Christian emperor Constantine in the 3rd century. The only people who
still practiced it were Jews and Arabs.
Yes, and how about apartheid. That form of slavery was condoned by
christians and for many found its bases in the bible.
It does not matter who introduced slavery, or where it was not practised. It
was done by christians, and often God and the bible were used to legitimise
it.
The Crusades originated as a result of the Muslims attacking Europe. They
Muslims attacked Byzantium. Spain, Venice, France and even got as far
north
as Ireland. The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic thing and did not affect
the Orthodox Church nor were any Orthodox Christians conquering the new
world which was an Anglo-Saxon and Hispanic thing. And all of these pale
into insignificant compared to the barbaric and savage crimes inflicted on
Orthodox Christians by the Muslims Turks including systematic child
abduction and their institutionalised rape in the sultans harems and
slavery
in the Talibans where they were brainwashed into believing Mohammed was
their father and then sent back to kill their own families.
Ah, now you are telling me not to confuse factions of christians with the
whole of christianity and yet you do the same by metioning the Turks?

By the way, perhaps you should have a look at the behaviour of the Spanish
in the new world before you say the Turks are worse. Hitler was an amateur
compared to the Conquistadors. And it was all done in the name of
christianity.

My point is not who is worse, my point is that Christianity is not harmless.
Bart
2003-07-02 20:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Nothing? They used the same book as the Orthodox. You call the bible
nothing?
So if a theif steals your credit card, you are guilty of fraud if he uses
it
fraudulently?
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Exactly. If you steal a creditcard, you are a thief. If you use it you are
committing fraud.
Robert Connal
2003-07-01 16:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Belief in the expert.

More precisely, the continuing belief that expertise can be extended into
the future.

We insist on believing that an advanced knowledge of the past implies an
equally advanced knowledge of the future.

We believe that the expert, who knows so much about how a system has behaved
until today, also knows how it will behave tomorrow.

The expert has become our entrail-gazer, and expert opinion our one
"infallible" guide to the future workings of fate (or whatever you want to
call it).


Of course, I realise this doesn't QUITE answer your question.

This belief hasn't been refuted by the experts :)

Rob.
James A. Donald
2003-07-01 18:32:46 UTC
Permalink
--
Zardoz
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous
false belief in today's world?
Fallacy of the broken window.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
XUJcRZbyj+dypvDp1YIRHhJg3ACh2AaztjEVfvFH
4eqXKxtrpFVP5x3SwPN5OqLIGuyUj1q1OThynIBgo
Dave Knudson
2003-07-01 21:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
The Pan-Asian Alliance's "Plate Tectonics" theory. This theory
(proven false by British, Quebecois, Dutch, Basque and Sonoran
scientists) holds that major pieces of the Earth's crust - "plates" -
are "floating" on a sea of semi-molten rock called the "mantle". The
action of these "plates" grinding against each other causes
earthquakes and mountain building.

Ridiculous.

This theory is, of course, patently false, and obviously so to anyone
not deluded by the PAA's blatant propaganda - I hesitate to use the
term "science". The PAA's leadership in Mandalay has really outdone
itself with this one. In its competition with the west, the PAA will
go any lengths - even absurd ones like this - to explain away it's
dangerous policy of WMD development, including Earthquake generators
designed to destroy Western targets. Only vigilence by the west can
prevent catastrophe.

Dave Knudson
Doug Wedel
2003-07-02 00:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
May I nominate the widespread continuing belief in the authenticity of
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? This seems to fit your post's query
fairly closely.
TravNo9
2003-07-02 00:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Infallibility
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 00:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-02 00:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
I guess Marxism is not a valid choice, since the "still held by the
general public" is no longer true :)
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 01:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
I guess Marxism is not a valid choice, since the "still held by the
general public" is no longer true :)
Marx was a Zionist.
Dan Swartzendruber
2003-07-02 01:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
I guess Marxism is not a valid choice, since the "still held by the
general public" is no longer true :)
Marx was a Zionist.
Which is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Certainly 99.999% of the
people who purported to follow Marxism weren't.
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 01:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
I guess Marxism is not a valid choice, since the "still held by the
general public" is no longer true :)
Marx was a Zionist.
Which is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Certainly 99.999% of the
people who purported to follow Marxism weren't.
Not according to Hitler. Marxism is Zionism. Read Mien Kamf.
Jeffrey Turner
2003-07-02 17:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the
experts
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public
(or
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
I guess Marxism is not a valid choice, since the "still held by the
general public" is no longer true :)
Marx was a Zionist.
Which is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Certainly 99.999% of the
people who purported to follow Marxism weren't.
Not according to Hitler. Marxism is Zionism. Read Mien Kamf.
So Hitler is now the intellectual authority on Marx?

--Jeff
Agamemnon
2003-07-02 20:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Turner
Post by Zardoz
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the
experts
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public
(or
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
I guess Marxism is not a valid choice, since the "still held by the
general public" is no longer true :)
Marx was a Zionist.
Which is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Certainly 99.999% of the
people who purported to follow Marxism weren't.
Not according to Hitler. Marxism is Zionism. Read Mien Kamf.
So Hitler is now the intellectual authority on Marx?
Thatcher and Blair seem to think so. Both have read Mien Kamf and the
Protocols of Zion.
Post by Jeffrey Turner
--Jeff
Bill
2003-07-03 03:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Jeffrey Turner
Post by Zardoz
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the
experts
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public
(or
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
I guess Marxism is not a valid choice, since the "still held by the
general public" is no longer true :)
Marx was a Zionist.
Which is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Certainly 99.999% of the
people who purported to follow Marxism weren't.
Not according to Hitler. Marxism is Zionism. Read Mien Kamf.
So Hitler is now the intellectual authority on Marx?
Thatcher and Blair seem to think so. Both have read Mien Kamf and the
Protocols of Zion.
Assuming this is true, which may be reaching, what does that prove or even
imply? The both also likely have read Paradise Lost and The Prince. So
what.
Jeffrey Turner
2003-07-03 05:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Jeffrey Turner
Post by Zardoz
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the
experts
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public
(or
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Zardoz
a part thereof) as true.
Neo-Conservatism, Zionism, and Islam.
I guess Marxism is not a valid choice, since the "still held by the
general public" is no longer true :)
Marx was a Zionist.
Which is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Certainly 99.999% of the
people who purported to follow Marxism weren't.
Not according to Hitler. Marxism is Zionism. Read Mien Kamf.
So Hitler is now the intellectual authority on Marx?
Thatcher and Blair seem to think so. Both have read Mien Kamf and the
Protocols of Zion.
So thanks for proving you're on some whacko conspiratorial
political fringe and rational people can safely ignore your
posts.

--Jeff
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-02 01:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Corporatism
Terrorism
Populism
Could you expand on, and enumerate your criticism of "Corporatism" and why
it is so influential and dangerous?

Josh
Nathan Folkert
2003-07-02 20:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Corporatism
Terrorism
Populism
Could you expand on, and enumerate your criticism of "Corporatism" and why
it is so influential and dangerous?
Corporatism is the organization by the state of labor, industry,
traders, consumers, and/or capital into nationalized corporations.
There are many theories used to justify this organization, ranging
from development theory to fascist theory. In general, the argument
is that it is more efficient, or that state control is required to
prevent and moderate conflicts, to ensure that the rights of all
parties are protected, and that all parties are fairly represented.
That is, the state is necessary to arbitrate conflicts between labor
and industry, between traders and consumers, and between industry and
capital, that the coordination and lack of competition that follow are
both more efficient and more just than a free market. These theories
are usually just poorly formulated excuses for the state to grab
power, however. In practice, no one's rights are safe, industry and
commerce are stunted, capital is wasted, laborers lose their rights to
negotiate, and consumers suffer from want. In extreme cases,
corporatism descends into totalitarian control, a regimented economy,
and a state that is a bureaucratic nightmare in which all social and
economic activity has become politicized.

Why is it influential? It appeals to politicians on both the
"liberal" and "conservative" spectrum of modern American politics,
because vast power almost always appeals to some segment of the
intellectual and political community. More extreme forms of socialism
and authoritarianism have largely been discredited, even in the major
communist countries, which are now turning to semi-capitalist,
mostly-corporatist economies, so these paths to power are unlikely to
succeed. Some of the theories justifying corporatism are also
appealing on other grounds, at least to certain people. The state
monopolies and monopsonies that were largely to blame for reversing
development in Africa after independence were largely justified by
nationalist arguments, anti-neo-colonial arguments, and development
arguments. Corporatism is widespread throughout much of the third
world, though it seems to be declining in many important countries in
recent years. Many in America want the government to seize control of
health care -- something like one-seventh of the economy -- based on
social welfare arguments. We have seen people call for this kind of
nationalization in this group not more than a week ago. In more
radical circles, the entire Parecon project is totalitarian
corporatism.

Why is it dangerous? The most extreme examples, of course, would be
Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany. After the state regimented the
economy and seized absolute power, the leaders, who desired power and
wanted to extend their utopian ideals onto those not under their
sovereignty, were free to pursue militarist policies. In general,
however, corporatism does not reach that level, but only retards
economic development, impoverishing or maintaining the impoverishment
of millions.

Is this the most dangerous and the most influential? Hard to tell. I
was just offering some examples of beliefs that are very dangerous:
corporatism (as described above), terrorism (i.e. government through
terror, not fanatics targeting civilians, though this is also a clear
danger), and populism (i.e. belief that the "will of the people"
grants an unlimited mandate to the state, not support for the common
man over the elite, which is a goal, not a danger, but is used
routinely as a justification for nefarious ideologies). One can argue
which is most influential and most dangerous, but before one can do
that, the ideas have to be out on the table.

- Nate
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-02 22:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Folkert
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Corporatism
Terrorism
Populism
Could you expand on, and enumerate your criticism of "Corporatism" and why
it is so influential and dangerous?
Corporatism is the organization by the state of labor, industry,
traders, consumers, and/or capital into nationalized corporations.
Ah, I see. You're using the Moussolini meaning of the term:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia
Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor).

(snip)
Post by Nathan Folkert
In more radical circles, the entire Parecon project is totalitarian
corporatism.
I don't think it's either. There's no "state" in Parecon, first of all.
Apparently anything that you happen not to like is "totalitarian".

Josh
Nathan Folkert
2003-07-03 03:26:36 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Nathan Folkert
Corporatism is the organization by the state of labor, industry,
traders, consumers, and/or capital into nationalized corporations.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia
Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor).
Not precisely. Fascism is corporatism, but corporatism is not
necessarily fascism. Post-independence India, for example, was
largely corporatist, but it was not fascist.
Post by Josh Dougherty
(snip)
Post by Nathan Folkert
In more radical circles, the entire Parecon project is totalitarian
corporatism.
I don't think it's either. There's no "state" in Parecon, first of all.
Nonsense. Albert equivocates on whether or not Parecon has a state.
He claims that one is theoretically unnecessary, because Parecon
separates economic matters from political ones. But this is bullshit
-- it's just a redefinition of terms. Parecon politicizes the entire
economy. It is not a system that somehow obviates the need to supply
public goods -- rather, it makes all private goods public goods.
Parecon *is* the state.

Think about it: in Parecon there are a bunch of principles and rules.
You are not supposed to hire or be hired as wage labor; you are
supposed to be remunerated based on effort, not on output; all your
consumption is subject to review by the affected producers; you are
supposed to work only a set of jobs balanced based on their difficulty
and empowerment. But in a free society (or even a not-free society),
we can already do all of this. In Parecon, you are required to obey
these rules. Albert's defense of this, while allowing that a state
might be required to force people to obey, is that it will be socially
enforced -- people will submit to these rules because no one would
ever willingly stoop to renting their time in exchange for material
rewards (i.e. "wage slavery"), and anyone who engaged in wage slavery
or black marketeering would be ostracized, and their goods would not
be traded by the principled Pareconeers. This is, of course,
bullshit. The communist states had social pressures to prevent black
marketeering and other economic activity outside the plan. Didn't
work. They turned to terrorism instead. Still didn't work, though it
worked better than the "social pressures". Albert knows that social
pressures won't work, which is why he equivocates on the need for a
state to carry out the terrorism necessary to suppress peaceful and
mutually beneficial trade between consenting individuals.

And I mean, for fuck's sake, one of the central principles of Parecon
is that people are not allowed to use "productive property" for their
own purposes, AND THEN THEY DEFINE OUR PERSONAL INHERENT TALENTS AND
ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE AS PRODUCTIVE PROPERTY. Parecon is transparently
totalitarian. Anyone who cannot see this is either willfully blind
for ideological reasons, or they are another power hungry little
Mussolini, seeking for some excuse, any excuse, to seize power,
regiment the economy, and build their own little Reich.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Apparently anything that you happen not to like is "totalitarian".
No. Societies in which the state has vast and arbitrary control over
all significant decisions, where everything we do is subject to
political control, are totalitarian.

- Nate
James A. Donald
2003-07-03 18:13:42 UTC
Permalink
--
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:16:59 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
I don't believe there's equivocation. He says Parecon, being
independent of "state", can exist with or without a state
He is using a non standard definition of state. Parecon is
totalitarianism, thus the apex of the parecon pyramid is the
state.
The communist states did not have anything resembling
Parecon.
What they supposedly had was *more* free and anarchic than what
Parecon supposedly will have.

In Stalin's system central planning was supposedly merely
indicative. The communist party would recommend production
goals, and mass meetings would "voluntarily" adopt those goals
-- invariably by unanimous vote.

In the Parecon system, planning is overtly coercive. The mass
meeting merely votes on the quota it would like to get, and
this *request* is considered by their masters and balanced
against other requests.

In Stalin's system, the factory works meeting was theoretically
primary, and the central plan supposedly merely indicative. In
Parecon the factory works meeting is merely indicative, and the
central plan primary.

Parecon is akin to, and arguably part of, the left
communist/Trotskyist critique of Leninism and Stalinism, that
Lenin and Stalin did not go far enough, were insufficiently
socialist, were state capitalist. However it is also
simultaneously part of the syndicalist/National Socialist
critique of Leninism and Stalinism that they went too far. It
rhetorically combines both world views, even though they are
mutually contradictory.

In practice, the syndicalist/nazi critique of existent
communism produced outcomes that were less totalitarian than
existent communism, for example Nazi Germany and syndicalist
Catalonia, while the left communist critique of existent
communism produced outcomes that were more totalitarian than
existent communism, most notoriously Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

Since Parecon incorporates both contradictory criticisms
simultaneously, it is simultaneously more totalitarian and less
totalitarian than recently existen communism.
The citizenry didn't make the economic decisions and probably
had little or no say over their work.
Theoretically they had a lot more say than the citizenry in
Parecon. All you are saying is that this time around your
intentions are better than they wer last time around.

The citizenry in Parecon do not make economic decisions. They
decide on *requests", "requests", which must be "coordinated"
by someone above.

When I request a toothbrush, the toothbrush needs hog bristles
(for simplicity, let us assume late nineteenth century
technology, as in the early Soviet Union). So someone has to
be allocated to shovel hog shit. That bureaucracy that
aggregates all the requests for toothbrushes, and generates
such and such a number of hog shit shovelling assignments, is
the central planning office of the state.

Of course, in practice, you are going to discover that no
matter how many people are assigned to shovel hog shit, and no
matter how few are assigned to go fishing, there will be more
fishing done, and less hog shit shovelled, than was planned.
So then you wind up with the police arresting people for
"wrecking", and "parasitism", a process whose greatest
excessess came to be known in Russia as "The great terror".

Parecon has a central planning apparatus. Been tried. To give
effect to those plans, you will need police, terror, and slave
labor camps. Either the economy goes to hell due to massive
disregard for the central plan and spontaneous privatization,
or you operate a vast apparatus of terror. The usual outcome
is a compromise -- an alarming level of goofing off and
spontaneous privatization, combined with a level of terror that
is disturbing, but far less than Stalinist terror.

As the Pilgrim fathers found when they attempted a Christian
socialist utopia in the US, to make socialism work, you have to
wade through blood. Being reluctant to wade through blood,
many of them starved to death. As a short term fix, they
imposed fair bit of violent coercion, with a bit of torture
every now and then, and as a longer term fix, they dismantled
Christian socialism and developed the orthodoxy that as a
result of the fall and the expulsion from Eden, God commanded
private property and what we now call capitalism.
All of the decisions were made by central planners.
In Parecon someone aggregates ten million "requests" for
toothbrushes, decides so many hog bristles will be needed, and
issues so many job slots for hog shit shovellers. Is that
someone not a central planner? People like him make all
decisions. Terror follows. We have been there and done that.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
CvhcsZZCV04SzPw7slx0ZUkLwRMJIRCVAhpFuazR
4Q+mmwPpQn5Rqkcz5jyI2ofq9sL0Wywgg20H9mDvU
Josh Dougherty
2003-07-05 01:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James A. Donald
--
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:16:59 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
I don't believe there's equivocation. He says Parecon, being
independent of "state", can exist with or without a state
He is using a non standard definition of state. Parecon is
totalitarianism, thus
This is interesting. You state the point of contention as fact, and the now
established fact (you having stated it as fact) "thusly" leads to the
conclusion.
Post by James A. Donald
the apex of the parecon pyramid is the state.
The bottom line here is that you're not talking about Parecon. You're
talking about central planning, or actually Stalinism. There is no "apex"
other than the workers and consumers councils, there's no smaller class of
men sitting above that makes the decisions over them.
Post by James A. Donald
The communist states did not have anything resembling
Parecon.
What they supposedly had was *more* free and anarchic than what
Parecon supposedly will have.
In Stalin's system central planning was supposedly merely
indicative. The communist party would recommend production
goals, and mass meetings would "voluntarily" adopt those goals
-- invariably by unanimous vote.
In the Parecon system, planning is overtly coercive. The mass
meeting merely votes on the quota it would like to get, and
this *request* is considered by their masters and balanced
against other requests.
This is absurd. What you're doing here is taking the most
glowing rhetoric about what Stalin would say Stalinism was and comparing it
to what Stalinism actually was. Then you're just calling the latter
Parecon. It isn't. There are no "masters". There's no separate class of
men sitting on top coordinating everything and sending down the orders. If
you want to learn how Parecon is designed, and how decisions are made, it's
easy enough for you to find. I suspect that you don't care anyway, and
simply hope to frighten people away from considering any different type of
economy by throwing around words like "masters" and "terror" as much as
possible, so there's no point in me explaining it for you.
Post by James A. Donald
In Stalin's system, the factory works meeting was theoretically
primary, and the central plan supposedly merely indicative. In
Parecon the factory works meeting is merely indicative, and the
central plan primary.
The citizenry didn't make the economic decisions and probably
had little or no say over their work.
Theoretically they had a lot more say than the citizenry in
Parecon.
"Theoretically"? Yes, if you again take the most glowing version of what
Stalinism said it was, and compare it to what Stalinism actually was, and
then call the latter Parecon.
Post by James A. Donald
All you are saying is that this time around your
intentions are better than they wer last time around.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that this is not that.
Post by James A. Donald
The citizenry in Parecon do not make economic decisions.
Yes, they do. That's exactly what the system is designed for, so that no
one has a monopoly of power, there is no smaller subset of men who hold
disproportionate power or wealth, and all the citizens participate in the
decisions in a kind of direct democratic fashion of negotiation to reach
convergence.
Post by James A. Donald
They decide on *requests", "requests", which must be "coordinated"
by someone above.
There is no "someone above". The position doesn't exist. If you want to
talk about central planning, go ahead, but there's no point in doing so in a
discussion about Parecon.
Post by James A. Donald
Parecon has a central planning apparatus.
There is a planning apparatus, the workers and consumers councils themselves
who negotiate to reach decisions. There is nothing above them, no central
planner.
Post by James A. Donald
Been tried.
South End Press has tried it, and I think a bunch of other coffeshops or
bookstores and
such, to the extent they are able within the constraints of the current
economy, but it
hasn't been tried elsewhere. David Horowitz once claimed to have tried it
at Ramparts, but he
was probably lying.
Post by James A. Donald
All of the decisions were made by central planners.
In Parecon someone aggregates ten million "requests" for
toothbrushes, decides so many hog bristles will be needed, and
issues so many job slots for hog shit shovellers.
No "someone" doesn't. You're talking about a central planner. That
position simply doesn't exist in this model. That is not how decisions are
made.

Furthermore, you're still assuming a corporate division of labor, not
balanced job complexes. Straw men on top of straw men.
Post by James A. Donald
Is that someone not a central planner?
Yes, he's the central planner.
Post by James A. Donald
People like him make all decisions.
"People like him" don't exist in a Parecon. You can find out how decisions
are made in Parecon by doing some reading on it, but there's no point
continuing with a discussion about Parecon that isn't even talking about
Parecon, but rather is comparing two versions of a different system to each
other.

Josh
James A. Donald
2003-07-03 17:08:59 UTC
Permalink
--
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:03:21 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
Post by Josh Dougherty
I don't think it's either. There's no "state" in Parecon,
first of all.
In Parecon, something remarkably like a state exercises total
control over everything and everyone -- that control is total,
which is what we mean by "totalitarian".

Of course a real state can never actually exercise total
control, though Khmer Rouge Cambodia came close, but a
totalitarian state *attempts* to exercise total control.


--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
2G2ijjswuivPUwqC+D/dRIHE4HvKCQn52CfVCekt
45vPKbIhBtGeDVjmJB31DncPWoMVrBhvsUoLOU39o
James A. Donald
2003-07-03 20:59:47 UTC
Permalink
--
Nathan Folkert
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Nathan Folkert
In more radical circles, the entire Parecon project is
totalitarian corporatism.
Josh Dougherty
Post by Josh Dougherty
I don't think it's either. There's no "state" in Parecon,
There is a "pyramid". A pyramid has a single apex. That
apex is the state.

Parecon forbids free association. Everything is a regulated
monopoly. That is the economic system of recently existent
fascism (also known as national socialism, and as national
syndicalism.)

Different authors have somewhat differerent images of Parecon.
In Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel vision of parecon the local
bureacracies, the ward and city bureaucracies, do not have any
real decisions to make. They just provide information to the
central planners about what people want, they make *proposals*,
not decisiions. The complicated business is to turn wants
concerning toothbrushes into directives concerning shoveling
hog shit. The process of turning claimed wants into planned
work is left undescribed, but is implicitly done in a single
center -- this system is more akin to Pol Pot's socialism, than
Hitler's.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
NaNBku2q4WWTshgth/z473nRn8ajBzVdaaAbXd/H
4b6AyKoRWrojYcvoDFi9Z3l8Xr7Qjufcp4vvA+SQX
Bill
2003-07-02 02:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
The belief in an inherent right to privacy and the "rights" that have
evolved from it.
Steve Hayes
2003-07-02 02:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
The free market.


Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
2003-07-02 13:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
The free market.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Hey Steve, I already said that! :-)
Well, you're not alone then.


Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
michael price
2003-07-02 02:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
The belief that Palestine was a deserted wilderness before the
foundation of the state of I$rael.
That hardly qualifies as the most dangerous belief. It has killed
thousands even on the worst interpretation of the facts. The belief
in communism or other forms of totalitarianism killed tens of million.
phil hunt
2003-07-02 02:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
The belief that Germans are racially superior to everyone else.
Yes I know that Fuehrer Adolf III casts himself as a reformer and
uses buzzwords like "Offenheit" and "Neugliederung", but the core of
Nazi theology remains unchanged, as he himself made clear in his
recent speech at Wewelsburg.

ObWI: what if, after the 1962 war, the Nazis hadn't abolished
Christianity and replaced it with their own Norse-inspired religion?
--
Phil
"If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies"
-- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
2003-07-02 03:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
The most dangerous false belief is:

"Posting off topic drivel to news groups is ok."

Llanzlan.
Matt Giwer
2003-07-02 08:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
That beliefs are other than a means of self-aggrandizement for the
believer.

For humans everything is reflexise.
--
The difference between Julius Caesar, Napolean and Hilter
is only time.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2700
Seth Deitch
2003-07-02 11:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Am I the only one to pick up that this is an obvious troll?
-Seth Deitch
T***@Fred.Net
2003-07-02 15:10:48 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Jul 2003 07:32:24 -0700, the Chairman declared that Iron Chef soc.history.what-if would face off against Zardoz using the following post as the Secret Ingredient:
: What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
: belief in today's world?

: By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
: beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
: a part thereof) as true.

Carrot Top is funny.
--
***@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr

* "Hello, girls.... I'm the Easter Bunny!" - Janet Reno, "South Park"
* Look out! If Bender says "ass", Katherine Harris will appear!
* Remember The Pentagon: The Jan Brady of 9/11

Coming in 2005: Happy Potter and the Not-So-Fresh Feeling

Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999 - http://www.mkbmemorial.com/
"It's been a lot of fun." - Alison Brooks
Fleetlord Hart
2003-07-02 20:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Isn't it obvious? Oh, granted the post-M*tr*x riots have died down by
now, but Chicago still sees a group suicide every damn week by some
disaffected students trying to "take the red pill". Not to mention
rumors that the President is ignoring current problems while throwing
tax-payer money at some committe to influence our "national
parameters". This despite the fact that the last NASA probes have
shown that the universes' background radiation is too random to be the
result of any conceivable program...

ObWI: Keanu Reeves doesn't go off the deep end, proclaiming that "It's
all true, all of it!" Does this prevent The M*tr*x from gaining it's
cult following, or was the world of the Perot Depression too ready to
accept any escape from reality?

-Joe Hart

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Her Majesty considers the arrangement to be tentative
until we ship a proper diplomatic representative,
We don't forsee that you will be the least bit argumentative
so please excuse the manner of what we brought as a preventative
BOOM! (warship fires cannon)
yee22uuyee
2003-07-03 00:31:33 UTC
Permalink
hugo debbie jean joe >
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
That I'm gay?
Matt
Ville Ylipekkala
2003-07-03 06:34:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:26:31 +0300, "Ville Ylipekkala"
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
Belief in moral imperative.
So the most dangerous belief is the belief that there are dangerous
beliefs?
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
No, what I meant is that the most dangerous belief is that we "must" do
anything, or believe in anything. We must nothing. We may think that "we
must", but we don't have to do anything - not for anyone, not even for
ourselves. Every imperative is false. We don't even have to survive. Our
animal side may object to that, though, but there is no higher morale that
says, I must. What we have are animal and civil imperatives, but these are
only in blood, or in culture - they are not ordained, they can be disobeyd.
A true imperative would require a separate, absolute morality - and that
doesn't exist. We don't have to give a shit about anything - but usually we
do. Why? It's easier to live our lives the way we have grown accustomed to.
Nothing has any innate meaning - you are free to do anything - what do you
do? It's kinda like Buddhism. Let go. It's a bit too fatalist, methinks, but
really, the belief that we must do this or that, it leads to trouble when
taken to extreme.
Jussi Jalonen
2003-07-03 09:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ville Ylipekkala
Every imperative is false. We don't even have to survive.
Yep, you sure are a Finn.



Cheers,
Jalonen
Steve Hayes
2003-07-03 10:46:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:34:54 +0300, "Ville Ylipekkala"
Post by Ville Ylipekkala
So the most dangerous belief is the belief that there are dangerous
beliefs?
No, what I meant is that the most dangerous belief is that we "must" do
anything, or believe in anything. We must nothing. We may think that "we
must", but we don't have to do anything - not for anyone, not even for
ourselves. Every imperative is false. We don't even have to survive. Our
animal side may object to that, though, but there is no higher morale that
says, I must. What we have are animal and civil imperatives, but these are
only in blood, or in culture - they are not ordained, they can be disobeyd.
A true imperative would require a separate, absolute morality - and that
doesn't exist. We don't have to give a shit about anything - but usually we
do. Why? It's easier to live our lives the way we have grown accustomed to.
Nothing has any innate meaning - you are free to do anything - what do you
do? It's kinda like Buddhism. Let go. It's a bit too fatalist, methinks, but
really, the belief that we must do this or that, it leads to trouble when
taken to extreme.
What I said, only you took longer to say it.

Though I do notice a moral imperative, or a hint of one, in the munging of
your e-mail address.




Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Ville Ylipekkala
2003-07-03 13:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:34:54 +0300, "Ville Ylipekkala"
Post by Ville Ylipekkala
So the most dangerous belief is the belief that there are dangerous
beliefs?
No, what I meant is that the most dangerous belief is that we "must" do
anything, or believe in anything. We must nothing. We may think that "we
must", but we don't have to do anything - not for anyone, not even for
ourselves. Every imperative is false. We don't even have to survive. Our
animal side may object to that, though, but there is no higher morale that
says, I must. What we have are animal and civil imperatives, but these are
only in blood, or in culture - they are not ordained, they can be disobeyd.
A true imperative would require a separate, absolute morality - and that
doesn't exist. We don't have to give a shit about anything - but usually we
do. Why? It's easier to live our lives the way we have grown accustomed to.
Nothing has any innate meaning - you are free to do anything - what do you
do? It's kinda like Buddhism. Let go. It's a bit too fatalist, methinks, but
really, the belief that we must do this or that, it leads to trouble when
taken to extreme.
What I said, only you took longer to say it.
Though I do notice a moral imperative, or a hint of one, in the munging of
your e-mail address.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Indeed - philosophy aside - it's imperative that all spammers be neutered
and locked up in jails, preferrably with a cellmate named "Bubba"...
Alexander Malinowski
2003-07-04 14:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
That there is easy and simple way to improve the world.
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-04 17:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zardoz
What is, in your opinion, the most influential and dangerous false
belief in today's world?
By false belief, I mean something that had been refuted by the experts
beyoun a reasonable doubt, but is still held by the general public (or
a part thereof) as true.
That George W. Bush was elected president of the United States and has the
right to exercise the powers of that office.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Al Montestruc
2003-07-04 22:22:09 UTC
Permalink
4. That sex is sinful.
Sex _is_ sinful.
Is not! that makes you part of the problem.
That's what makes it so good.
Sex is not a sin too me and it is one of the very best things in life IMHO.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...