World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Morals - Why?

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
mononokifool
Experienced Party Member
avatar

Posts : 838
Join date : 2008-03-30
Age : 29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:03 pm

Pannekoek wrote:
arrogant doesn't mean very wise.
Not what I meant. If you are wise and you go around and flaunt it in peoples face then you are arrogant. another example so maybe you get it better.

coward=bad brave=good reckless=bad

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
inkus2000
New Party Member
avatar

Posts : 541
Join date : 2008-03-31
Location : I woke up this morning and I dont know where I am.

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:14 am

Quote :
Or social control, rather. Labeling things "moral" and "immoral" just makes people want to conform to the first. It's a way to make them be the way you want them to be; a way to mass conformity, if you will.

Well sometimes, however certain morals/virtues are universal for example people generally think that killing people or raping women is bad regardless of culture.

Quote :
Seems as though you're speaking of law, not morals. Pre-marital sex, for example, is seen as immoral in the christian community, but i can't see any way that it would be "destructive" to society.

After societies decided what was moral/immoral they created laws around them. Marrage serves as a contact that ensures that a mother and father takes care of their child and each other - this is beneficial to society. If pre marital sex was allowed men would impregnate women and leave, this would cause problems for society.


Quote :
I don't believe outlawing it is the answer, cos that won't stop people from taking the drug, it will just give the police a reason to take them to jail (where they can suffer heavily from withdrawals if they take heavy doses). I believe people should be allowed proper resources to achieve an awareness of what the drug is capable of doing; if it is illegal, however, such resources are much more difficult to come by. In the end, it should be the decision of the informed individual.

I disagree, people are less likely to break the law if they are faced with punishment, why not rob a shop if you could get away with it. Informed Individuals can make mistakes and all it takes is one hit, heroin is not to be fucked with, In addition most people who take heroin are poorly educated ect the law serves too protect the ignorant.

Quote :
Prostitution is often veiwd as a threat to the family unit,

Prostitution can lead to break up of the family and threaten a mans relationship with his wife.

Quote :
But, there are some women (and probably some men) who like their jobs as prostitutes, and if the environment was changed so that they could be in complete control of the situation, not allowing for anything they were uncomfortable with, what's the problem with it?

Nothing if that was the case.
But is is not -

Quote :

Yes, that's fucked up. But in the end, the decision to make such a film should land on its participants. If men start to believe they are just objects (which is ridiculous) and act in a way that makes it clear that they believe this, they should be dealt with in some manner. But people should be able to hold whatever crack-pot views they want. It's when they encroach on another's rights and autonomy that action should be taken.

The problem is content of the pornography - much material actively seeks to degrade woman and could shape a mans perception of sexuality and the female- after prolonged exposure to such material.

Quote :
So, because a few morons' views of women change, pornography is 'immoral'?

If it actively degrades woman then yes, not all porn is bad.

[quote]
Quote :
Without standards and morals society would crumble

Quote :
Why?

Someone who dosn't like you could walk up behind you and put a knife in your back.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:39 am

I still can't understand what makes you any different then liberals dude...
Back to top Go down
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 24
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:52 pm

I still can't find out what makes him any different from some of the "communists" on this site.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:13 pm

Quote :
I still can't understand what makes you any different then liberals dude...
Quote :
I still can't find out what makes him any different from some of the "communists" on this site.

That's not helping anything... Why don't we stay on topic and stop with the subtle personal attacks.

inkus2000 wrote:
Well sometimes, however certain morals/virtues are universal for example people generally think that killing people or raping women is bad regardless of culture.

You can label it morals, but i see it more as freedom vs. authority. People should have freedom (black and white), and no one should have authority (control over another, i.e. rape, murder)

Quote :
After societies decided what was moral/immoral they created laws around them.

But premarital sex isn't illegal. Laws may stem from morals to some extent, but morals don't equate to law.

Quote :
Marrage serves as a contact that ensures that a mother and father takes care of their child and each other - this is beneficial to society.

No it doesn't; if it were there wouldn't be such a thing as divorce.

Quote :
If pre marital sex was allowed

Pre-marital sex isn't allowed? Since when? Or are you saying you would motion to have it illegalised if given the opportunity?

Quote :
men would impregnate women and leave, this would cause problems for society.


The man isn't all that necessary, but what makes you think that women would have to end up with the child?

Quote :
I disagree, people are less likely to break the law if they are faced with punishment,

I think if they are convinced from an early age that it isn't worth it, that's the deterent. I don't think law has much of anything to do with it. Laws obviously don't stop criminals.

Quote :
why not rob a shop if you could get away with it.

Most criminals who rob do 'know' they can get away with it in spite of the law.

Quote :
Informed Individuals can make mistakes and all it takes is one hit, heroin is not to be fucked with

Mistakes? So how did this hypothetical informed individual accidently take a hit of heroine? If he/she was informed, they knowingly made this decision, and must take responsibility for their own mistakes.

And about your self-neglect argument. No one purposefully chooses to neglect themselves. If it comes down to a choice between keeping up the habit, or feeding yourself, sometimes keeping up the habit is the more logical choice; going without food for a day seems less damaging to them than going without heroine. Another affect of poverty.

Quote :
In addition most people who take heroin are poorly educated ect the law serves too protect the ignorant.

That wouldn't be a problem if people weren't so easily allowed to be ignorant. The governments own apathy makes people 'ignorant'; so i guess law is just the easy way out, eh? Easier to make them criminals than to give them proper education.

Quote :
Quote :
Prostitution is often veiwd as a threat to the family unit,

Prostitution can lead to break up of the family and threaten a mans relationship with his wife.

That's bull-shit. You can't blame prostitution for that; that's utterly absurd. You can't blame the jewelery store for making you steal because the display was just too tempting. That's the guy's fault. And if the guy is going to a prostitute, there relationship couldn't have been that great to begin with, so i doubt they would've stayed together much longer.

Quote :
Quote :
But, there are some women (and probably some men) who like their jobs as prostitutes, and if the environment was changed so that they could be in complete control of the situation, not allowing for anything they were uncomfortable with, what's the problem with it?

Nothing if that was the case.
But is is not -

Then it needs to become the case. Again, you're just arguing it's easier to make them criminals than to build another brothel.

Quote :
The problem is content of the pornography - much material actively seeks to degrade woman

Like what, for example?

Quote :
and could shape a mans perception of sexuality and the female- after prolonged exposure to such material.

Again, your blaming the prostitute, and not the married man seeking the prostitute. These men will accept responsibility or concequences for their actions. But you can't prosecute someone for their views. If they see women as sexual objects, that's fucked up, but we can't do a thing about what someone chooses to believe. Until he acts upon these thoughts, he's guilty of nothing but being a douche.

Quote :
Quote :
Without standards and morals society would crumble

Quote :
Why?

Someone who dosn't like you could walk up behind you and put a knife in your back.

That's authority, which no one rightfully has. I have freedom, and he/she has encroached upon it. By the act of killing, he/she has taken away my freedom through an act of authority. Just labeling things moral or immoral means nothing. The community should deal with these people as they seem fit.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
inkus2000
New Party Member
avatar

Posts : 541
Join date : 2008-03-31
Location : I woke up this morning and I dont know where I am.

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:18 am

Quote :
You can label it morals, but i see it more as freedom vs. authority. People should have freedom (black and white), and no one should have authority (control over another, i.e. rape, murder)

Moraliity is the distinguishing between what is good and bad - constructive and destructive - right and wrong. People should not have total freedom in any society, freedom needs to be tempered with a messure of restraint in order to ensure social stability. The question is not should people have freedom but - how much freedom should people have, people should be allowed freedom to the point where it does not interfere with the rights of other individuals and the greater good of society.

Quote :

But premarital sex isn't illegal. Laws may stem from morals to some extent, but morals don't equate to law.

Pre marital sex is not ilegal in todays society but it was in older societies for the reason that a mother needed a man to help her support both her and the child, it would have been troublesome for a woman in older society to raise a child alone due to poor economic conditions and would have put considerable strain on her parents - Part of the reason pre marital sex was deemed unethical -

In the developed world pre marital sex is accepted largely due to our advanced economic condition.

Quote :
No it doesn't; if it were there wouldn't be such a thing as divorce.

I meant originally thats why it existed.

Quote :
Pre-marital sex isn't allowed? Since when? Or are you saying you would motion to have it illegalised if given the opportunity?

Nothing is so black and white - in the developed world today pre marital sex is fine due to contraception and good economic conditions. In India however things differ in that a child out of wedlock would cause considerable problems and economic strain on a poor family. In such a society it would be practical to deem pre marital sex immoral on the grounds that it causes problems for society.

Quote :
The man isn't all that necessary, but what makes you think that women would have to end up with the child?

Whoever ends up with the child is irrelevant the point was that both parents are responsible for their offspring.

Quote :
I think if they are convinced from an early age that it isn't worth it, that's the deterent. I don't think law has much of anything to do with it. Laws obviously don't stop criminals.

Again I disagree, leave 100$ on the ground in a shopping mall in the US and walk off - it will be taken
Do the same in Saudi Arabia - it will not be taken

True if virtues are installed in the young they are 'less likely' to commit crime but this alone will 'not' prevent crime. Laws serve as a deterant provided they are consistantly enforced.

Quote :
Most criminals who rob do 'know' they can get away with it in spite of the law.

No, they weigh the chance of being caught with the chance of getting away , if they decide they have a good chance of getting away with it then they commit the crime.

Quote :
Mistakes? So how did this hypothetical informed individual accidently take a hit of heroine? If he/she was informed, they knowingly made this decision, and must take responsibility for their own mistakes.

Initially a person may make the mistake of believing that they can stop taking heroin when they please however after a couple of times they will build a psychological and physical dependance - this is near certain.
Most people who are addicted 'want' to stop

A chemical can take a persons freedom with ease.

Quote :
And about your self-neglect argument. No one purposefully chooses to neglect themselves. If it comes down to a choice between keeping up the habit, or feeding yourself, sometimes keeping up the habit is the more logical choice; going without food for a day seems less damaging to them than going without heroine. Another affect of poverty.

After a person becomes dependant on heroin they will do anything to get another fix - steal, mug, kill, sell themselves - this is NOT in their own interest and no longer a matter of choice but a matter of 'need' , in addition it extends beyond the individual and becomes the problem of society. It is also a a concern of society in that people become homeless and OD ect - putting a strain on 'state' medical facilities and flooding homeless shelters ect

Quote :

That wouldn't be a problem if people weren't so easily allowed to be ignorant. The governments own apathy makes people 'ignorant'; so i guess law is just the easy way out, eh? Easier to make them criminals than to give them proper education.

Education should be improved, heroin should remain illigal.
The first hit may be a matter of choice but choice eventually disappears.

Quote :

That's bull-shit. You can't blame prostitution for that; that's utterly absurd. You can't blame the jewelery store for making you steal because the display was just too tempting. That's the guy's fault. And if the guy is going to a prostitute, there relationship couldn't have been that great to begin with, so i doubt they would've stayed together much longer.

Personally I don't have a prob with it under the right conditions, although one socialist perspective would be that women are capitalizing from male sexuality and vice versa.

Quote :
Like what, for example?

Youv obviously never seen .... oh never mind Very Happy

Quote :
Again, your blaming the prostitute, and not the married man seeking the prostitute. These men will accept responsibility or concequences for their actions. But you can't prosecute someone for their views. If they see women as sexual objects, that's fucked up, but we can't do a thing about what someone chooses to believe. Until he acts upon these thoughts, he's guilty of nothing but being a douche.

Again I was explaining why 'some cultures' veiw it that way. For example Muslim people would consider prostitution to debase the female form and undermine female dignity on the grounds that a woman is no less than the whole sum of her parts - for someone to profit from debaseing her is therefore immoral.

If you would allow your mother to be prostituted and treated as you would expect a prostitute to be, then you can advocate prostitution.
This is a fair statement.

Quote :
That's authority, which no one rightfully has. I have freedom, and he/she has encroached upon it. By the act of killing, he/she has taken away my freedom through an act of authority. Just labeling things moral or immoral means nothing. The community should deal with these people as they seem fit.

It is immoral therefore evil to kill - generally speaking
Anything labeled immoral is done because it is considered bad for society and the individual, if the word immoral did not exist things that are bad for society would not just 'disappear' -

This said, as society changes so do morals, but the principal that what is moral is for the good of society and therefore the individual remains the same.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mononokifool
Experienced Party Member
avatar

Posts : 838
Join date : 2008-03-30
Age : 29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:55 am

With addictive drugs the drug dealers exploit peoples weaknesses, once they are hooked they can change the price to whatever and they know they will still come back

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:44 pm

inkus2000 wrote:
Moraliity is the distinguishing between what is good and bad - constructive and destructive - right and wrong. People should not have total freedom in any society, freedom needs to be tempered with a messure of restraint in order to ensure social stability. The question is not should people have freedom but - how much freedom should people have,

Freedom is black and white, you either have it or you don't.

Quote :
people should be allowed freedom to the point where it does not interfere with the rights of other individuals and the greater good of society.

You're talking about what i labeled 'authority'. Once you begin to hurt others, you are no longer acting in freedom, but authority, as i said before.


We agree on premarital sex, so there's no need to go further into that.

Quote :
Nothing is so black and white - in the developed world today pre marital sex is fine due to contraception and good economic conditions. In India however things differ in that a child out of wedlock would cause considerable problems and economic strain on a poor family. In such a society it would be practical to deem pre marital sex immoral on the grounds that it causes problems for society.

That's why i'm fighting against imperialism. No country and its countrymen and women should be restrained like this.

Quote :
Whoever ends up with the child is irrelevant the point was that both parents are responsible for their offspring.

That's true, but if they aren't devoted to the child, then they shouldn't be having a child.

Quote :
Quote :
I think if they are convinced from an early age that it isn't worth it, that's the deterent. I don't think law has much of anything to do with it. Laws obviously don't stop criminals.

Again I disagree, leave 100$ on the ground in a shopping mall in the US and walk off - it will be taken
Do the same in Saudi Arabia - it will not be taken

So what's the point of the law then, if people are going to commit the crime? The law wasn't enough of a deterent here. Neither was indoctrination; that just tells you a lot about our society.

Quote :
True if virtues are installed in the young they are 'less likely' to commit crime but this alone will 'not' prevent crime. Laws serve as a deterant provided they are consistantly enforced.

But we have law, and it is consistantly enforced, and still you agree that the 100 dollars would be jacked.

Quote :
No, they weigh the chance of being caught with the chance of getting away , if they decide they have a good chance of getting away with it then they commit the crime.

Fair enough, but this doesn't help your argument. The law is obviously not a deterent here.

Quote :
Initially a person may make the mistake of believing that they can stop taking heroin when they please however after a couple of times they will build a psychological and physical dependance - this is near certain.
Most people who are addicted 'want' to stop

Then they weren't educated about it. If they were, they'd know they would almost immidieately become dependant. I know the potentials of herione, and i won't touch that shit.

Quote :
A chemical can take a persons freedom with ease.

So people should be informed of this.

Quote :
After a person becomes dependant on heroin they will do anything to get another fix - steal, mug, kill, sell themselves - this is NOT in their own interest and no longer a matter of choice but a matter of 'need'

Yes, it's a matter of need, so it is in their interest to get more heroine, by any means. If they don't get a fix, they may exhibit signs of the beginning of withdrawals.



Quote :
in addition it extends beyond the individual and becomes the problem of society. It is also a a concern of society in that people become homeless and OD ect - putting a strain on 'state' medical facilities and flooding homeless shelters ect

Again, this is an affect of poverty. This wouldn't be a problem in a communist society. They will be no ones burden because they can still be a part of the work force and get their fix.

Quote :
Quote :

That's bull-shit. You can't blame prostitution for that; that's utterly absurd. You can't blame the jewelery store for making you steal because the display was just too tempting. That's the guy's fault. And if the guy is going to a prostitute, there relationship couldn't have been that great to begin with, so i doubt they would've stayed together much longer.

Personally I don't have a prob with it under the right conditions, although one socialist perspective would be that women are capitalizing from male sexuality and vice versa.

Socialist as in socialism, or socialist in the general, umbrella grouping way? If you mean the latter, then no, that's not a socialist arguement. They wouldn't be capitalising in a communist society, cos you can't capitalise. In a capitalist society this argument still doesn't stand, because they must find a way to survive on their own, so they are only becoming a part of the machine, as do many socialists. We and they (prostitutes) are victims of material conditions, so we must conform.

Quote :
Youv obviously never seen .... oh never mind Very Happy

haha, nice save.

Quote :
Again I was explaining why 'some cultures' veiw it that way. For example Muslim people would consider prostitution to debase the female form and undermine female dignity on the grounds that a woman is no less than the whole sum of her parts - for someone to profit from debaseing her is therefore immoral.


I want your opinion, not their twisted views.

Quote :
If you would allow your mother to be prostituted and treated as you would expect a prostitute to be, then you can advocate prostitution.
This is a fair statement.

I have no say in what my mother does. If she wants to make a living in that matter, it's her decision to make, not mine. So there is no allowing involved. I don't advocate prostitution, i just think it should be the woman's (or man's) decision to partake or not.

Quote :
It is immoral therefore evil to kill - generally speaking
Anything labeled immoral is done because it is considered bad for society and the individual,

That's only part of the story. More so, in my opinion, morals are used to attain conformity at the risk of being labeled deviant. Yes, some things are obviously wrong, but these things are not what i'm questioning in this thread; it's interesting that none of the people whose beliefs i question actually participated in this debate.

Quote :
if the word immoral did not exist things that are bad for society would not just 'disappear' -

Quote me please, because i don't think that's what i said.

Quote :
This said, as society changes so do morals, but the principal that what is moral is for the good of society and therefore the individual remains the same.

I don't understand this statement. What does the individual remaining the same have to do with the rest of this statement?

mononokifool wrote:
With addictive drugs the drug dealers exploit peoples weaknesses, once they are hooked they can change the price to whatever and they know they will still come back

This wouldn't be a problem in a communist society. First, there wouldn't be "dealers", per se, who profit from peoples' weaknesses. Second, there would be no profit, so there's no incentive to exploit.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Voice of Reason
Komsomol Member


Posts : 183
Join date : 2008-01-12

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:35 pm

I#m doing a list again:

1) Don't view morals that have evolved for centuries, with the eyes of an educated person of today. Every generation develops the morals of their parents in it's own right.

2) Never ever view something "Black or White". That's no basis for reaching consent.

3) Morals and Law are strongly intertwined. Premarital sex was forbidden by law not long ago, but that was abolished, by one of the generations before us.

4) Total freedom can never exist as long as men are able to make decisions. Because someone got to have the authority to solve an argument.

5) Never tell anyone whether he/she has the right to procreate. Everyone has this right. All we can do is providing a social network to make sure that every child has a chance to become someone.

6) Crime is in most cases a consequence of social differences or of emotions that got out of hand. We can help to solve the first problem, but there would still be crime, because even the best education doesn't take away your ability to feel, thus act irrational and inflict unnecassary harm.

7) Law is there to protect the weak. Exploitation of law to further the means of privileged people is a byproduct of law that can and must be abolished. Maybe by one of us. (*points unto himself*)

Cool Education is the only way to a better society. But you have to understand that there are people, who simply aren't able to cope with education. They are drop-outs and have to be looked after, again in a social network. But even the best education can't prevent mistakes. Mistakes like trying heroin can happen, but have to be prevented as hard as possible, by laws of course.

9) Drugs in general (excluding medical ones) are inflicting harm on a society and should therefore be abolished in every possible way. Making not only dealing, but also possession illegal.

10) Communism requires everybody to function like a piece in a giant apparatus. Thus forcing people to follow through with their schedules or risk a loss of required productiveness, making problems for the whole society.

11) Prostitution can be legal, but it has to be made sure that the men/women work out of their own will and are not depending on pimps.
After legalizing prostitution a union should be created with governmental backup and police control. Unions are the best way to protect workers of every "genre". Legalization would also further social acceptance of prostitutes. However I would prefer if the prostitutes would stay in their offices/brothels to protect kids from "bad influence".

.... Wow long post.

wtf? I didn't put that smiley there.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 24
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:40 pm

Quote :
Crime is in most cases a consequence of social differences
Hmmm wonder what heppens if you take the social differences away.

Quote :
Law is there to protect the weak
Or is it to exploit them?

Quote :
Education is the only way to a better society
That's why wee need a vanguard- to educate the masses!

Quote :
Communism requires everybody to function like a piece in a giant apparatus. Thus forcing people to follow through with their schedules or risk a loss of required productiveness, making problems for the whole society.
Total misrepresentation of communism, typical of a cappie.

Quote :
Drugs in general (excluding medical ones) are inflicting harm on a society
Really? I thought they were only inflicting harm upon themselves.

Your name definitely does NOT fit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:45 pm

Voice of Reason wrote:
1) Don't view morals that have evolved for centuries, with the eyes of an educated person of today. Every generation develops the morals of their parents in it's own right.

So? Doesn't make it right. You're making it sound like we can't/shouldn't think for ourselves.

Quote :
2) Never ever view something "Black or White". That's no basis for reaching consent.

If i'm not allowed to do what i want, then i don't have freedom; i'm not being allowed to be myself when i'm being forced to conform to norms of society. Don't tell me how to view things.

Quote :
4) Total freedom can never exist as long as men are able to make decisions. Because someone got to have the authority to solve an argument.

Says who? A conglomorate of people can't make decisions with democracy? You're just being pessemistic. And authority doesn't solve anything, it's just a more efficient way of coming to a decision; usually the wrong decision.

Quote :
5) Never tell anyone whether he/she has the right to procreate.

Who said that? If you want people to know what your talking about, use the quote button. Otherwise, i can only assume this has no pertinance.

Quote :
Everyone has this right.

Insightful

Quote :
6)but there would still be crime, because even the best education doesn't take away your ability to feel, thus act irrational and inflict unnecassary harm.

This is a vast minority of crimes. And it's not like we would need police for this. They're not going to prevent the crime. We can democratically deal with those who enforce their will on others.

Quote :
7) Law is there to protect the weak.

Ideally, but this isn't the case for the most part.

Quote :
Exploitation of law to further the means of privileged people is a byproduct of law that can and must be abolished. Maybe by one of us. (*points unto himself*)

Ya, good luck with that. But as it stands, in america at least, the vast minority of white collar crimes, which are far more detrimental to society, actually make it to court. They are allowed to settle out of criminal court in order to save the company from 'embarassment'; Fuck that. All they (the perp) have to do is give the money back to the company and lose their jobs.

Quote :
Cool Education is the only way to a better society. But you have to understand that there are people, who simply aren't able to cope with education. They are drop-outs and have to be looked after, again in a social network.

And that would happen in communism, they would be looked after. But you aren't understanding what i meant by education. Within the school they would learn about these things, yes. But outside of schools, resources must be made available for people to learn about all risks associated with any given drug.

Quote :
But even the best education can't prevent mistakes. Mistakes like trying heroin can happen, but have to be prevented as hard as possible, by laws of course.

Ya, cos the law has worked wonders on fixing this problem so far. You can't live in a so-called "free society" (america) and have an overbearing police-force. People won't stand for it. So what do you propose to do in this type of society?

Quote :
9) Drugs in general (excluding medical ones) are inflicting harm on a society and should therefore be abolished in every possible way. Making not only dealing, but also possession illegal.

Fuck that. If we in america legalised marijuana it would increase the amount of jobs and allow us to pay off the national deficit; not to mention it would save the environment, since Henry Ford started working on a car made from hemp (the shell of the car) that ran on fuel from hemp oil.

The reasons drugs are hurting society are because, by illegalising them, we've effectively created a black market that siphons money from the legitimate economy, and also that people in poverty cannot support themselves and a drug habit.

Quote :
10) Communism requires everybody to function like a piece in a giant apparatus.

Communism doesn't force you to do shit; But if you want to be allowed to continue trade with others, you must do your fair share of the work.

Quote :
Thus forcing people to follow through with their schedules or risk a loss of required productiveness, making problems for the whole society.

How is that any different from capitalism? Or is there some other utopian system you believe in that i haven't heard of?

Quote :
11) Prostitution can be legal, but it has to be made sure that the men/women work out of their own will and are not depending on pimps.

A pimp would be fine as an administrative position in a communist society, i suppose, but he/she shouldn't be able to profit off of the prostitutes work; so i agree with you there.

Quote :
Legalization would also further social acceptance of prostitutes.

Agreed.

Quote :
However I would prefer if the prostitutes would stay in their offices/brothels to protect kids from "bad influence".

According to whose standards?

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 24
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:48 pm

Quote :
But if you want to be allowed to continue trade with others, you must do your fair share of the work.
You must be thinking of socialism, my friend. Communism is a society based on free access to all goods. You do not have to work. It is socialism where you recieve according to your contribution.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:58 pm

seriously...forums are shit for this kind of argument

we need a chat room or instant messaging for all...

srsly
Back to top Go down
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:25 am

Pannekoek wrote:
You must be thinking of socialism, my friend.

No, i'm not.

Quote :
Communism is a society based on free access to all goods. You do not have to work.

That's not how communism must work. Why should we use resources on people who are not willing to contribute? Is this not exploitation?

Quote :
It is socialism where you recieve according to your contribution.

When has that ever been the case?

Quote :
seriously...forums are shit for this kind of argument

we need a chat room or instant messaging for all...

srsly

Why do you say that?

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 24
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:40 am

Quote :
That's not how communism must work. Why should we use resources on people who are not willing to contribute? Is this not exploitation?
That's what communism is. I don't feel like defending it right now, but that's what it is. If you don't agree, you're not a communist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:03 am

Uh-huh...

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 24
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:05 am

What.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:00 am

actually

thats not what communism is...

and i ain't interested in typing shit out now either

lol
Back to top Go down
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 24
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:13 am

When will we type shit out?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:15 am

either later tonight or sunday when i am done with the mumia campaign
Back to top Go down
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 24
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:19 am

Okay, but I'm pretty sure that what I said was communism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mononokifool
Experienced Party Member
avatar

Posts : 838
Join date : 2008-03-30
Age : 29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:27 am

Pannekoek wrote:
Quote :
That's not how communism must work. Why should we use resources on people who are not willing to contribute? Is this not exploitation?
That's what communism is. I don't feel like defending it right now, but that's what it is. If you don't agree, you're not a communist.
dont you like it when people go around telling what you arnt and what you are

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:46 am

at the same time

even though you are a reformist

you still agree with him about reaching the ideal society right?
Back to top Go down
mononokifool
Experienced Party Member
avatar

Posts : 838
Join date : 2008-03-30
Age : 29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:51 am

that is the only thing I agree with

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 24
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:25 pm

Then you are a communist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Morals - Why?   

Back to top Go down
 
Morals - Why?
Back to top 
Page 2 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Piers Morgan at Leveson Enquiry
» Where Do Human Morals Come From?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Capitol of the World Republic :: State University-
Jump to: