Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[United Muscovite Nations]

They still die.

That's just changing the goalpost.

Not at all. If they weren't slaves to their fallen humanity, they could will themselves to live forever.

[Shikihara]

That's just changing the goalpost.

Not at all. If they weren't slaves to their fallen humanity, they could will themselves to live forever.

Dying is not because of "fallen humanity," it's just a biological fact of life. Everything dies, and countless things have died billions of years before human beings existed.

Also, Taoists can claim that their immortals have willed themselves to live forever, and you would have no counter.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not at all. If they weren't slaves to their fallen humanity, they could will themselves to live forever.

Dying is not because of "fallen humanity," it's just a biological fact of life. Everything dies, and countless things have died billions of years before human beings existed.

Also, Taoists can claim that their immortals have willed themselves to live forever, and you would have no counter.

Even if it were simply that, then we would be slaves to our biological nature.

[Aillyria]

That makes no sense, how can a kafir be a servant of our God (swt)?


Abrahamic law the basis of righteousness, atheism and it's associated ideas are demonic in nature, and have led humanity astray towards perversion.

There must be a moral standard in civilization or it will lend itself to Satan.

Satan doesn't exist, and abrahamic law is awful. Death penalty for adultery, homosexuality and working on Sundays and so much more.

Satan does exist.

The Quranic penalty for adulery, for both men and women is 100 lashes not death. Stoning is only prescribed for by the hadith. Homosexuality, while a sin, is not punishable by death in the Quran and is a matter between God (swt) and the individual in the hereafter.

[Shikihara]

Dying is not because of "fallen humanity," it's just a biological fact of life. Everything dies, and countless things have died billions of years before human beings existed.

Also, Taoists can claim that their immortals have willed themselves to live forever, and you would have no counter.

Even if it were simply that, then we would be slaves to our biological nature.

What?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Even if it were simply that, then we would be slaves to our biological nature.

What?

As I said, if we aren't slaves to our biological processes, then we would be able to will ourselves to live forever.

[The Liberated Territories]

Perhaps we don't consent to being born or dying naturally, though even the latter can be influenced by our own actions, and as for the former — well suicide is always an option, right? But you miss the fact that we are born also with a certain amount of freedom over our actions.

Speculatively we have freedom of our actions. I agree with that. But approaching from a logical perspective and not one based on my faith, no I don't think we do. Our brains have control over our actions and our consciousness is retroactively created by the machinery of the brain.

The fact that you can engage in such introspection is evident enough. The fact that we can reason gives it some credibility, don't you think?

There is no difference between the two concepts you pose. Circular logic is to say "but it is our brains, not our conscious! We are controlled to our brains!"

[Pilarcraft]

What?

As I said, if we aren't slaves to our biological processes, then we would be able to will ourselves to live forever.

this is a meme, right? it's got to be a meme

[New Rogernomics]

Satan doesn't exist, and abrahamic law is awful. Death penalty for adultery, homosexuality and working on Sundays and so much more.

Satan does exist.

The Quranic penalty for adulery, for both men and women is 100 lashes not death. Stoning is only prescribed for by the hadith. Homosexuality, while a sin, is not punishable by death in the Quran and is a matter between God (swt) and the individual in the hereafter.

Really depends on the country, and how authorities interpret religious scriptures, the local customs, and culture. Jordan is safer to be homosexual than most other ME countries, and Lebanon more so. But I wouldn't set foot in most other parts, as it would be extremely un-safe, with sexual acts or attraction being a jail worthy offense.

[Aillyria]

Satan does exist.

The Quranic penalty for adulery, for both men and women is 100 lashes not death. Stoning is only prescribed for by the hadith. Homosexuality, while a sin, is not punishable by death in the Quran and is a matter between God (swt) and the individual in the hereafter.

Really depends on the country, and how authorities interpret religious scriptures, the local customs, and culture. Jordan is safer to be homosexual than most other ME countries, and Lebanon more so. But I wouldn't set foot in most other parts, as it would be extremely un-safe, with sexual acts or attraction being a jail worthy offense.

I'm talking about strictly Quranic law, not hadith, or national fatwas.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Speculatively we have freedom of our actions. I agree with that. But approaching from a logical perspective and not one based on my faith, no I don't think we do. Our brains have control over our actions and our consciousness is retroactively created by the machinery of the brain.

The fact that you can engage in such introspection is evident enough. The fact that we can reason gives it some credibility, don't you think?

There is no difference between the two concepts you pose. Circular logic is to say "but it is our brains, not our conscious! We are controlled to our brains!"

The conscious thought comes after the mechanism though, this has been proven. The conscious decision is retrospective.

[The Liberated Territories]

The fact that you can engage in such introspection is evident enough. The fact that we can reason gives it some credibility, don't you think?

There is no difference between the two concepts you pose. Circular logic is to say "but it is our brains, not our conscious! We are controlled to our brains!"

The conscious thought comes after the mechanism though, this has been proven. The conscious decision is retrospective.

No evidence however exists that brain activity can not couldn't occur without conscious decisions. If your brain is firing off neurons, you are by definition making conscious decisions. The argument is a reducto ad abserdum that somehow the brain is independent of consciousness.

[Aillyria]

The fact that you can engage in such introspection is evident enough. The fact that we can reason gives it some credibility, don't you think?

There is no difference between the two concepts you pose. Circular logic is to say "but it is our brains, not our conscious! We are controlled to our brains!"

The conscious thought comes after the mechanism though, this has been proven. The conscious decision is retrospective.

Wut......

[Mattopilos II]

Today's LWDT is brought to you by "I don't know what biology is so let me throw shit at the wall" understanding of science. God Bless This Lovely Thread

[Shikihara]

How do you feel about the New Soviet Man, and should leftist movements be aimed at creating a new "type" of human being?

[Genivaria]

The fuck are you talking about?

Nice evasion.

He says while not responding to what I said.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

And conscription is wrong, so rejecting it is fine.

But it is an example, yes?

It is an example of a duty that is forced upon you, yes. But it is not an example of a duty which would be wrong to reject as was what Parkus was saying.

[Pilarcraft]

But it is an example, yes?

It is an example of a duty that is forced upon you, yes. But it is not an example of a duty which would be wrong to reject as was what Parkus was saying.

technically, every duty is forced upon you, though, and should be rejected.

[Trotskylvania]

How do you feel about the New Soviet Man, and should leftist movements be aimed at creating a new "type" of human being?

The "New Soviet Man" is an extension of the "New Man" concept inherited from liberalism and the Enlightenment period. What both concepts shared was a profound agnosticism about intent.

Both version of the New Man were not intentional projects, but seen as the inevitable result of the advance of new forms of social existence. At any rate, they believed that when individuals were placed in circumstances that allowed them to flourish, they would become more complete human beings.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Satan doesn't exist, and abrahamic law is awful. Death penalty for adultery, homosexuality and working on Sundays and so much more.

Satan does exist.

The Quranic penalty for adulery, for both men and women is 100 lashes not death. Stoning is only prescribed for by the hadith. Homosexuality, while a sin, is not punishable by death in the Quran and is a matter between God (swt) and the individual in the hereafter.

"Satan does exist."

"Prove it," had become my maxim in the face of such paradoxical self-contradiction. Tallulah, now assuming the form of a cloud of Nitrogen, ogling the otherwise unremarkable air overhead kiped up in a dialect understood only by me. Saying "You must not prove anything! To demand proof is to reset any cognizable argument back to square zero, from whence no light can escape the surface."


Your morality is shit for even labelling adultery and homosexuality as sinful to begin with, not to mention for state enforced corporal punishment.

[Pilarcraft]

Satan doesn't exist, and abrahamic law is awful. Death penalty for adultery, homosexuality and working on Sundays and so much more.

Satan does exist.

The Quranic penalty for adulery, for both men and women is 100 lashes not death. Stoning is only prescribed for by the hadith. Homosexuality, while a sin, is not punishable by death in the Quran and is a matter between God (swt) and the individual in the hereafter.

1) you state that "Satan Does Exist"... with not argument to prove it.

2) Seriously, a religion that illegalizes homosexuality, for whatever reason, and actually supports corporal punishment, in any shape or form, doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in public , much less defended as Le Only Correct Religion

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Very rarely. To say that one person or one council or one populous can know more about the life of every individual that they do is misanthropic, faux-"woke", "we're all machines," nonsense.

No, it's pretty much the basis of criminal law.

Criminal law (other than restitution) does violate liberty, that is true, however I think that criminal law should only exist for pragmatic purposes and be reduced as much as possible.

[Pilarcraft]

Very rarely. To say that one person or one council or one populous can know more about the life of every individual that they do is misanthropic, faux-"woke", "we're all machines," nonsense.

No, it's pretty much the basis of criminal law.

Uuuh... when we speak of Criminal Law, we talk about constitutionally viable criminal law, right? (else it's just 'what king says') and Modern Constitutionally Viable Criminal Law, at least in theory,
1) follows rules that we, as a people, have agreed on (either directly or by delegates)
2) can be changed, again, by the people (either directly or indirectly)

A group or one person or a council doesn't just gathers around in a circle-jerk saying "yeah we know what's best for everyone, so let's dictate what we should do about the lives of every single individual!!!", in theory, criminal law is about defending the rights of the majority from the Individual (aka, stuff you can't do outside your home, when your "life" can breach other people's rights)

[Republican Corentia]

https://constitutii.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1936-en.pdf

Reminder the USSR's constitution was pretty good.

It also was, y'know, pointless. The constitution could be violated at the drop of a hat. And it was.

Literally where?

[Republican Corentia]

How did Marx's words lead to the greatest atrocities on earth? That's some big language coming from the guy who's defending men who put "all men are created equal" in their documents while they continued the slave trade to its highest points in the United States.

The Soviet Union wasn’t exactly some paradise to live in. Millions died under Stalin, Eastern Europe was invaded and occupied by the Soviets, any opposition crushed, and place under heavy Soviet influence. The Great Leap Forward killed millions, re-education camps across the Asian Communist countries, the Khmer Rouge, the current Chinese regime, etc etc. turn out humans aren’t perfect, and that many of our systems have been shit.

Still, I find “All Men are created equal” to be something to follow.

The historical inaccuracies in your post aside, Marx can't exactly choose who follows him or not. He's dead, and all those nations you listed were inspired theoretically by Marx, as in their study of things like society at large or capitalism. To say that the purges in any of those countries were "inspired by Marx" is far-fetched. What would have inspired all the mass murders in non-socialist countries? Would it be due to some long-dead capitalist economist like Adam Smith? Let's be real.

Also Pol Pot was funded by the CIA and went to war with Vietnamese communists.