Bondolon

You are censoring me. My voice will be heard. I am my own being, and my reason for living is that I exist. You are ANTI freedom ANTI logic ANTI choice

[1] If you will ever die, there is a high likelihood that your beliefs are meaningless... however, who knows? maybe there is some higher purpose to your, singular, very important life. edit: I'm not targeting any single person, I think every person's beliefs are meaningless [2] I refuse to disagree with you on this one

You see this? right here at the beginning of your rebuttal? this is where your argument fell apart. I never claimed that it is impossible for a human to think rationally, just that most humans are "dipshits". And not once in my little "dissertation" did I make the statement that any singular group is right or wrong, I merely said that because of the nature of the fact of the disagreements that people have, somebody must have a different (incomplete, hackneyed, etc..) viewpoint on the same situation than someone else. Is either one of them wrong? almost assuredly. Are both of them wrong? there's a good chance. If I judge either of them as wrong, is there much of a chance of me being right? not really. The reason your argument fell apart is, you did the exact same thing in this rebuttal that you have done in every other one. You presumed to tell me what I believed. You have replied to me (I believe) 4 times, and not one of those times have you chosen to merely go on what you believe, as much as try to get me to change the definition of what I believe, so that you can tell me how wrong I am.

And that's where (ultimately) my disagreement, and my agreement lies. I agree that I did "attack" the rational faculty, and I stand by said "attack". However, the assertion that certainty is possible (in terms of abstract beliefs) is one with which I do not agree. The assertion, "this ball is red" is an assertion that is easily redeemable, and mainly has to do with one's interpretation of said object, or, in other words, "this ball reflects photons that are intercepted by my eyes, and in the translation of said interception, my brain has told me that the color red would best describe what I see." The capability of human reason in said situation is more than sufficient. The problem comes when one asserts things that are unprovable, for instance "There is no god".

Fair enough. I suppose an explanation of "why" was indeed lacking. I say that because, as a species, people tend to disagree quite a bit. Every group or organization that has some sort of focus (e.g. Environmentalists, Terrorists, etc...) believes that they are right. If you consider the situation of the PLO and Israel, two groups are fighting that each believe they are right. So where is the agreement here? As an assumption, let the human body be "perfect in faculty and reason". If this were the case, it would stand to reason that the PLO and Israel would be able to see, logically, the most perfect deal to fix their situation. Taking it even further, I maintain that if humans had the perfect capacity for rational thought, humans would have no wars, and there would be an anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-communist society. Therefore, as an assumption, let the human body be "imperfect in faculty and reason, but greater than all of the creatures in such". In said situation, it would be possible, nay, likely to see two groups following what they consider to be the most perfect, most logical course of action, and disagreeing horribly with their opposing group. Basically, what I'm saying is, I am not suggesting that human logic be thrown out the window, or that people should just forfeit all rights to decision making, but that people should continue to live as they have been living (making assumptions they believe are true, and acting upon them as such), keeping in mind that the possibility for being "wrong" is a very real one. There you go telling me what I believe again (and again, you are very, very wrong). I am not saying that knowledge should not be limited by humans. I am saying that humans are limited in terms of knowledge. Take for example the dark ages, or going even farther back, the stone age. Humans were far more lacking in knowledge than people today, but they still felt themselves to be very "smart". My opinion is that a human today claiming to be a perfect being, fully capable in faculty and reason, is tantamount to a caveman believing that his discovery of fire was the "secret" of the universe. Ah, well then, that was "helpful". Really brought along "rational" discussion. Your accusing me of acting on emotion instead of logic definitely proves (ad hominem aside) that you are the superior debater here.

My point was only that the rate of improvement/advancement was not properly dealt with by the only people who were in a position to deal with it. Also, I still fail to see why (despite my insistance to the contrary) you think that I am "condemning" anything. I'm merely attempting to bring to light the possibility that whereas capitalism in and of itself is not, has never and will probably never be a failure, human nature has proven to be one of the most destructive and creative forces in existence. Who's complaining? You can take what I said out of context, possibly even push me off as some "liberal" for saying it, or you can read it, comprehend what it says, and then post a response to it. I was merely stating that corporations (as an entity) have been known to disregard certain evidence about the harmful nature of products in order to gain more of a profit margin. And my motivation behind saying that is to illustrate the possibility that, given the current state of things, any single corporation can be put in a position to have the more power than any other entity has ever had before, and whereas a person might do the responsible thing (meaning that he would do what is, in the long run, the most profitable for himself, which usually encompasses being honest with consumers), a modern corporation might not have the same "feeling", assuming a certain degree of humanity is lost.

Perhaps my wording could have been better, for the sake of not offending the (obviously) easily offended. What I meant to say was not exactly that "explotation" was rampant, as much as the fair (I say fair in the strictest, 3-year old "that's not fair" sense of the word) treatment of workers was almost non-existent. Safe working conditions were not mandated by any larger body (nor do they "necessarily" need to be) while, at the same time, were not enforced by the businesses themselves. Take, for example, a textile mill. If a worker happened to be injured on one of the machines, (realize, machinery during the industrial revolution was only geared toward efficiency, not safety... the same is no longer true) one of two situations could arise: The worker is temporarily incapacitated, and is therefore fired or sent home until better (no pay) The worker is permanently incapacitated (e.g. Loses a hand), and is fired This is an agreement, as you mentioned before. Volvo agrees to make a car that lacks certain safety features, and said consumer agrees to pay a set price for a car, knowing full and well the implications of his buying decision. Do I disagree with it? I don't honestly give a crap. However, when the Fast Food/Snack industry chose to switch to partially hydrogenated oils and fats because they have a longer shelf-life, said industries were informed about the possible risks associated with using said product. The chose to go ahead and use them because, in the end, it was cheaper. Basically, this boils down to not only the degradation of a product's quality, but of the misinformation of the consumer. On a side note, I think it is "wrong" of you to make a summary judgement about my "beliefs". You laid down an example of consumer/producer agreement, labeled it in such a way that you were suggesting that my definition of such warranted condemnation and then presumed to tell me what I believed. It most obviously would be. Thank goodness it isn't my position.

As a matter of principle, I feel that limiting the possibility for existence to only that which the (inherently imperfect) human body or productions thereof can sense is, well, very unreasonable.

I came to this forum because of a certain deal that was offered by a certain individual. However, upon arriving I have seen that this is quite the perfect board for discussion about various debatable topics. I suppose Kudos are in order to said individual for bringing me here, and I'm hoping to get in to some engaging discussions. So thanks, david.

Voted "I Don't Vote" (odd irony) I choose not to vote for 2 main reasons: I don't support any political party and I am (feebly) protesting the state of democracy in America. A question to consider here, however, is whether capitalism (in its truest or current incarnation) could exist in a different political system (e.g. a Monarchy)

My opinion on this has to do with the existence of entities that once did not exist. If one looks at the industrial revolution, exploitation of workers was rampant... Though the "responsibility" for said exploitation was in the hands of a group of people. However, with all of the government controls that exist today, a new entity has emerged, the "soulless" corporation. Said corporations are those that would actually compromise the quality and/or safety of a product for the sake of increasing profits. While this isn't the fault of Capitalism itself, it IS the fault of A) rampant, unchecked consumerism and B)Oligarchism. Capitalism, more than any other system, provides for individual freedoms. However, Oligarchism, as a means of utilizing the fundamental elements of Capitalism, proves to allow the unchecked power of Corporations. edit: on a joking, but not entirely unserious note, Reality TV is (I believe) a direct product of said Oligarchy

I support the film, if for no other reason than to.... help... certain "religious" christians question their beliefs. Even if it does nothing but reaffirm them, hopefully they begin to understand why they believe what they believe, instead of remaining ignorant