Why do Communists tend to to be Atheist?

robindch

lufties wrote: »

Pro mass unfiltered migration.

Surely you mean 'immigration'?

My understanding of things suggests that people on the political right view migration as a problem when it happens from poor countries into rich. The other way around - immigration from rich countries into poor - seems to be a good and proper thing. And, in any case, immigrants tend to be referred to less as "immigrants" and more as "ex-pats".

Hotblack Desiato

lufties wrote: »

Democrat supporter, anti Trump, pro EU. Pro mass unfiltered migration. Pro Alphabet people, pro abortion and so on..

Has he ever expressed support for a Democrat candidate? He likes JFK :rolleyes:
Every sane person in Ireland is anti Trump.
Ditto EU
Never heard him say anything about immigration. Citation needed.
Your disdain for people not like you is noted. Not a good character trait tbh.
Never heard him express an opinion on repeal either. "Pro abortion" is a pejorative, bullsh!t term used by the opponents of reproductive choice to vilify the opposition.

That all you got..?

pauldla

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

....

"Pro abortion" is a pejorative, bullsh!t term used by the opponents of reproductive choice to vilify the opposition.

....

'And there's one for everybody in the audience..'....?

lufties

robindch wrote: »

Surely you mean 'immigration'?

My understanding of things suggests that people on the political right view migration as a problem when it happens from poor countries into rich. The other way around - immigration from rich countries into poor - seems to be a good and proper thing. And, in any case, immigrants tend to be referred to less as "immigrants" and more as "ex-pats".

Many eople from 3rd world countries come with different cultures and values. Rape statistics and crime has exploded in new 'enriched' countries like sweden and Germany for example. Yes I have a problem with mass unfiltered immigration (or migration). An immigrant, is not restricted to people from third world countries, I've heard many people say, 'British immigrant', in Canada or Australia, as they leave their host nation to make a new life in those countries.
Liberals seem to be obsessed on to this 'expat' v ' immigrant terminology thing. My opinion is that an expat is someone who temporarily moves to a country to utilise a specific skill for a designated time. I moved to Australia during the financial crash, however I had a job secured there before arriving, and am a professional with a skill that was needed, and never arrived expecting handouts from the state. Still though, at that time I considered myself an irish immigrant as I had the intention of staying there.
I also spent a specific time in Hong Kong on a work visa, and left once that 2 year contract was up. Hence condered myself an expatriate.
British retirees in Spain or thailand are not expats, they are retirees. Hope that is clear enough for you!

realitykeeper

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What you said was:





Now, you didn't say "some of the technical advances" or "many of the technical advances" or "most of the technical advances", what you said was that the technical advances we enjoy today are the product of deliberately funded R&D efforts in a capitalist environment. The lack of any qualifiers on the term technical advances does indeed imply that you were excluding individual effort.
Second, you also implied that the technical advances we have were the product of just two factors, deliberate funding of R&D efforts and a capitalist environment which made the advances desirable. As far as the examples I cited in my last post are concerned, your point about front loaded financing of research is false. Alexander Fleming wasn't paid to develop penicillin, nor was he paid to be an innovator, his discovery was a lucky accident. Your other point about a capitalist environment is also false. The proliferation of penicillin was not because it was lucrative but because it saved lives (and continues to do so).


Further, you make the argument that R&D is a consequence of a favourable environment, namely free market capitalism. However, even this is false. Technical advances can and do happen in the absence of free market capitalism. Just look at the development in satellite technology. The Russians managed to be the first ones to launch a satellite despite not having a free market. Soviet Russia also gave the world the Kalashnikov rifle family, a series of rifles which now account for 20% of all firearms worldwide. And let's not forget that the chemical elements Rutherfordium, Nobelium and Dubnium were all discovered in the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna during the Soviet era. And of course, though not strictly a technical advance, one of the greatest videogames of all time, Tetris, was developed in Russia in the 1980s. And finally, returning to the field of medicine, anybody who has been unlucky enough to need orthopaedic surgery on one or more of their limbs will have woken up to find said limb immobilised in a metal cage with rods and screws keeping everything where its supposed to be. This is known as an Ilizarov apparatus and is named after Gavriil Ilizarov who developed the device in Russia in the 1950s.

Technical advances don't necessarily come about because of deliberately financed efforts, neither do they proliferate because of economics. Sometimes its because they're useful or helpful or necessary.


Your argument fails because you fail to take into account confounding factors and because the reality is far more complex than the very narrow perspective you have outlined in your posts.

Your are reaching. I deliberately included the words "and the capitalist conditions" in order to include contributions to R&D by individuals. In other words, I anticipated the red herring you threw. Accept it and move on.

lufties

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Has he ever expressed support for a Democrat candidate? He likes JFK :rolleyes:
Every sane person in Ireland is anti Trump.
Ditto EU
Never heard him say anything about immigration. Citation needed.
Your disdain for people not like you is noted. Not a good character trait tbh.
Never heard him express an opinion on repeal either. "Pro abortion" is a pejorative, bullsh!t term used by the opponents of reproductive choice to vilify the opposition.

That all you got..?

He clearly loves the Clinton's and Obama. He was also clearly biased on the repeal side throughout. He tows the state line on everything. He also recently went on a tirade against Patriots and free speech protesters, calling them racists, and didn't bother investigating the fact that this nazi salute guy was a indeed a plant. Tubridy ambushed Peter casey for pointing out truths about travellers. Youd want to be wilfully ignorant to not see Tubridy's far left bias on everything.
You say I have disdain for others not like me, but call anyone who likes President Trump, 'insane'. Hypocrisy much? So half of Americans are insane by that logic, perhaps people's world view is different to yours.

Hotblack Desiato

I didn't say anything about American voters who support Trump. Read it again. Irish people supporting a foreign leader who wants to do damage to our economy is insane, yes.

What did Tubridy ever say to support repeal? I'm calling BS on that. He comes across as substantially more socially conservative than average (once described himself as a "young fogey" - guess he's just a fogey now )

Anyway all of this is off-topic.

smacl

lufties wrote: »

The super rich dont want to pay any tax, even RTE lefty liberal presenters like Tubridy have Ltd companies, and pay 12% corporation tax. Do as I say, not as I do. It takes a very virtuous person to be happy paying high taxes.

Corporation tax is on profits, not on income. If you take a salary out of a limited company you still pay PAYE at normal rates. If you take money from profits out, the company first pays corporation tax on the profits, then you pay income tax on the dividends. I own and have run a small company for thirty off years, pay income tax on my salary and also pay corporation tax on any profits. I tend to leave profits in the company given that as a self employed person I would not be eligible to the social welfare if things went tits up. A limited company is not particularly useful for tax avoidance. The primary benefit for an individual is that it limits their liability in the event of being sued, i.e. the word limited in a limited company refers to limited liability.

smacl

lufties wrote: »

He clearly loves the Clinton's and Obama. He was also clearly biased on the repeal side throughout. He tows the state line on everything. He also recently went on a tirade against Patriots and free speech protesters, calling them racists, and didn't bother investigating the fact that this nazi salute guy was a indeed a plant. Tubridy ambushed Peter casey for pointing out truths about travellers. Youd want to be wilfully ignorant to not see Tubridy's far left bias on everything.
You say I have disdain for others not like me, but call anyone who likes President Trump, 'insane'. Hypocrisy much? So half of Americans are insane by that logic, perhaps people's world view is different to yours.

I suspect Tubs and most of the other high profile RTE presenters are being paid to reflect the opinions of their audience more than express their own personal views. If you see Trump being vilified while Obama and Clinton enjoy a degree of respect, this is because RTE want represent popular sentiment rather than influence it. I'm not aware of any country outside of the USA where Trump is help in high regard by most people.

lufties

smacl wrote: »

I suspect Tubs and most of the other high profile RTE presenters are being paid to reflect the opinions of their audience more than express their own personal views. If you see Trump being vilified while Obama and Clinton enjoy a degree of respect, this is because RTE want represent popular sentiment rather than influence it. I'm not aware of any country outside of the USA where Trump is help in high regard by most people.

That's absolute tosh. RTE shape opinion. If RTE spun that Trump is a saint, then the public would think that.

RTE push whatever agenda they are told to. A certain irish media tycoon is a massive donater to the Clinton foundation, join the dots.

Anyway, I'm off now because we will never agree.

realitykeeper

In the past, the rich gave more to good causes because the government services were fewer. I contend that was a better system because governments are incompetent, so they should let the rich decide how best to use money for good causes. In this video, if you go to 14:38 the speaker says a lot of rich people contributed ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqyiMrIgwcw

lufties

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, the rich gave more to good causes because the government services were fewer. I contend that was a better system because governments are incompetent, so they should let the rich decide how best to use money for good causes. In this video, if you go to 14:38 the speaker says a lot of rich people contributed ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqyiMrIgwcw

As someone who is right leaning, I disagree. That would be wild west scenario. However, it would be naive to think the rich dont control things anyway.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, the rich gave more to good causes because the government services were fewer. I contend that was a better system because governments are incompetent, so they should let the rich decide how best to use money for good causes. In this video, if you go to 14:38 the speaker says a lot of rich people contributed ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqyiMrIgwcw

"In the past"?

When exactly was this magical time when the rich (who controlled governments ) were so fantastically generous with the money they either inherited or 'earned' from the sweat off other people's brows that the poor were competently looked after?

What wonderful country did this happen in?

Was it before or after the myriad of laws that had to be brought in to protect working children - you know, the laws a government introduced saying they couldn't work more than 12 hours a day, and had to be fed, and had to be over a certain age... and had to go to school?

Perhaps you are going to tell me that these children were sent out to work in dangerous factories and mines because they had lazy, feckless, workshy, parents rather than these children lived in utter poverty due to appalling wages and lack of State supports and protection they had no choice but to work?

Try reading an actual history book and remove your ideological blinkers.

Hotblack Desiato

lufties wrote: »

That's absolute tosh. RTE shape opinion. If RTE spun that Trump is a saint, then the public would think that.

This is in CT territory.
"Everybody who listens to it has their opinion shaped - except me, obviously, I know teh truth!!!!1!11!"

RTE push whatever agenda they are told to. A certain irish media tycoon is a massive donater to the Clinton foundation, join the dots.

Now this really is a CT. RTE are not beholden to any media tycoons.
Denis is a big donor to the Vatican, I guess that's why Newstalk is bigging up the RCC day and night :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm off now because we will never agree.

Off now because you can't defend your bizarre assertions more like. Oh well.

Hotblack Desiato

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, the rich gave more to good causes because the government services were fewer. I contend that was a better system because governments are incompetent, so they should let the rich decide how best to use money for good causes. In this video, if you go to 14:38 the speaker says a lot of rich people contributed ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqyiMrIgwcw

Is that what your bible tells you? LOL

The rich are a bunch of selfish bastards, always have been, always will be. It's why they're rich.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, the rich gave more to good causes because the government services were fewer. I contend that was a better system because governments are incompetent, so they should let the rich decide how best to use money for good causes. In this video, if you go to 14:38 the speaker says a lot of rich people contributed ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqyiMrIgwcw

Jesus wept.

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

In the past, the rich gave more to good causes because the government services were fewer.

US statistics indicate exactly the opposite - people are more generous now than they ever have been before, even if 40% of their donations disappear into the black hole which is religion:

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosity

realitykeeper

Bannasidhe wrote: »

"In the past"?

When exactly was this magical time when the rich (who controlled governments ) were so fantastically generous with the money they either inherited or 'earned' from the sweat off other people's brows that the poor were competently looked after?

What wonderful country did this happen in?

Was it before or after the myriad of laws that had to be brought in to protect working children - you know, the laws a government introduced saying they couldn't work more than 12 hours a day, and had to be fed, and had to be over a certain age... and had to go to school?

Perhaps you are going to tell me that these children were sent out to work in dangerous factories and mines because they had lazy, feckless, workshy, parents rather than these children lived in utter poverty due to appalling wages and lack of State supports and protection they had no choice but to work?

Try reading an actual history book and remove your ideological blinkers.

The laws to which you refer were gradually introduced over many decades, starting over a hundred years ago. At first, these laws were not a big deal, as you say the law restricting a child`s working hours to 12 a day was not a major stumbling block to employers as the child`s first 12 hours were the most productive anyway. However, little by little, new laws were introduced and today laws and protections have set the west up for total economic annihilation but lets not go there because it will have to happen before you believe me.

What is indisputable is the ridiculous labour protection laws that now exist and the extraordinary cost of labour. That is to say nothing of the cost of the welfare state. Should another great depression happen, one way out of it will be to take kids out of school and have them working 16 hour days again.

realitykeeper

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Is that what your bible tells you? LOL

The rich are a bunch of selfish bastards, always have been, always will be. It's why they're rich.

The moving of food, money etc from the rich to the poor can be done by mandatory means or voluntarily. I strongly agree the rich should be generous to the poor but when governments use strong-arm tactics to take from the rich and give to the poor, the long term outcome is seldom good.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

What is indisputable is the ridiculous labour protection laws that now exist and the extraordinary cost of labour. That is to say nothing of the cost of the welfare state. Should another great depression happen, one way out of it will be to take kids out of school and have them working 16 hour days again.

Absolute and utter nonsense. Minimum wage in this country falls far short of cost of basic accommodation in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, let alone cost of living. It also falls short of accommodation and transport in any commutable area to these cities. Similarly commercial rent is so high that many small businesses struggle to even meet minimum wage requirements. This is all a direct result of an over inflated property prices caused by unscrupulous and under-regulated money lenders. Now I'm not a Christian, but I was under the impression that Jesus took a pretty dim view of money lenders. You right wing notions Christianity seem diametrically opposed to what is taught as Christianity in this country, and that's coming from an atheist.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

The moving of food, money etc from the rich to the poor can be done by mandatory means or voluntarily. I strongly agree the rich should be generous to the poor but when governments use strong-arm tactics to take from the rich and give to the poor, the long term outcome is seldom good.

I think you should perhaps look at why the rich are rich and on what basis society should protect their position of extreme privilege? Should our unscrupulous money lenders for example enjoy this position in society? How about those who have done no more than being born to wealthy parents? Maybe those who have multitudes of people working for them for a wage so low that basic survival poses a problem? Wealth through merit is reasonable, but this is not where most wealth derives from.

Thinking on your comments of past times when the very rich held power propped up by right wing clergy brings to mind pre-revolutionary France and a little ditty by Denis Diderot.

I display the times; I appeal to the age
The public is never advantaged
Certainly, mankind has not sacrificed its rights;
If mankind dared but to listen to the voice of its heart, changing suddenly the language,
It would say to us, as it would to the animals of the woods:
Nature created neither servant nor master;
I seek neither to rule nor to serve.
And its hands would weave the entrails of the priest,
For the lack of a cord with which to strangle kings.

Didn't go so well for them in the end.

Bannasidhe

realitykeeper wrote: »

The laws to which you refer were gradually introduced over many decades, starting over a hundred years ago. At first, these laws were not a big deal, as you say the law restricting a child`s working hours to 12 a day was not a major stumbling block to employers as the child`s first 12 hours were the most productive anyway. However, little by little, new laws were introduced and today laws and protections have set the west up for total economic annihilation but lets not go there because it will have to happen before you believe me.

What is indisputable is the ridiculous labour protection laws that now exist and the extraordinary cost of labour. That is to say nothing of the cost of the welfare state. Should another great depression happen, one way out of it will be to take kids out of school and have them working 16 hour days again.

Is this a Poe?

robindch

smacl wrote: »

[...] a little ditty by Denis Diderot [....]

Thanks for that - I'd always thought that his often-quoted "Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest" comment stood on its own. Your ditty above suggests that the quote is a misquote, and a few seconds googling indicates the original is from his poem, Les Éleuthéromanes, quoted above, and first misquoted in an 1840 book by another French guy. Nice to be able to put that one to bed at last

Which makes me wonder - has anybody ever produced a dictionary of misquotations?

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

I strongly agree the rich should be generous to the poor but when governments use strong-arm tactics to take from the rich and give to the poor, the long term outcome is seldom good.

As above, your unsupported opinion is completely, and trivially, false.

The scientific literature in the broad area of social psychology indicates strongly that social inequality is a primary driver of a wide range of social disorders - drug abuse, psychiatric problems, criminality, reduced life expectancy and more. Assuming that government aims to increase the quality and length of life of its citizens, it should work to decrease social inequality.

Jesus had nothing to say about social inequality for the obvious enough reason that few if any people knew about it back in the first century. Humanity, or at least research into social problems and what causes them, has moved on since then though.

nthclare

robindch wrote: »

As above, your unsupported opinion is completely, and trivially, false.

The scientific literature in the broad area of social psychology indicates strongly that social inequality is a primary driver of a wide range of social disorders - drug abuse, psychiatric problems, criminality, reduced life expectancy and more. Assuming that government aims to increase the quality and length of life of its citizens, it should work to decrease social inequality.

Jesus had nothing to say about social inequality for the obvious enough reason that few if any people knew about it back in the first century. Humanity, or at least research into social problems and what causes them, has moved on since then though.

Yes Robin the research into social problems has moved alright, but has it moved in the right direction ?

In my opinion it needs a reset, society is rotten to the core in some areas.

Some like myself and yourself probably have a cushy lifestyle and we have a good awareness about what's going on around us.

Seen a lot of changes and made the right decisions to adapt to society...

Others are going around in a state of ego driven herd mentality which is akin to following the rest of the sheep walking over the cliff edge...

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Absolute and utter nonsense. Minimum wage in this country falls far short of cost of basic accommodation in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, let alone cost of living. It also falls short of accommodation and transport in any commutable area to these cities. Similarly commercial rent is so high that many small businesses struggle to even meet minimum wage requirements. This is all a direct result of an over inflated property prices caused by unscrupulous and under-regulated money lenders. Now I'm not a Christian, but I was under the impression that Jesus took a pretty dim view of money lenders. You right wing notions Christianity seem diametrically opposed to what is taught as Christianity in this country, and that's coming from an atheist.

Increasing the minimum wage will only increase the competition for the same resources and further destroy our competitiveness. The housing market is broken because the government interfered in the banking and housing markets at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. Had the banks been allowed to fail and had the government not reblown the property bubble, then house prices would have kept falling until people could afford them, perhaps 90% below the peak prices of 2006.

So your money lender comments are therefore irrelevant unless you apply that term to the banks and as I say, I and capitalism, would have let the banks fail.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

Increasing the minimum wage will only increase the competition for the same resources and further destroy our competitiveness. The housing market is broken because the government interfered in the banking and housing markets at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. Had the banks been allowed to fail and had the government not reblown the property bubble, then house prices would have kept falling until people could afford them, perhaps 90% below the peak prices of 2006.

So your money lender comments are therefore irrelevant unless you apply that term to the banks and as I say, I and capitalism, would have let the banks fail.

Rubbish. Ireland will never be competitive in the type of labour-intensive sweat shop industries where profitability is dependent on a large supply of underpaid workers. Ireland competes quite effectively in the high-tech arena, so more Intel and Apple than Nike. We are also dependent on a continuous stream of motivated and educated graduates, yet if you read the papers you'll see our third level student population is under massive stress, being able to afford neither accommodation near their college nor the commute from cheaper accommodation elsewhere. Now perhaps you'd like to blame the current housing bubble on socialism, but it would take some explaining.

Playing "what if?" to assert a better alternative present by imagining different past actions is a mug's fantasy. The bail out happened, we had a recession followed by another boom and continue to repeat the same mistakes. It is obvious that for continued social and economic survival we need to solve our housing crisis. The private construction sector has proven themselves woefully incapable and disinterested in getting this sorted so my opinion is that it should be done by the state, as a matter of priority, and will involve greater regulation in addition to building.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. Ireland will never be competitive in the type of labour-intensive sweat shop industries where profitability is dependent on a large supply of underpaid workers. Ireland competes quite effectively in the high-tech arena, so more Intel and Apple than Nike. We are also dependent on a continuous stream of motivated and educated graduates, yet if you read the papers you'll see our third level student population is under massive stress, being able to afford neither accommodation near their college nor the commute from cheaper accommodation elsewhere. Now perhaps you'd like to blame the current housing bubble on socialism, but it would take some explaining.

Playing "what if?" to assert a better alternative present by imagining different past actions is a mug's fantasy. The bail out happened, we had a recession followed by another boom and continue to repeat the same mistakes. It is obvious that for continued social and economic survival we need to solve our housing crisis. The private construction sector has proven themselves woefully incapable and disinterested in getting this sorted so my opinion is that it should be done by the state, as a matter of priority, and will involve greater regulation in addition to building.

Wrong on all counts. For all Ireland`s high tech, the country has continued to amass debt. Ireland is in a hopeless predicament and the only way out will be hyperinflation in the euro currency and other currencies in which the country is indebted. This is why the eurozone is doomed to fail as an economic entity - the med countries and Ireland will need hyperinflation and Germany will try to block it. I think the German`s have some sort of arrangement with the EU that insures them against euro inflation above 20%. If Germany has such an insurance policy, there will be no easy way out for the highly indebted Med countries or Ireland.

realitykeeper

robindch wrote: »

As above, your unsupported opinion is completely, and trivially, false.

The scientific literature in the broad area of social psychology indicates strongly that social inequality is a primary driver of a wide range of social disorders - drug abuse, psychiatric problems, criminality, reduced life expectancy and more. Assuming that government aims to increase the quality and length of life of its citizens, it should work to decrease social inequality.

Jesus had nothing to say about social inequality for the obvious enough reason that few if any people knew about it back in the first century. Humanity, or at least research into social problems and what causes them, has moved on since then though.

Ok, let us focus on the bit I emboldened. That is indeed true and it will be proven so again in the very near future but what you fail to grasp is that it is cowardly leftists who bring about the ultimate inequality. By bailing out and indeed nationalizing the banks (which was a very leftist thing to do), governments in the western world have given trillions to the worlds richest people.

A lot of people think Cuba was a wealthy capitalist country before it turned Communist but in fact it was a country with a lot of debt and therefore it only had the appearance of being wealthy just like highly indebted western countries have the appearance of being wealthy today.

But, because Communism is discredited as an ideology it`s re-emergence will probably be called something else, i.e. Communism by some other name but whatever they call it, to me it will be called Communism for slow learners.

And, when that happens, it will be just as Orwell said, everyone equal but some more than others. That is the kind of equality Chauchescu believed in.

By the way, these trillions the US government has invested in the private sector has changed the fundamental nature of the private sector and has made corporate giants more like state owned white elephants. This article is an early indicator of how attitudes are changing because of all this state owned debt in US companies: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/business/business-roundtable-ceos-corporations.html

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

Wrong on all counts. For all Ireland`s high tech, the country has continued to amass debt. Ireland is in a hopeless predicament and the only way out will be hyperinflation in the euro currency and other currencies in which the country is indebted. This is why the eurozone is doomed to fail as an economic entity - the med countries and Ireland will need hyperinflation and Germany will try to block it. I think the German`s have some sort of arrangement with the EU that insures them against euro inflation above 20%. If Germany has such an insurance policy, there will be no easy way out for the highly indebted Med countries or Ireland.

You don't seem to grasp how structured debt works. Once you can service it adequately it is in the creditors best interests that you continue to do so and they have neither the inclination nor the ability to foreclose. The cost of servicing the debt, while a painful draw on the public purse, is well within our means.