It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dontreally
free market capitalism would be replaced by socialist economics; private ownership will be replaced by state (or “communal”) ownership.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by dontreally
You're confusing socialism with communism. They are different things. "Leftists" want the disenfranchised to have access to the same opportunities as the "enfranchised.
Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism....
Oneness does not remove moral or ethical responsibility or justify end/means thinking at all and more than Christian after life removes meaning from death and therefore life .
- Who are these people who allegedly claim that women and men are biologically the same?
Originally posted by dontreally
The paramount danger of socialism is the degree of power invested in a central authority.
The oneness implied in the Shema Yisrael is diametrically different from the oneness of the radical Gnostic, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim [sic]
Now, the radical, such a person doesn't think his evil actions are actually evil.
Whats especially irksome is their revolt against science and reason.
Science shows that woman and men are different, but since that doesn't jibe with their theories the otherwise, they ignore science, preferring instead their "superior" spiritual vision.
It actually amazes me that you're asking this question, since you seem to be a pretty devout feminist.
Gender and sexsex and gender
Gender and sex
In Delusions of Gender Cordelia Fine disputes all scientific evidence for innate biological differences between men and women's minds, and that cultural and societal beliefs result in all commonly perceived sex differences.[121]
There is not blanket denial of the pattern of sex differences in high-level mathematical achievement referred to by Tierney – what is legitimately disputed is the chalking-up of this difference to ‘inherent’ potential, and the extent to which they can explain women’s under-representation in mathematics and science. [sic]
Nor does my book (which has been unappealingly described as “relentlessly methodological” in its “striving for scientific correctness”) “ignore” the supposedly compelling evidence for the neurological and hormonal origins of essential differences in male and female minds.
Source: Fine, Cordelia (2010). Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. W. W. Norton & Company.
There are sex differences in the brain. There are also large (although generally decreasing) sex differences in who does what, and achieves what. It would make sense if these facts were connected in some way, and perhaps they are. But when we follow the trail of contemporary science we discover a surprising number of gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies ...
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by ANOK
So you're not interested in answering the question I asked?
You say radical here, but you also seemed to define all Leftism as radical which seems an inflexible position?
Or you're defining your opponent so narrowly
The vast majority of Buddhists for example couldn't be argued to be morally nihilistic IMO.
you appear to be stating that somewhere between Buddhist or Hindu Monism, the Torah comes up superior?
Again, who is this phantom you're fighting?
I have a copy.
breast feeding or deny any form of unique hormonal changes that alter mind, brain and body is way out there.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Pinke
I mean radical leftists. Not the left in general.
Conversation is impossible without some measure of definition and "narrowing". Otherwise it'll be a back and froth conversation of indefinite maybes.
Please try to engage the topics I'm discussing instead of circumlocating them.
. This notion is obvious, and eternal, and has been the basic motivator of biological evolution, but since leftists are radical, seeking a world that only exists in their imaginations, amazingly, they are able to ignore the sheer illogic ... [sic]
Nihilism means ... [sic]
Just as I don't expect you two understand my thinking or my own experiences which have led me to accept and embrace a more conservative morality and politics, so too should a leftist understand that people who think differently from them are simply DIFFERENT.
No one has the right to pontificate or indoctrinate others into their belief system.
That's cute. Being ignorant of the literature, naturally you assume I'm generating an imaginary foe. The fact that you didn't even know that there's a battle amongst scientists and scholars about biological gender differences shows how out-of-touch you are with the conversation.
what was the point in saying: "- Who are these people who allegedly claim that women and men are biologically the same?"
My claim obviously referred to the influence of biology on psychological differences. Hormonal differences obviously affects behaviour. That this is denied, or underemphasized, by feminists, only reveals there political agendas.
Oh I know what nihilism means. Nothing I've said indicates that I don't.
Though you haven't defined nihilism precisely here,
I believe people have a right to opinions and ideas.
Yes, there is a discussion about biological determinism and how far it impacts; no time did I say otherwise ... even Cordelia Fine acknowledges that! It stands to reason that I would acknowledge that. In fact, the quotes from myself are stating that!
I'm fairly certain if I compared my own philosophical stances to an extreme idealogue in my own head I'd win by default too. The value of that thought experiment is nil.
There are feminists that believe we should celebrate difference.
There are feminists that believe we should strive to have masculine options in behaviour.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by ANOK
This was my question:
As for anarchic socialism. Mind me asking you a question? If you go to the libertarian socialism portal, the "concepts" section encroaches on the personal sphere to an offensive degree. When "free love", and other such ideas float about, people begin to wonder "how would such a concept be brought to fruition"? How could people be forced not to marry, etc? The extremely disturbing tendency of anarchy is it's universalist perspective; it isn't content with decentralizing government - but it deigns to pass judgement on all "types" of "authoritarian power", reserving the right to deem whatever they want "authoritarian". For example, my own conservative, judeo-Christian ethos, would be authoritarian in their eyes, because I subscribe to marriage, the notion of sexual difference (a scientific fact) and a bunch of other things.
As for the difference between the economic and political? As I said already, the economic and political are not mutually exclusive spheres. They interact and affect one another.
In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Pinke
You said: Though you haven't defined nihilism precisely here,
Now, you're saying you disagree with my application of the word, which is tantamount to making issue of the word "night" and making issue of my application of it to the darkness that follows daytime.
conservatism - a trend which emerges naturally in nature, will always rise up again and again to stymie anarchic ambitions
Additionally, by denying people the right to marry - as libertarian socialist thinkers are theorizing - that requires mind numbing social controls on peoples thinking and feeling.
I mentioned the Kibbutz example
Fine biological differences exist (as you concede) but not psychological or behavioural differences!
Now, if this has been undermined, a sacred dogma of leftist spirituality has been challenged: the world cannot exist in a "non-dual" context.
One second, you imply there's no conversation about the differences in gender biology on psychology and behaviour.
It should go without saying that I was referring to biologies relationship to psychology. Your problem is that you play too many games
Another time you say I haven't properly defined nihilism - when I do, your problem becomes "you disagree with my application" of it.
If you have no notions of an objective good or evil, thats nihilism. What distinction could there be between the concept in itself and its application? If someone doesn't live according to any rules - antinomianly - then they're nihilists.
Forced to marry, what? You are reading peoples ideas, not
Forced to marry, what? You are reading peoples ideas, not what libertarian socialism actually is.