I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Hello, I'm A Tea Partier

Hits: 20046 | Rating: (2.8) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: ElMustache
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13817 Posts
Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:47:09 AM
iaburton, Jesus was not in ANY sense of the word a socialist. Until you acknowledge the difference between voluntary giving and having your property stolen by threat of force, there's really nothing more to discuss.

iaburton
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 6 Posts
Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:44:15 AM
con't. While it certainly isn't the Grace of God force you to come this conclusion, as he gave us the ability to create (reason/intellect), in order to trancend this world to become closer to God, one need to give up on the world and its possessions.

Again, I never said ANYTHING about Government (to be honest socialism isn't even my governmental preference), I was just trying to illuminate you on the Word, beyond what Pat Roberson, Beck, or any other evangelicals with a mission might lead you to believe about the Word.

iaburton
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 6 Posts
Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:36:22 AM
Well, not socialism, in fact it may have been true communism, they shared all things in common, there were no personal possessions. And again, really read the Bible before you quote Jesus on something, because in story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts Chapter 5, he didn't threaten to throw them in Jail, because Ananias sold some of his land and did not give all of the profits (he held some for himself), he not only lied to the elders but he lied to God, and died on the spot. Mark 10 he states that it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. Achan in Joshua 7, ect. There are a number of passages.

The main point though is that, according to the Bible, our possessions are what attaches us to the earth, and moves us away from God. When we own things we no longer have a praxis of agape, face-to-face communion, but instead have a praxis of subject-to-object. cont.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13817 Posts
Monday, November 08, 2010 10:08:01 PM
iaburton, socialism is a system of GOVERNMENT, not a voluntary living arrangement. You can't equate communal living with socialism any more than you can equate marriage with gang rape. Socialism, like gang rape, involves one group of people using force to compel an individual to act against his or her will. Whether it's your money or your @$$, if you don't give it up, someone's going to pull a gun on you.

Early Christians may have lived communally, but it wasn't because Jesus threatened to send them to prison if they didn't.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13817 Posts
Monday, November 08, 2010 9:52:30 PM
This nonsense you rattle on about socialism leading to police states is just evidence of how you've been indoctrinated...

So, I guess that the USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, China, North Korea, Viet Nam, Khmer Republic, Myanmar, Angola, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Iran are just exceptions to the rule.

Finally nations have no moral obligations save those of their individual citizens. All the pain and suffering in the world has been because some people feel they have a "moral obligation" to steal the property of one individual and give it to another (keeping a small "administrative fee" for themselves, of course). Call it what you want -- liberalism, progressiveism, fascism, socialism, Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, or social justice -- it's all the same, and it never ends well.

iaburton
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 6 Posts
Monday, November 08, 2010 7:29:01 AM
say huh?? ha
I said nothing about the free market vs. socialized market, I just said that there are a number of instances of people living in common(ism) in the Bible, you said there wasn't and there certainly is, you can look it up.

And just for the heck of it, a number of logical fallacies you committed: Ignore the evidence, hedge what you say, insist loudly on a minor point, oversimplify the issue, straw man argument, slippery slope, create misgivings, appeal to fear, talk in vague generalities, rewrite history, shift the burden of proof.

and to say that I do not "understand" your view on reality, that is true. Because I am certain that there is no "one true way" and all others are false, as there is no way to quantify opinions. I was simply stating a fact (-:

McDuff73
Male, 30-39, Europe
 666 Posts
Monday, November 08, 2010 3:44:39 AM
@ollie ignoring the fact you were wrong doesnt make it go away it just means your still wrong.

This nonsense you rattle on about socialism leading to police states is just evidence of how you've been indoctrinated to beleive in the mighty dollar, your not free at all you shackled by the need for money.

Arrogance is in a Nation refusing to recognise it has a moral obligation to provide health care to its populace free of charge.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13817 Posts
Sunday, November 07, 2010 8:04:05 PM
iaburton, if you can't tell the difference between a voluntary association of free people and a police state with armed guards, attack dogs, and razor wire (which is how ALL socialist "Eutopias" end up), I can't explain it to you in 1000 characters.

When charity is compelled by the state, it's no longer charity. It's just a bunch of arrogant pricks who think they're more intelligent, better educated, more enlightened, and more moral than you are, which to them means that they're better qualified to spend your money than you are.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13817 Posts
Sunday, November 07, 2010 4:21:01 PM
McDuff73, the only thing you've pointed out here is your extraordinary capacity for self-delusion.

iaburton
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 6 Posts
Sunday, November 07, 2010 7:31:37 AM
err oldollie, somebody said that jesus was the original socialist, and their partly correct. The early Christians (pre-constantine) lived in community (g.k. koinonia) and shared things in common (koina). As for specific passages Matt 19:23-24, Mark 10:17-25, Luke 10:24-25. Also you should definitely check out the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts.
Also when you were talking about morality, ethics can really only be considered when it is 'a priori", that is to say consequence cannot be considered when judging if an action is moral (ethically sound) or not, instead the only thing that can be put into account is intention. A truly moral action must also be universal, and done for the sake of itself.
But then again, open skepticism of deeply held beliefs are tough for most people, so... you might just forget that

McDuff73
Male, 30-39, Europe
 666 Posts
Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:06:22 AM
In other words hostile to someone that doesnt share your very narrow view of the world.
PJ O'Roarke's quote is as ridiculous as it sounds but I can see why you have such a skewed view of the world when your quoting buffoons like that.
As to being 'owned' do you mean where I pointed out you were wrong repeatedly!?

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13817 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 11:27:46 PM
I'm not really hostile. I just have a congenital inability to suffer fools gladly.

I think P.J. O'Roarke described you much better than I could when he said, "A liberal is someone who would gladly give you the shirt off of someone else's back."

And if you can't see how you've been owned, I have nothing else for you.

McDuff73
Male, 30-39, Europe
 666 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:39:36 PM
You really are a hostile wee fellow aren't you!?
well I suppose thanks for finally answering a question from a few pages ago.
You really do have a skewed perception of the word wherin its more immoral to be concerned about your fellow man more so than to turn a profit and how is it considered free and willing if your only choice is pay or die?
Sad that you consider profit over welfare, theres the history of the 20th and 21st century in those first seven words of this sentence!

@sucism how exactly has he owned if hes been proved wrong and to be selfish too?

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13817 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 9:55:12 PM
McDuff73 If you haven't figured out the answer to your stupid question, it's YES. Who better deserves to be rewarded for his efforts than someone who provides a valuable good or service that benefits his fellow man -- something for which said fellow man is willing to pay in a free and voluntary exchange of value for value?

What is disgustingly IMMORAL is to tell someone he CAN'T be fairly compensated for helping his fellow man, so he doesn't do it at all, and consequently, they both suffer. (And no, neither of them needs the likes of you telling them what it means to be "fairly compensated." That's strictly between them, and it's none of your damned business.)

And there you have not only the answer to your question, but the sad history of the world in two paragraphs.

And to Suicism, I'm not sure there's anything here worth owning, but thanks.

Suicism
Male, 18-29, Western US
 3672 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 5:01:19 PM
I think Ollie owned this thread.

McDuff73
Male, 30-39, Europe
 666 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:27:36 PM
@tridirk as a Nation you fall way behind others on Development aid you gave .2% in 2008 of your GNI as opposed to the UK which gave .52% more than twice as much!
As a percentage of GNI your country gave 0.03% in humanitarian aid behind such nations as Saudi Arabia 0.15% some way behind in fact.
In donations per citizen you gave $14 as opposed to the UK's $17 and both of which are far behind Luxembourgs $114. All of this is data from 2008.
@OldOllie why so hostile and antagonistic I havent killed your dog have I?
I dont claim to be either elitist nor an 'enlightened liberal' and I wont hold a gun to anyones head but to point out the obvious we all give in the UK to help our fellow man and we're still going strong.
I'm neither a do-gooder nor an idealist I'm just human and care for my fellow man a trait it would appear you are shamefully lacking.
all of which is lovely conversation but fails to answer the original question is it morally right to earn money off the

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13817 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:06:04 PM
@McDuff73 So, what the world really needs is an elite cadre of brilliant enlightened liberals like yourself to hold guns to the heads of the rest of us greedy, selfish bastards so you can confiscate our money and give it to those you feel are more deserving of it. Well, I hate to tell you, but it's been tried before, and not only has it failed miserably, it has resulted in the deaths of over 100 million people.

The fact is, the USA has the most capitalistic economic system in the world, and yet we greedy, selfish, American bastards give more in charitable contributions than the entire rest of the f***ing world COMBINED, not to mention the fact that we have shed our blood and spent our treasure to free hundreds of millions of people from the very kind of tyranny you are longing for. And we do it wall without being forced to by idealistic do-gooders like you.

tridirk
Male, 50-59, Western US
 312 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 3:54:47 PM
we donate via our larger taxes which go to paying for our NHS and our benefits system that helps the people that are unable to contribute and I personally feel its a moral obligation to pay my higher taxes to help those less fortunate, heck maybe thats why I have less money to be personally charitable with.


That was exactly what the article said most Europeans answered when asked. That they didn't feel inclined to donate money because it was being taken care of by their taxes.

But the USA donates more than double the next country (Great Britain) as a percentage of GDP. As fas as raw dollars.... it's not even close.

So the argument that somehow we Americans don't give enough or are not charitable just doesn't compute.

McDuff73
Male, 30-39, Europe
 666 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:29:47 PM
we donate via our larger taxes which go to paying for our NHS and our benefits system that helps the people that are unable to contribute and I personally feel its a moral obligation to pay my higher taxes to help those less fortunate, heck maybe thats why I have less money to be personally charitable with.

tridirk
Male, 50-59, Western US
 312 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:16:15 PM
OH... and it's very easy to be charitable with money taken from others isn't it! Gives one power!

tridirk
Male, 50-59, Western US
 312 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:14:33 PM
It is funny the different ways we see each others countries and systems.

Now what we need is for all of us to move to countries with people that think in a similar manner.

To the more liberal of us, they are more caring and sensitive and standing up for the little guy and for the more conservative they aren't comfortable with taking from some to give to others.

I already posted a link showing that the USA donates more personal money to charity than other countries. So, if we are so selfish and uncaring why is that? The same article also showed that conservatives in the US actually contribute more to charity than do US liberals? As insensitive as they are US conservatives set the pace on charitable donations of time and money?

Who'd a thunk?

I guess if you believe in the almighty government, they can even do your donating for you?

McDuff73
Male, 30-39, Europe
 666 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 12:35:24 PM
almost as amazing as a nation allowing a group of rich companies make crap loads of money out of them for being ill! idiots.

mdg
Male, 30-39, Western US
 44 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:42:50 AM
What's with the emasculated men in Europe relying on the government to take care of their families? Pansies!

tridirk
Male, 50-59, Western US
 312 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 9:04:14 AM
How about turnabout? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU

McDuff73
Male, 30-39, Europe
 666 Posts
Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:51:56 AM
@OldOllie firstly i think the levels of wages of entertainers sports stars etc.... are disgusting I'd rather pay dr's and nurses and firemen and soldiers a better wage than have some idiot paid millions to kick a football around a pitch.
Now I know this concept sounds alien to you but have you ever heard of doing something for the common good? something that benefits mankind just for the reward of knowing you helped others?
I would argue that the thing that holds mankind back is your kind of backward thinking where people 'have' to be rewarded for what they did.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.