[MadMonk]

I'm sorry that our tragic leftist untermench minds can not grasp the the holy scripture that is the US f-king Constitution! Such superb unquestionable framework for all future politics, anticipating all future demands!

Perhaps we should turn to the Bible instead, an even older fabricated text designed for an ancient era?

I guess the Koran is slightly more modern, in what deluded thinking can you imagine that it would be used on a leftist platform?

[Rapperson]

I guess the Koran is slightly more modern, in what deluded thinking can you imagine that it would be used on a leftist platform?

Who said platform?

Are you one of the types that thinks his enemies are going to come at him from the front, in a straight line?

[Pants-of-dog]

You can try to refute my comments and that's OK. However you are refuting Marx's own words about his belief, and that really is silly...and to put it mildly, a little bit bizarre.

Since he said that religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature (those are the words you cited), and since liberation theology gives a voice to the oppressed, there is no contradiction.

Please try to read the very words you cite to make sure they support your claim. Or not. This thing where they actually support your opponent's claim is also good.

[MadMonk]

Who said platform?

Are you one of the types that thinks his enemies are going to come at him from the front, in a straight line?

Ahhh, we must all stand united and surrender all we believe in otherwise civilization crumbles! Barbarian at the gates....

Can the right come with any original rhetoric? Although, if we look at objectively, modernity and change are hardly your strong suit, is it?

[Rapperson]

Ahhh, we must all stand united and surrender all we believe in otherwise civilization crumbles! Barbarian at the gates....

Can the right come with any original rhetoric? Although, if we look at objectively, modernity and change are hardly your strong suit, is it?

Who said platform?

Don't make a straw man.

[stephen50right]

Oh if only people would learn from past failures. Both sides do not seem to pay much attention to history, they do what suits them.

Stephen seems predisposed to believe that leftists are evil and responsible for every failure in Western government. But who got us into the Iraq war and Afghanistan war...wars that we are not winning? Answer: a rightist administration. All those young men and women have to die because rightists believe that we can defeat terrorism. One of my classmates died in Afghanistan leaving behind a young wife and baby, he would have been 30 by now. It is a fucking shame! We are no closer to winning than we were back then.

<<< Answer: a rightist administration. >>>

Okay, that answer is true...but Hillary Clinton and almost all other Democratic Party members in Congress supported those wars at the time that those wars began. After eight years of a leftist administration from, I forget his name was it Barry or Barack, the United States was still mired in war in those two countries.

The fact is that leftists are predisposed to rooting for or against war, depending on whether or not one of theirs is in the White House or not.

[Decky]

Karl Marx it seems would disagree with you. That is unless Marx believed that using opium is healthy.

He did as a matter of fact.

In his time it was a commonly used painkiller. When Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses he wasn't comparing it to a recreational drug. He was saying it deadens the pain the workers suffer as part of the alienation of capitalism. This is very basic stuff.

[Citizen J]

I can understand a predisposition towards certain arguments based on scientific moral theories. It's how certain people prioritize their social mores. Whether purity or loyalty takes precedence over safety or reciprocity will frame the arguments one makes whenever one finds others at odds with one's own moral priorities. These arguments, differentiating the individual from a group, will form a theme throughout a person's life. Long time members here, I'm sure, can attest to a repetition of their arguments.

[stephen50right]

He did as a matter of fact.

In his time it was a commonly used painkiller. When Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses he wasn't comparing it to a recreational drug. He was saying it deadens the pain the workers suffer as part of the alienation of capitalism. This is very basic stuff.

Your historical reference about opium is partially correct. Yes it was used as a painkiller, but it was also widely used as a recreational drug. Opium dens were quite popular throughout the world back then, and became infamous for their sordid activities. The opium den customers weren't there to get relief from a stubbed toe. In my opinion, Marx was alluding to opium dens in his comment, therefore referring to religion as a sordid activity.

I know opium is still around, but in western countries cocaine and heroin have basically taken the place of opium. I don't know of anyone who would consider cocaine or heroin to be healthy. If someone out there today would state that "religion is the cocaine of the people"...or state that "religion is the heroin of the people"...it would be hard to believe that person would be stating that in a positive manner. Which is my premise about Marx and religion, that thru his stated comment, he was referring to religion in a derogatory manner.

[mikema63]

I think you guys are getting bogged down in overanalyzing a metaphor. There are likely other writings from Marx that more clearly outlines his thoughts on religion.

[Decky]

Do you know how to read?

If someone today said religion is the morphine of the people it would be clear what they meant.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Marx was comparing religion to a painkiller not to to a recreational drug. As I said this is incredibly basic stuff, it is basic Marxism not anything vague or esoteric. Maybe you should stop talking about things you clearly don't understand? You are embarrassing yourself.

I suppose basic comprehension of the English language is a little too much to expect from an American. They should go ahead and make Spanish the official language, it clearly isn't English.

[stephen50right]

Do you know how to read?

If someone today said religion is the morphine of the people it would be clear what they meant.



Marx was comparing religion to a painkiller not to to a recreational drug. As I said this is incredibly basic stuff, it is basic Marxism not anything vague or esoteric. Maybe you should stop talking about things you clearly don't understand? You are embarrassing yourself.

I suppose basic comprehension of the English language is a little too much to expect from an American. They should go ahead and make Spanish the official language, it clearly isn't English.

No it is you, a stated communist, who is predisposed to believing everything your exalted hero Marx says, the way you wish it to be. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.

[Decky]

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is what Marx wrote. It is not complex at all, there are no unusual words. What part of it do you not understand? He is comparing religion to a painkiller, the modern equivalent would be comparing it to morphine.

[Drlee]

The US crime rate where a firearm in the victim's possession could be relevant is about 1% per year.

'

Garbage. Utter nonsense. Here is a suggestion Rapperperson. If you post a reference on POFO expect people to read it so I recommend you read it to. Then, if you can, do the math yourself.

Your assertion is shallow. Some 40 year old white suburban male carrying a gun is far more likely to hurt himself with it than protect himself and others. That is not even in dispute.

[Rapperson]

'

Garbage. Utter nonsense. Here is a suggestion Rapperperson. If you post a reference on POFO expect people to read it so I recommend you read it to. Then, if you can, do the math yourself.

Your assertion is shallow. Some 40 year old white suburban male carrying a gun is far more likely to hurt himself with it than protect himself and others. That is not even in dispute.

Okay then.

Homicide 4.9
Forcible rape 38.6
Robbery 101.9
Aggravated assault 237.8
Total violent crime 372.6
Burglary 491.4

Total 864

This is per 100.000 inhabitants. That comes out at quite near 1%.

How is your math on the subject?

My apologies for being shallow. It's a common enough pitfall, quoting statistics instead of invoking an image of a lottery ticket or something equally colorful.

[Drlee]

Shallow. Very shallow.

I see you had to throw burglary in there to try to get close to your number. The use of deadly force against a burglar, is very problematic. Only 7% if Burglaries result in any violence to the inhabitants. Only 28% of them find people at home and the vast majority of these criminals run away. The neighborhood in which one lives makes a difference. So does race.

Blacks and young people are FAR more likely to experience violent crime than white, middle aged people. And it is the white middle aged people who are crowing about their second amendment rights.

You see son, the deal is this. If you are going to argue something prepare. Do not think you can just google some statistics and cram them into your world view.

The fact is that for the vast majority of people carrying a gun is asinine. A smart person would not choose to do it. People who advocate laws like those in Arizona where virtually anyone can carry a concealed weapon without any training or background check at all are beyond stupid. They are dangerous.

If you had ever served in the military you would understand the amount of training that goes into teaching people how to safely handle weapons and how and when to deploy them in a combat zone. But some ass hat with $200.99 and the desire to buy a cheap gun can carry it in a crowded mall. And he/she is supposed to make me feel safer?

Go peddle your ignorance somewhere else. We are not buying it.

[Rapperson]

Shallow. Very shallow.

I see you had to throw burglary in there to try to get close to your number. The use of deadly force against a burglar, is very problematic. Only 7% if Burglaries result in any violence to the inhabitants. Only 28% of them find people at home and the vast majority of these criminals run away. The neighborhood in which one lives makes a difference. So does race.

Blacks and young people are FAR more likely to experience violent crime than white, middle aged people. And it is the white middle aged people who are crowing about their second amendment rights.

You see son, the deal is this. If you are going to argue something prepare. Do not think you can just google some statistics and cram them into your world view.

The fact is that for the vast majority of people carrying a gun is asinine. A smart person would not choose to do it. People who advocate laws like those in Arizona where virtually anyone can carry a concealed weapon without any training or background check at all are beyond stupid. They are dangerous.

If you had ever served in the military you would understand the amount of training that goes into teaching people how to safely handle weapons and how and when to deploy them in a combat zone. But some ass hat with $200.99 and the desire to buy a cheap gun can carry it in a crowded mall. And he/she is supposed to make me feel safer?

Go peddle your ignorance somewhere else. We are not buying it.

Yes sir, you have certainly put me in my place.

In the future, I will strive not to be shallow, but instead follow your example. To bolster my case I will use hyperbolae such as that something is as likely as winning the lottery. I will challenge others to "do the math" but not deign to do so myself. I will create a straw man so as to make it easier to be condescending to others. I will mention statistics, but without sourcing them. I will employ convincing phrases such as "everybody knows" and "the fact is" to make my case ironclad. I will be pompous, even go as far as employing the royal "we". This is a surefire way to make me a better person, and in this way I may even become popular.

Thank you kindly.

[MistyTiger]

<<< Answer: a rightist administration. >>>

Okay, that answer is true...but Hillary Clinton and almost all other Democratic Party members in Congress supported those wars at the time that those wars began. After eight years of a leftist administration from, I forget his name was it Barry or Barack, the United States was still mired in war in those two countries.

No buts! At the time it was a worthy cause and everyone was upset over 9/11, Congress had to put up a united front after such a tragedy. Obama could not pull out after eight years because the war was not won and it still is not won.

The real problem is that you cannot kill all the terrorists and religious extremists who hate America and want to destroy her.

The fact is that leftists are predisposed to rooting for or against war, depending on whether or not one of theirs is in the White House or not.

No. They know that the costs of war are very high. Only Republicans would go into war and not think about the price to be paid by future generations. Until my dying day, I and the rest of my digital/millenial generation will be paying for the steep cost. It hardly seems fair. I did not agree with going in and I still do not.

[Drlee]

Okay, that answer is true...but Hillary Clinton and almost all other Democratic Party members in Congress supported those wars at the time that those wars began. After eight years of a leftist administration from, I forget his name was it Barry or Barack, the United States was still mired in war in those two countries.

Typically shortsighted approach.

Hillary did not vote for war. We have never had a vote declaring war in Iraq. We have a congressional resolution allowing President Bush to use force. His decision to use it how he did has been the cause of the situation to which President Obama and now President Trump have to deal.

I know you do not know the difference but there is a difference between authorizing the use of force and declaring war.

[Dubayoo]

Most modern ideologies are just costumes. Pro-wealth Christians, college communists who want to exterminate the working class, any person who thinks a quote they pulled from somewhere is more authorative than the situation on the ground.

A good example of this is gun control. Someone who is prepared to defend themselves at the possible cost of another human life doesn't care what criminals, incompetents or even the misfortunate might end up doing with weapons. The entire point of being willing to defend yourself is that you don't care about and aren't afraid of the other person. None of the dialogue around the issue really matters.

I think it is a good thing that the internet provides us with "bubbles" because the consensus we were told to believe in is a myth.

While this might be true, the right way to create change isn't to point it out, but to demonstrate how words have many meanings so people can see how multiple argument paths can be had. If you point it out, then it consumes the attention span of those who hear what you say and makes it difficult to actually overcome those predispositions.