The religion of atheists is socialism

[danielpalos]

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

No. They knew socialism is evil.

socialism requires social morals for free; the nine hundred ninety-nine, are simply too subjective.

No. Socialism does not require morals for free.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't? Only Capitalism needs capital morals for a market friendly price.

You are not making any sense. I am discussing what socialism is and does. You are discussing something else. It is like you are trying to distract from what socialism is and does.

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

 

[ding]

No. They knew socialism is evil.

socialism requires social morals for free; the nine hundred ninety-nine, are simply too subjective.

No. Socialism does not require morals for free.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't? Only Capitalism needs capital morals for a market friendly price.

You are not making any sense. I am discussing what socialism is and does. You are discussing something else. It is like you are trying to distract from what socialism is and does.

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

I don't believe it is that simple. Socialism is practiced like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains socialism thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."


That is what socialism is about.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism requires social morals for free; the nine hundred ninety-nine, are simply too subjective.

No. Socialism does not require morals for free.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't? Only Capitalism needs capital morals for a market friendly price.

You are not making any sense. I am discussing what socialism is and does. You are discussing something else. It is like you are trying to distract from what socialism is and does.

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

I don't believe it is that simple. Socialism is practiced like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains socialism thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."


That is what socialism is about.

Religion is a form of Socialism. It requires social morals for free because there is no capital market for "stairways to Heaven".

 

[ding]

No. Socialism does not require morals for free.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't? Only Capitalism needs capital morals for a market friendly price.

You are not making any sense. I am discussing what socialism is and does. You are discussing something else. It is like you are trying to distract from what socialism is and does.

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

I don't believe it is that simple. Socialism is practiced like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains socialism thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."That is what socialism is about.

Religion is a form of Socialism. It requires social morals for free because there is no capital market for "stairways to Heaven".

And that made about as much sense as the other 89 times you said that. Which was none.

 

[danielpalos]

No. Socialism does not require morals for free.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't? Only Capitalism needs capital morals for a market friendly price.

You are not making any sense. I am discussing what socialism is and does. You are discussing something else. It is like you are trying to distract from what socialism is and does.

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

I don't believe it is that simple. Socialism is practiced like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains socialism thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."That is what socialism is about.

Religion is a form of Socialism. It requires social morals for free because there is no capital market for "stairways to Heaven".

And that made about as much sense as the other 89 times you said that. Which was none.

dear, it means, you are simply clueless and Causeless.

 

[ding]

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't? Only Capitalism needs capital morals for a market friendly price.

You are not making any sense. I am discussing what socialism is and does. You are discussing something else. It is like you are trying to distract from what socialism is and does.

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

I don't believe it is that simple. Socialism is practiced like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains socialism thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."That is what socialism is about.

Religion is a form of Socialism. It requires social morals for free because there is no capital market for "stairways to Heaven".

And that made about as much sense as the other 89 times you said that. Which was none.

dear, it means, you are simply clueless and Causeless.

No. It means that you are oblique and disingenuous which is perfectly fitting for a socialist.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

 

[RWS]

And regarding the "highest standard of conduct", no religion can do better than "just be good to people and the world, and don't destroy stuff".

That is the ideal they hold in front of you like a carrot, with idols like Jesus, but they never let you get there in life. They always tell you it is out of your reach until death. Because if you got there during life, you wouldn't need to listen to them anymore, and then they lose power and money flow.

Religions may advertise that they have this so-called "high conduct", but they actually thrive on promoting your sins, and then your subsequent servitude and search for forgiveness.

I don't need no stinkin' forgiveness...

My moral standard will never be breached by some corrupt ruler.

Your moral standard was such that you could not say that it was wrong for one human being to own another human being. I gave you the opportunity to do so and you punted. You claimed that if it were good for society as a whole then it would be moral.

Again, you are providing false information and lying, in order to further your argument.

See what you originally asked here: If God doesn't exist...

My answer is a page later, here: If God doesn't exist...

And I'll quote it here:

You had asked:

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

I replied:

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

So I had said that slavery is not moral with humans (insects, yes). You said that if we answered "no" to all 3 questions, and my answer is "no" to all 3, then you proved that our morals are not relative.

Yet you keep saying that non-believers morals are relative.

Again, I don't think you know what that word means. Our morals don't change.

But at one point people like you thought slavery was cool and beneficial and financially rewarding. Maybe you don't think so anymore, but that's because everyone else changed your ruler's mind about it. Your religion succumbed to public outcry, and changed its mind and said slavery was no longer cool. But that still hasn't trickled down to all you fanatics yet, that seem to think slavery is a god-given right. Either way, your morals are supposed to change based on what a ruler tells you. Not what you truly think.

Religious morals are relative to the whims of their leader.

 

[RWS]

There you go again... You can't just keep repeating stuff in hopes that it sticks. I have already shown to you in this and other threads that my morals don't change. And I have also shown you that your morals do change constantly, based on what the latest and greatest decrees are.

You believe what is accepted and promoted by your religion. And that can literally change tomorrow. And it will again at some point, repeatedly. Your morals are relative to what your religion tells you is good or bad. You do not think for yourself. You follow and believe what somebody else tells you, your morals are a spiritual yo-yo, and then you try to tell us that our morals are relative???

You gotta be kiddin me...

No, you showed that your morals were dependent upon the times and conditions.

The highest standard of conduct (i.e. the upper boundary condition) cannot change as it is a boundary condition.

One does not need religion to be able to figure out the highest standard of conduct. Although you do seem to prove the opposite.

Then why do people of religion often have the lowest standards of conduct?

Maybe that is just you confirming your bias.

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

But the same god that rules you now, ruled the church in the past. And allowed (or ignored) these things. Back then, it was morally acceptable for those pedophile/homosexual relations in the church. Obviously, priests need to let loose once in a while, so it was cool back then. But now, it's not cool.

It's the same God. Why did He allow it back then, and shuns it now? Did He change his mind?

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

Either he doesn't see it, or he doesn't care... Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have to deal with you deviant, perverted buttheads that want to take over the world, using His name as your excuse for your sins, with nothing but lies and threats to back you up.

The other answer is He does see it, and He promotes it... In which case, you are following the personification of evil, rather than good.

In terms of what "god" is based on in ancient pre-bible history, you are following Enlil, and not Enki.

 

[RWS]

Don't let truth be buried, and then lies used against you. Question everything.

Fools like ding will continue to use lies and false links to continue their agenda. But be careful, his links are likely soon going to get worse, and possibly virulent due to his increasing frustration with reality.

Jus sayin, be careful.

Because I think he's realizing the truth, and is gonna pop soon...

Just breathe ding....do the right thing... just breathe.



You can either go worse or better from here on... so really take the time to consider it. I'm here to help you either way.

 

[hobelim]

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

In the land of the free and the brave won through blood and sacrifice supposedly dedicated to protecting and promoting truth justice and liberty how is it that so many people are subjugated and enslaved by ignorance if not because scamming the gullible has become enshrined and protected by law and the source of national pride has degenerated into celebrating the freedom of ignorance, deception, and the delusions of religious numbskulls...

The question is not whether God can see, its whether people can see. The question is not why God hasn't done something to stop evil being blindly perpetuated in his name, the question is why people who claim to see haven't stopped it whether God exists or not.

 

[ding]

No, you showed that your morals were dependent upon the times and conditions.

The highest standard of conduct (i.e. the upper boundary condition) cannot change as it is a boundary condition.

One does not need religion to be able to figure out the highest standard of conduct. Although you do seem to prove the opposite.

Then why do people of religion often have the lowest standards of conduct?

Maybe that is just you confirming your bias.

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

But the same god that rules you now, ruled the church in the past. And allowed (or ignored) these things. Back then, it was morally acceptable for those pedophile/homosexual relations in the church. Obviously, priests need to let loose once in a while, so it was cool back then. But now, it's not cool.

It's the same God. Why did He allow it back then, and shuns it now? Did He change his mind?

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

Either he doesn't see it, or he doesn't care... Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have to deal with you deviant, perverted buttheads that want to take over the world, using His name as your excuse for your sins, with nothing but lies and threats to back you up.

The other answer is He does see it, and He promotes it... In which case, you are following the personification of evil, rather than good.

In terms of what "god" is based on in ancient pre-bible history, you are following Enlil, and not Enki.

We all have free will. We are free to choose good or evil. That doesn't mean He doesn't see it or doesn't care. It means we are free to choose between the two. Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous.

 

[ding]

Don't let truth be buried, and then lies used against you. Question everything.

Fools like ding will continue to use lies and false links to continue their agenda. But be careful, his links are likely soon going to get worse, and possibly virulent due to his increasing frustration with reality.

Jus sayin, be careful.

Because I think he's realizing the truth, and is gonna pop soon...

Just breathe ding....do the right thing... just breathe.



You can either go worse or better from here on... so really take the time to consider it. I'm here to help you either way.

You don't know what truth is.

 

[ding]

And regarding the "highest standard of conduct", no religion can do better than "just be good to people and the world, and don't destroy stuff".

That is the ideal they hold in front of you like a carrot, with idols like Jesus, but they never let you get there in life. They always tell you it is out of your reach until death. Because if you got there during life, you wouldn't need to listen to them anymore, and then they lose power and money flow.

Religions may advertise that they have this so-called "high conduct", but they actually thrive on promoting your sins, and then your subsequent servitude and search for forgiveness.

I don't need no stinkin' forgiveness...

My moral standard will never be breached by some corrupt ruler.

Your moral standard was such that you could not say that it was wrong for one human being to own another human being. I gave you the opportunity to do so and you punted. You claimed that if it were good for society as a whole then it would be moral.

Again, you are providing false information and lying, in order to further your argument.

See what you originally asked here: If God doesn't exist...

My answer is a page later, here: If God doesn't exist...

And I'll quote it here:

You had asked:

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

I replied:

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

So I had said that slavery is not moral with humans (insects, yes). You said that if we answered "no" to all 3 questions, and my answer is "no" to all 3, then you proved that our morals are not relative.

Yet you keep saying that non-believers morals are relative.

Again, I don't think you know what that word means. Our morals don't change.

But at one point people like you thought slavery was cool and beneficial and financially rewarding. Maybe you don't think so anymore, but that's because everyone else changed your ruler's mind about it. Your religion succumbed to public outcry, and changed its mind and said slavery was no longer cool. But that still hasn't trickled down to all you fanatics yet, that seem to think slavery is a god-given right. Either way, your morals are supposed to change based on what a ruler tells you. Not what you truly think.

Religious morals are relative to the whims of their leader.

You left out some of the conversation.

 

[ding]

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

In the land of the free and the brave won through blood and sacrifice supposedly dedicated to protecting and promoting truth justice and liberty how is it that so many people are subjugated and enslaved by ignorance if not because scamming the gullible has become enshrined and protected by law and the source of national pride has degenerated into celebrating the freedom of ignorance, deception, and the delusions of religious numbskulls...

The question is not whether God can see, its whether people can see. The question is not why God hasn't done something to stop evil being blindly perpetuated in his name, the question is why people who claim to see haven't stopped it whether God exists or not.

See post #532.

 

[ding]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

 

[Mudda]

Then why do people of religion often have the lowest standards of conduct?

Maybe that is just you confirming your bias.

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

But the same god that rules you now, ruled the church in the past. And allowed (or ignored) these things. Back then, it was morally acceptable for those pedophile/homosexual relations in the church. Obviously, priests need to let loose once in a while, so it was cool back then. But now, it's not cool.

It's the same God. Why did He allow it back then, and shuns it now? Did He change his mind?

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

Either he doesn't see it, or he doesn't care... Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have to deal with you deviant, perverted buttheads that want to take over the world, using His name as your excuse for your sins, with nothing but lies and threats to back you up.

The other answer is He does see it, and He promotes it... In which case, you are following the personification of evil, rather than good.

In terms of what "god" is based on in ancient pre-bible history, you are following Enlil, and not Enki.

We all have free will. We are free to choose good or evil. That doesn't mean He doesn't see it or doesn't care. It means we are free to choose between the two. Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous.

" Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous." you're proof of that.

 

[Mudda]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

So does religion.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

no it doesn't. only fools and horses should have to work under Capitalism.

 

[ding]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

no it doesn't. only fools and horses should have to work under Capitalism.