Yes.


My point is that you cannot call capitalism, capitalism, unless people actually act out the idea of capitalism first. Once it is acted on, it can then be called capitalism and this is what Una has claimed is responsible for the detriment of society. Your argument that capitalism cannot be held responsible because it is an idea is void because Capitalism cannot be called Capitalism unless acted upon first.

That's cool, I've done it before ;)



Res ipsa loquitur means 'the thing explains itself'. Das Kapital was critique and Marx and Engels did not conjure capitalism out of nowhere on a rainy afternoon. When they used the term 'capitalism' they were describing what already existed within society.


If you acknowledge that there is a finite amount of x resource on the planet, you acknowledge that x will run out one day. Estimates do exists which constitutes theories- not opinions. So do we listen to these theories or wait for x to run out? And what is crisis- running out of oil in twenty years time or running out tomorrow?



The ideology did not precede the industry. 'Capitalism' was designed to describe the economic system of the time. It was not designed to describe a potential/theoretical/hypothetical economic system. The irony is that the men who really defined capitalism were its greatest critics- Marx designed the communist manifesto to solve the problems of capitalism.

Now you know that capitalist theory was written by a commie :shock:


A thread about credulity would be mind blowing epic. =3

I never said you denied it. 'You can't deny' is a figure a speech. For example I could say 'Even if you don't like ice cream you can't deny that thousands of people love it.' I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just illustrating another point.

Firstly I'm more blasé then bombastic. Either you're trying to upset me or you have misunderstood the definition of rant- to talk in a wild, emotionally, violent way often resorting to personal attacks.
Secondly several of my 'opinions' have been backed up by sources, some of which I have asked you too comment on and you have ignored. I do not consider child labor, deforestation, ect as opinions. They are factually and well documented and exist within capitalist industries.


I never claimed that capitalism was the direct cause. My whole argument has been about the lack of ethics within capitalist industry i.e using child labor, not paying a living wage, ect; and lack of consumer awareness- I blame this more than anything else for the continuing existence of the above mentioned.

Glad you had fun :)

It's very simply overpopulation. It causes and contributes to every other problem we as a species have as well as wiping out other species due to increased resources and taking away habitats of other species.

Give me one act that is kind that is not selfless.

You cannot call capitalism what it is unless it is acted on. The idea of capitalism does not technically exist, therefore cannot be argued. Once put into an action, then it becomes capitalism and thus becomes accountable for the consequences it brings.

@Claudia: THANK YOU ^^

Logically-no. The term is applied in legal matters where an accident has befallen a person because of another's negligence. However the literal meaning of the term is 'the thing speaks for itself' and this is the context which I used it in- the direct Latin translation opposed to the legal application of the term. Again you have taken things out of context. I used the term during a brief paragraph defining capitalism. I never applied the term to matters of indemnity within capitalism. Cases of indemnity and negligence within a legal matter would suggest that legislation and awareness existed within the market to prosecute the liable industry. This clearly is not my argument as my premises have always been geared towards the lack of ethics within the industry.
I hope this has cleared matters up.


And what is your opinion?


On the contrary it is vital. This is what you are conveying to me and correct me if am I wrong. Ideology does not cause evil because it is ideology. Capitalist ideology cannot be held accountable because it is nothing more then theory. Instead those who committed the crimes should be held accountable.
Now what am I saying is that capitalism is not an ideology in the strictest sense because its definition was spun from two men describing the economic system of the time. Meaning they did not create Capitalism theory and society adopted it as their economic system. Capitalism is an ideology that was designed to describe our economic system. Bad things happen within our economic system meaning bad things happen within capitalism because capitalism is our economic system.



Debating semantics seems to be a regular theme.

So were/are being rude. What did I ever do to you? ....T_T....



Again you have taken things out of context. A rant would not attempt to verify claims without sources. For example:

Finally I don't understand why you'd resort to attacking morality. I admit and always have, that my perception of issues such as child labor is my opinion. But I do not understand why you think that would make my premise defunct. There is no way you can prove that objects and circumstances are bad. We all have a set of morals that we use to interpret life. If we were debating issues that fall into the areas of gray in the spectrum of good and bad then I would understand. But some of these issues are at the extreme end of the spectrum for example child laborers dying in mines excavating diamonds in Sierra Leone. So to question my moral standards is odd. Either way if you wish to discuss this further I would happy too. The nature of morality is an interesting topic.




And what about the other dozen posts? The first states my premise and the second is a definition of capitalism- it wasn't even an argument!



Changing my argument? I have gone through my posts and taken one quote out of every post I have posted in this forum and listed it below.


My argument has consistently been about the lack of ethics within capitalism.
I never claimed that capitalism was the direct cause- period.

Note how benevolent is a key word. Benevolent is synonymous with altruistic according to that same dictionary. Again, I implore you to find an example of kindness that isn't at the same time selfless in its nature.

Kind uses benevolence in its description. Benevolence is synonymous with altruism, and altruism is synonymous to selfless. Using these definitions, one can only logically conclude that kind is equivalent to selfless.

Can you clarify what you are trying to get across please? I don't think I am understanding your argument. Are you arguing that kind acts that get rewards are not kind in their nature? This would only imply that the doctor first of all did it for that particular reason, and if they did it for the reason of being rewarded then it was never a true act of kindness on an individual level. However, the act in itself, is still altruistic to the individual in question since our society as a whole supports the actions that the doctor does. Whether the doctor did it for their own selfish reasons, the result still ended up being altruistic and is generally supported by the society that chooses to be altruistic.

Your example in question promotes life and resists death, which is a contributing factor of overpopulation since the human may have died naturally without the doctor's interference and use of altruism to save them.

So you choose to say altruism is based solely on an individual level rather than on a species level? It does not matter what the individual's motive is, but rather the cause and effect of the action in question. Society, as a whole, values life and therefore strives to promote it. Doctors are the tool used to promote it. Therefore, saving another person's life is altruistic in its very nature.

Shtona? Would you agree that we are considered as social animals?

True enough that strength can be non-physical. I can also see where people who would kill, and assuming they killed out of murderous revenge would then be killed in return for that. I'm just trying to think of how it would actually play out now...

From my view, there would be so many factors involved due to personality and personal choice. So I say that it is not possible to accurately predict what would happen if anarchy was employed.

I admit to having small vision about overpopulation. I've thought about it a bit more and realized it to be a truer issue, but again, this thread is also for the discussion of what is wrong with society as a whole, not necessarily JUST overpopulation. I think that industry should be VASTLY more moderate in use, and that our technology as it stands is far inferior to what we have the knowledge to make at this time. If we were actually utilizing our complete intelligence, pollution would not even be as much an issue.

It should not have to come down to a government level. People who want to have children should give it more thought before they decide to just 'have a kid'. Which most people these days are not ready for by far. If you can't take care of yourself, don't have a kid. Etc. But that's a separate debate. Governments should not have the control of things like that, it should be that people are more intelligent in their decisions.

Hm... Then perhaps people have misunderstood survival of the fittest for a very long time, and that it actually means that people need to be strong mentally or spiritually, or emotionally in order to have survival. I just differ by saying that killing another person won't salvage the situation. What if a lot of people got killed off, the balance arrived, and then millions more are born? Situation un-resolved in that case...

I am not necessarily Christian, or any other denomination. I have incorporated many of the beliefs of Christianity, but from a purely moral stance and not choosing those morals because it's said that I need them in order to be saved, but that I truly think they are important regardless of where I am sent as punishment or reward for my belief. Christians believe that sex is bad, but the bible nowhere ever says that the act itself isn't good. If people were intelligent, they would see that the bible actually represents that people should love their partner, and not just be using them for sex or to get a child. Many old testament verses actually mean to say that people should be more wise as to how they treat their children, and children need to respect their parents as well. It has to be a two way street. Or even a three way street. Or however many people are involved, let there be a nexus between those souls so that there is an equality and balance in the relationships of all involved. That is the truth of many things that were spoken of. All of which is not so much seen by the church and it's followers.

I believe that the soul does go on after death. I also think that if a person kills another person they will have regret in their hearts, or if not that, then anger. These sorts of emotions harm the person, and those people would then after the act need to get over their own personal anger and regret, or sadness.

The more I debate with you and see your points, the more I think that we are on the same page, but filling in each other's missing details.

Keep mind, I did say that I was NOT... Christian, or any denomination thereof. Also, I have stolen many of my ideas and melded them to pagan ones through various debates and life experiences.

Pretty much answered this in the above paragraph I think.

If that's the case, then humanity needs to realize that just because our 'superiors' gained the title of 'teacher' or 'professor' this does not mean they knew all in their realm, or that they still cared enough to teach it true. I need to study this subjective-ness you refer to. Also curious to see your argument of one plus one equals ten. Just for the entertainment value. XD;;

Agree on several counts. The food we eat is un-healthy and we eat it only because there is not enough land to make enough produce. We are in-active as a society because we don't have enough land to walk, and instead there are buildings in every line of sight, and too many people for us to walk with any speed on the walkways provided. Though there are places where there are wide open spaces, there just aren't ENOUGH of them.

On the point we contest with, balance. I think that societal balance and world balance are considered the same in this conversation. I am speaking on a general level too, I just concentrate more on the mental aspect of what would be the results...whereas you are concentrating seemingly on the physical results. I'm starting to think that this idea has merit, but I don't think making the killing of another will be the solution. Perhaps there is another way that will be more gradual, but just as effective and less damaging to the human condition generally?


You were right on this observation. But I thought that I had responded with my reasons? Maybe I wasn't clear, or I did it out of order...

Hmm..... Very nice observation. I would like some more elaboration on that thought at the end about our countries being split and thus we are already anarchists.

I think we should discuss how it would actually play out if it were to go into effect. Who would begin it, by what means? And what should be or would be said when it was 'kicked off'? Would it be just one person in power? Or should such a thing be given to the public as a whole to decide upon through discussion and the like?

That should about do it for me for now, I'll wait for your reply and get back as soon as I can.

It could technically play out in a myriad of different ways. No one can truthfully determine it. However, I foresee a ton of deaths right away, and then strategic grouping, possible manipulation with money to have body guards and followers, even though money would hold no value where stealing is allowed. The possibilities are endless, however, I think I can accurately predict that a majority of the people in existence would be wiped out. I say this, for the United States alone, due to the fact that most of our population is in urban areas, highly populated and a high target of chaos within seconds.

I believe you are accurate on this statement, however like I said above, you can make some pretty accurate guesses on what might happen, based completely off of what human nature is. Let me ask you something, just something to think about in any case. Take a person who considers themselves completely selfless, (a perfect person in theory,) and then have a murderer kill their parents. Explain to that selfless person that the murderer will not be penalized for his actions since the world has no rules. Assume the selfless person just forgives them anyways. Have the murderer kill his wife and kids. Tell the selfless person the same thing. No one will justify his loved one's murders unless he does it himself since there are no rules. How far do you think the murderer can push his luck with the selfless person before the selfless person strikes back?

The thing I am arguing is that Overpopulation is the single most thing threatening to our society as a whole. I take it one step further and claim that our altruism is causing our overpopulation. This is why I argue that altruism is our biggest threat.

Even through education, you are not guaranteed to get people to give up their wishes to have a child willingly. If you are wanting to limit procreation effectively, it would need to be done on a government level since most humans simply only think for themselves and they would just say, well I want to have kids, so make other people not have kids. At the same time, the opposite person is saying the same thing about the first person. An endless cycle happens that does not solve limiting procreation. I just feel limiting procreation forcefully (the only effective way) is way more inhumane than allowing everyone their own chance to survive through anarchy and proving their ability to survive, thus allowing their right to procreate to keep the human species continuing.

This is why I say altruism is our enemy, not just the effect which is overpopulation. You are correct in saying that fixing overpopulation will prevent it from happening again. You must attack it at its source. In this case altruism. By learning how to embrace death along with life instead of trying to shun death, we can work on accomplishing this near impossible feat. Notice how I didn't just advocate mass murder, but also the removal of any and all health care. Until we are proportionate once again to the Earth, we must embrace death to its fullest. However, once we are proportionate, then in order to counter becoming extinct through complete embrace of death we must implement a healthy balance of death and life together to keep ourselves from becoming extinct or overpopulated.

This is only under the assumption that murder is wrong, as taught by all "civilized" societies. Maybe people feel regret and sadness, or even anger at themselves, because they have been taught that murder is wrong all their life. Could you say the same about a person who was raised in a society that had no specific feeling about the action of murder? Or even of a society that might promote murdering others? Feelings are usually socially conditioned through the culture they grow up in.

Exactly, our teachers, professors, and parents cannot claim to know everything. Since this is the case they can only teach what they were taught off of. This leads certain societies to follow certain practices whereas other societies may not view those specific practices as legit or true. As far as the one plus one problem to explain the ignorance of subjectivity. One can correctly say that one plus one equals two. One can also say that one plus one equals ten. It equals two under the denary system. It equals ten under the binary system. Because most people do not know the binary system, it is automatically taught that one plus one is assumed to mean "in the denary system" and thus equals two.

To prove that superiors teach through subjectiveness, I once answered one plus one equals ten for a teacher. The teacher, not knowing binary and not explaining that she wanted the answer in denary, marked it as incorrect. I questioned her, and she simply said it is common knowledge that one plus one equals two. She could not explain why in a logical sense. I explained that she was being subjective in her argument and that she was basing the answer off of the denary system. I then proceeded to teach her about binary. When she realized that, not only was I correct, but also that she couldn't argue that I hadn't answered the correct answer that should automatically be assumed since she hadn't clarified that she wanted the answers in denary, she promptly admitted her mistake, apologized, and changed my score on the paper.

We could try to find another way. I won't deny that. Some people advocate expanding into outer space. I ask them to come up with 1) A way to provide resources for not only humans on the Earth, but now for any colonies in outer space as well. If the Earth cannot sustain what is already on it, what makes people think it can supply for itself and other places besides, and 2) A way to transport these resources efficiently as most people would argue that since the universe is always expanding humans can theoretically expand as well forever. My only argument here is that the Earth is the only known place to provide the proper resources needed to survive. If this is the case, even if humans find a way to make enough resources for everyone, they would now (depending on how far away humans colonize) find a proven way to travel faster than light in order to efficiently survive since all the resources would have to come from the planet Earth and then be distributed from there.

If your argument is not outer space, it may be to find cleaner ways to keep industry going and to provide resources through mass production as well. My only argument for this is, can you, in enough time, find a way to make this happen before we pass the turn around point of polluting and destroying the Earth so much that our efforts in the future simply will not balance out the destruction we caused. This is in essence a race against time, a race for something we do not even know we can accomplish. It may be possible, but until it can be proven, my idea of eliminating overpopulation would be the most logical and practical way to go.

I believe the only realistic and probable way, though still extremely not probable, is to have the UN come to the agreement of creating a completely united Earth under one single government. The reason why I say the UN, is because that is the organization that has united the most powerful and orderly countries under some kind of similarity. The rest of the nations would be forced to follow suit since they will not be able to fight back. Much like a World Empire. At that point, the empire would teach a new set of morals. People would be taught basic survival skills. People would be taught that morals have been completely subjective, and that these next morals that would be taught would be the ones to live by and follow. After the empire has been conditioned to embrace death rather than life for a period of years, all health care would then be removed, and all laws and restrictions would then be removed as well. Everyone in all the prisons of all the land masses would be released and the UN would step down as leaders and take their place in the now anarchistic world.

Don't jump ahead of the boat Shtona. I want to know exactly where you are coming from. You will in time, understand where I am coming from through the process of my questions.

Second question: Do you believe that all animals in the Animal Kingdom have the innate desire to survive?

By the way, these are yes or no questions. For the most part is not acceptable. How can a human be mostly a social animal, thus implying in part that they are an unsocial animal? Do we or do we not communicate and live among others of the same species of homo sapien? An animal that could be considered non-social would be a starfish. It exists completely on its own and never has any contact, nor cares about other starfish in the area. So I ask again, is a human a social animal or a non-social animal?

It is not meant to be insulting, but a way for us to communicate without misunderstanding since your are very ambiguous with your answers. This is why I advocate it, instead of me making a point, assuming you completely understand, as that has failed in the past. However, I believe we have enough understanding to possibly communicate efficiently, so I will refrain from asking you specific questions and make my point as you have requested.

You will notice that all animals you can put under the presumption of committing suicide can be labeled as social animals? If not, I would like an example of a non-social animal that commits suicide.

I assume you answer yes to both questions. The reason why is I would like for you to prove that a human infant can survive on its own. Animals that are not social do not need parents or others to watch out for them. So you're 'live in the head' thing does not work in the case of social versus non-social.

Because you have answered yes to both of the following let me explain why altruism as a whole is considered on a social level rather than an individual level.

Animals strive to survive.

Animals that are not social put themselves above all others in order to accomplish this to the best of their ability. They simply do not care about anything else's well being. Only their particular survival is what matters.

Humans, on the other hand, are grouped in the category of social animals. Social animals know that in order to survive, they must keep each other surviving. In the wilderness, man cannot fight alone. This is why a group of men would go hunting in older civilizations, rather than a single male. Even when these groups went hunting, they were still obtained some sort of damage within their group in most cases. The ones that did not sustain damage, carry the damaged ones to safety and help heal them so they can once again hunt. This is just one example of humans displaying social animal traits and explaining that social animals must work together as a group in order to survive. This "keep the group surviving" thought process is what is known as altruism. It does not matter if the humans in question have individual motives for healing the wounded one. Perhaps the wounded one owes a favor, or was to marry a daughter, etc. The point is, they saved the wounded one from certain death because it is in their nature to keep the group surviving. To keep the group surviving, in theory, keeps the individual surviving. The act though, of selflessness, is portrayed in someone else keeping the wounded one alive. That is the definition of altruism in an organized society.

Because of this, we see the survival of a society rather than an individual. Now, to take your suicide example in this instance. A father or mother may sacrifice their life for their offspring. Why? To keep their particular bloodline living. This in turn keeps the society surviving as well as the bloodline. As years passed, certain values became that which to die for as those certain ideals are what kept a society together. Hence why you see military people going over to other countries to kill that which threatens our ideals and ways of life. That which unifies us as a society. They will also kill, theoretically, to protect their direct biological family as well. Now, you may argue that soldiers die for their country, but they don't do it to keep society existing. I agree, most probably only have the society's ideals in their mind while they are being shot at, however, those ideals are taught by superiors who understand the ramifications of what being a society means. To keep those ideals means to keep the society flourishing.

Now that I have most of my explanation out of the way, let's go back to your doctor example. You claim that a doctor who acts out of his own selfish motives is not doing an altruistic act in saving a human's life. Firstly, I would like to point out that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act as that would indicate a social animal going against their very nature. A social animal only keeps the group surviving because the society is the only thing that can guarantee its own survival (genetically and physically speaking). So with that being said, all motives are not altruistic and true altruism, in theory, does not even exist. So now we refer to what is accepted as altruism. This means to do a selfless act. It does not mean to have a selfless motive for doing said act as that, as I explained above, is impossible in theory. Therefore, the doctor can have all the negative motives that he wants, however the truth of the matter is, the act of saving someone else's life is indeed an altruistic act according to the actual acceptance of what altruism actually means as defined by humans.

You discriminately choose to focus on the first post and res ipsa loquitur, and ignore the content of my other posts, which consistently stated lack of ethics was the premise. If you had read my post in its entirety you would have not have confused yourself but don't worry, we're on the same page now =3

Local businesses manufacturing in foreign countries are not going to be affected by national government legislation. Bussiness is global afterall.

I never denied it. In post number 33# I respond to this initially argument with:
Speculated being the giveaway.
My opinion is that climate change is caused by CO2 is based upon the corresponding theory. Ignoring my opinion on the grounds of null hypothesis is futile as the theory stands solid without my belief. Ignoring the theory on the grounds of null hypothesis as there is a chance that the theory might be real.
Now, what is your opinion on climate change?





Basically the captalist theory is designed to describe our economy. Our economy was not based on captalist theory.


There wasn’t any conflict in what I said. Capitalism is designed to describe how our economy functions. Our economy is not founded upon the principles of capitalism as our economy preceded Marx and Engel’s definition. So if capitalism is designed to describe our economy then our economy is labelled as a capitalist economy. So bad stuff like NIKE employing child labourers would be an example of unethical practice within our economy aka capitalism.

If you truly believe this, then you do not believe in altruism at all, since every single instance where you can list an act of altruism I can show a portrayal of selfishness in that act. To deny the existence of altruism as accepted by humanity is your own choice, however, I equate that with willful ignorance in face of the facts.

Like I explained above, Altruism, in its truest form, can and only will be a theory. Once it is acted on, it is no longer true altruism but what humans accept as altruism. NO living organism can practice true altruism successfully and survive at the same time. It is simply not possible.

Okay, then like you asked me earlier, I would like you to define your version of altruism then. Also, I would like you to keep in mind that even if your definition of altruism may differ from the universally accepted version, I am arguing on the definition that most other humans use when defining it. Using their definition, I have come to the conclusion that altruism is the source of overpopulation, and thus the bane of our society.

Well, whether we agree on the source of the bane or not, we still seem to agree what the greatest threat to humanity is, which would be overpopulation.

I am basing my assumption off this quote above of course. Though if you were just implying that you would be more likely to agree but in actuality, disagree, with overpopulation being the bane, I would be happy to debate on the assumption of overpopulation being our bane compared to whatever you can throw to the debate table.