" Liberalness ... a mental disorder "

LOL obviously you have a problem with technical definitions. What does a right wing religious conservative call a the single cell at conception ?

 

A human is a collection of human cells. What part of that do you not understand?

No, the genetic code would be the set of rules which are encoded in DNA. At the earliest points of development, a fetus receives a human genetic code.

Prohibition? In the United States? I rest my case.

Doesn't sound like it.

Either you didn't study Biology or you were just bad at it. Fetuses develop stimuli, nerves, a heart, and a brain all within the early weeks of the first trimester. It response to certain stimuli before other stimuli which means that it response to certain feelings before others. It depends on which types of brain fibers develop at the given weeks of the trimester. A brainwave is detected within the first few weeks as well.

The heart is obviously beating, which means that the fetus is obviously ALIVE. Ultrasounds can pick up this activity within 2 - 3 weeks of the first trimester. You can ignore this logic all you like, but this makes a fetus a living human.

You don't have to be a Biology student, or a scientist, or even a woman to know this. You just have to had a little shred of common sense.

 

Actually... I have had a theory about this one for some time now. Legally... through domestic partnership laws and the like, gays can pretty much get all of the legal protections now that hetero couples enjoy. Things like being able to visit their significant others in the hospital, and the like.

You see the real goal, is that the gay community wants to attempt to force religious groups to accept what they are doing. They want religious groups to approve, accept, and endorse the gay lifestyle. The funniest thing about it is.... that a religious order gets to make their OWN rules about what is acceptable behavior, and what it not. Right or wrong, no govt has the right to tell a religious order what it is that they can or cannot believe, or what TO THEM constitutes the religious joining of two people. And if YOU want to join a religious order... then it is YOU that must conform to the religions rules... and NOT the other way around.....

Contrary to popular belief a church, or synogogue, or mosque does NOT have to admit you to their order if they do not want to.... Places of worship to my understanding are not considered public places... and as such... they certainly do NOT have to make accomodations for anyone....

 

Yeah that's pretty much the gits of it. I doubt the left will still understand.

 

You mean liberalism? Strong case for your own intelligence, bud.

 

Surely greater food stamp dependency came from the massive crash of 2008? All those people who lost their jobs as capitalism collapsed.

Ok, lets just pause for as moment and turn to actual facts.

1. America is a capitalist society.

2. There have been two massive recessions and a number of smaller ones, exactly as Marx predicted. Even Nouriel Roubini, the economist who predicted the 2008 crash, agrees with Marx's analysis of the cause, and he is no socialist.

3. Since the mid 1980s, the UK and America turned right, initiated by Thatcher, with deregulation of the finance industry. Manufacturing was making less profit so the capitalists turned to money lending and gambling. And rising inequality meant that money lending was good business.

4. The Democrats and New labour did not change course when they got in.

5. Capitalist governments cannot and will not end unemployment, capitalism needs unemployment. Without unemployment, the workers would strike for higher wages and better conditions.

6. Only a socialist government could end unemployment, by creating millions of jobs doing vitally needed socially useful work.

 

There is little real difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Both work to maintain capitalism, both are supported by big business. This is the big con, pretend democracy and keep people squabbling of the largely fictitious Republican/Democrat thing. And throw in a bit of libertarian stuff just to keep reality really obscured. All this small government stuff is nonsense. The capitalists just want to keep their taxes down but they have no alternative, they dont believe in the libertarian twaddle. Ok there are a couple of billionaire nutcases being the Tea Party thing, but most are not really 'small government' at all. Because thats just not possible. Thatcher privatised everything, that was what they wanted, easy pickings, profitable companies, sold cheap to crony capitalist chums, and then STILL subsidised afterwards! None of the serious capitalist commentators fall for all this right wing garbage. It's just a way to help Obama shatter the dreams of the poor people who had expectations of him.

 

I have little doubt you understand what real capitalism is. You probably have an idea, but not a complete idea.

 

What exactly causes you to assume your understanding is better than his? Show us humble leftists what REAL capitalism is. While you do so please make sure to denote whether your explanation is stemming directly from the works of Adam Smith or if your idea of REAL capitalism is a variant that has arisen since that time. Don't forget to tie in the general intellectual movement of the enlightenment and its effects on possible capitalist pervasion into your wonderful explanation. One also should not forget to synthesize how certain elements of capitalist thought ( such as the thought of the Austrian school, Chicago school and Monetarist school) within the general flow of thought, integrating those into your explanation of "real" capitalism.

 

Religious marriage is defined by the church. Civil marriage(that is about we are talking and what are asking the homosexuals) is defined by the state, the government.

And if government makes wider the definition of marriage, it gives more rights to the people. People can have homosexual marriage, and it won't affect to religious people, the religious people and church will be able to continue doing exactly the same marriage like til now.

As I said and you didn't answer in Spain that we have homosexual marriage, it hasn't affected in any way to the marriage done in the church. Nothing. The things are exactly equal that before, only with the difference that homosexuals can marry between them, thing that before was impossible. It is an advance in their rights.

And no one is talking to force a intolerant religious institution to change their obsolete views. (Sorry, I couldn't avoid the attack to religion, today I've read that Vatican only has ratified 10 conventions of human rights of 103). And the worst, Spain recently had the visit of the Pope with all spending paid, with the JMJ(World Youth Day WYD), and also the pilligrins had almost all paid with public money.

As you've showed, the topics about you don't go so far. Conservative is what is.

I already told you that isn't a baby. And the woman has individual rights and liberties, and that fetus isn't human. Sorry, but he isn't, and the chromosomes doesn't make it human, is just the plan of what will be.

The one that don't want Separation of Church and State is you, in many points

Yes, this intolerant institution has right to spread his hateful message. But it doesn't have any right to have any presence in the state, in the govern, in what is public. Privately and from their own institutions can do what they want, while it is legal.

Unborn child? If the child has 6-9 months, then I agree with you with the concept of unborn child, but before, no. It isn't a child.

No, you don't. You don't support the right of the woman to decide, you don't support the right to gays to decide if they want to marry or not, and many others.

For now, no

You can't impose a particular morality, and rules must be minimium to assure survival of the species and the convivence, no more.

The Christian moral is a particular, private moral. And it doesn't have any job with the government.

 

And what is real capitalism? We've seen things closer to real capitalism, and is chaos, poverty and starving.

And I am sure that the classic liberals if they were to born now they wouldn't be libertarians, or similar.

 

I dont know if liberalism is a mental disorder it is not in the DSM. However, conservativism is a mild form of mental retardation. For example, republicans and t-baggers have only the ablity to think in two dimentional views, similar to religion, yes or know, if or then, will or wont, etc. They lack the abstract reasoning, and ability to use logic and executive functioning. Most neuropsychologist contend the human brain goes through a advanced development of thinking and cognitive development at puberty. Most conservatives, t-baggers and religious people, undergo a brainwashing during that time of their development. Hence the lack of reasoning and logical thinking in the higher cognitive realm.

In addition, most t-baggers and conservatives, lack the ability to read and write beyond a 12th grade level. You know the type, they write in double space and use only simple 8th grade language with sentances of >5 words. If they are not privilaged with wealthy family and connected to wealth, these borderline retarded people will have difficulty in society acheiving any kind of success, they will allways be obedient followers, and will not question their authority, as well as babble the same retoric their superiors spew. In fact most go through life hiding their cognitive deficits by nodding/agreeing to anything they don't understand because others are doing it. They feel it make them look smart. You know the type, when you talk to them they nod and acknowledge but have no clue on what you are saying. Often these semi illeterate people hold jobs that require no reading or understanding of documents or policies.

Although, conservativeism can be linked to mild retardation, it is more a learning disorder rather than a mental illness. Religion on the other hand is a form of mental illness.

For example, Religion of all types, force and indoctrinate their young to undergo a brainwashing that imposes viseral and emotional factors on cognition. As a result, they end up with terms use in psychiatry that describes the medical condition of mentally ill. Terms like religious preoccupations, delusions of grandure, emotional distrust, run amuc, flight of ideas, talking it toungs (or gibberish), hallucinations, and believing in things that are not there, delusions, etc...

So as you can see, there are categories of how people are analyzed and evaluated. Some use a psychosocial scale others use a psychiatic evaluation method, and some use cognitive testing to see if people have the intellectual ability to function as an adult.

That is my assessment and I'm sticking to it.
I do not commit to a war of intelligence against an enemy with no weapons.
So if you lack the cognitive capacity to understand grown up language, and have one liners and feeble comments, I will not respond.

 

You think poverty is unique only to capitalism? Ha! Like I said in the other forum. Poverty has lost it's meaning in the US.

Also, no capitalistic country has ever experienced a famine.

Capitalism rewards people who work, which is why people oppose it. It all goes back to Desoir private property rights, William Bradford and the mayflower.

 

Desoir Private Property Rights, William Bradford and the Mayflower expedition.

If you know about that point in time, you see examples of socialism and capitalism. You also understand why no capitalist country has never experienced a famine.

 

If you are such a capitalist expert. Address my previous post and explain. If we are to take some random person (who seems of nothing more than ordinary to slightly sub ordinary intelligence) as an expert on the innerworkings of capitalism, we are going to need to see that said person has the ability to actually defend capitalism with anything more than one liner responses with no substantiation, evidential or logical.

 

Poverty is having 40 million(almost the same poblation that Spain) of people eating with food stamps. Thing that is giving record profits to a corporation.

Capitalism rewards people who have power, no people who work. I am tired of seeing people working more than 10 hours and just is being able to feed their family, sorry, but that is not a very good capitalist reward. That is slavery.

 

Ok, so you can't explain capitalism. As you have not even attempted to do so. There is no reason to believe that you have a better understanding of capitalist than the leftists, or that your understanding is even as good much less better.

 

Yeah, like Russia, Poland, that never experienced a famine, yeah Both countries has suffered starving people to death. Not famines, but problems of desnutrition of their poblation, yes.

Also, we're living in mixed economies, where the state controls somethings, like education, healthcare,... and thanks to that people is not dying. If it was purely capitalist it would be different.

 

I can only explain it to you or Kilgram so maybe you can read along while we discuss.

 

A one- liner! how surprising! Man, these capitalists just keep getting less intelligent by the day. Stay strong gurl, don't let those dum pinkos get U dwn! U R 2 Kewl!

 

And from your ignoring my post that outlined some questionable factors in you awesome understanding of capitalism ( which is like so awesome!), I would guess you don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about the enlightenment, or Wealth of nations, or the austrian school or any of this stuff. The blind sheep approach is still like super awesome if its what you're into!

 

When Russia was communist they had famines. In fact, every communist country in the world has had a famine.

Our health care isn't socialized and people don't die with our health care. And our education system is a joke, because it's free for the most part.

Anyway to explain Dejoir Private Property Rights, it's basically means By Law Private Property rights. All property is privately owned. The government cannot steal your property. Capitalism requires Dejoir Property Rights and Rule of Law. The only places in the world where there have ever been famines were places without Dejoir Property Rights.

When William Bradford along with about a 100 people set across the Atlantic on the Mayflower to America, they started a colony that was completely socialist. All the resources were collectivized and there were no property rights. Everything you worked for was assumed by the community.

What William Bradford wrote about in his diary was that he didn't want to break their backs everyday without personal gain. Why break their backs when they only get the equal amount of food as everyone else. This resulted in massive crop failure and famine.

William Bradford had to come up with a solution really quickly. What he did was set up a system of Private Property Rights. He divided the land so everyone had their own right to their own crops and their own land. No one had the right to take from anybody else. In a very short time a colony that use to be starving had enough crops to feed everyone and export to other American tribes. This invited more people to the colony and they had enough food to feed them as well.

The variable that ended famine in the New world was Capitalism. Nothing else.

 

Well I just explained it so you can browse if you want.