What has America become?

Move over Canada Wars...here come the Sweden Wars. Or maybe we can call then the Commi-Lover's War.

It's not that I hate Sweden, it's just that you're really pissing me off. So I'm gonna go Gil-style on you hiney!!

There you go. That means that neither Adolf Hitler nor American slavers were evil. Evil means "wholly bad". If Hitler did at least one nice thing in his lifetime, he was not evil.

ARG!!!!!!!!!! IF SOMEONE IS NICE TO THEIR DOG, YET KILLS TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, ARE THEY EVIL????????????????? YES!! It seriosly offends me when someone says Hitler wasn't evil. I'm Jewish. He wiped out 6 million Jews. Don't go there!

"cold"; Who says? "overcrowded"; At least they had their own private rooms; "substandard"; les substandard than living on the street.

Russia's a cold place. And I think living on the streets would be roomier than these houses.

How? I thought growth rate was something that cannot directly be controled by you. oh, let me guess; they made a new pill for it which has a side effect of making you have headaches.

Actually, it's not a pill. It's taken through needles. And the only side effect, which is very rare, is some kind of cancer behind your eye or something, which would give you headaches.

"millionaires on every street corner"? Hah! More like "a poor person at every 5th street corner, and one rich person for every 50 square miles" (except in the main cities, where there are a lot more of both).

Yeah, in the cities, but do you have something called the "suburbs" in Sweden with something called the "middle class"? There's a lot of that in America. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't unemployment in America at an all time low at 2% or something? That's pretty good.

Well, now that they've made that decision there's little you can do about it, right? The point is to stop them from becoming alcoholics and making that decision (how do you think a lot of them got that way?).

I'm sure Sweden, just like every country in the world, has it's population of your average bum.

Gil, take over where I left off and cover some things that I covered, if you want.

And Gill; about my response to you "Hitler's dog" comment...

I'll say right now that I do not believe in good and evil (white and black).
I believe in various shades of grey (Canadian spelling of the colour), some stretching very far to a certain end, but never touching it.
Saying that something is evil is like saying that this person standing by me never does anything right.
If that person takes a step, he did something right.

gdl:

I'll respond to all of your comments later, but see my above message about the Hitler one; I'didn't say Hitler wasn't very, very awfull and bad, I just said that he wasn't evil (see why in my last message).

Your views on socialism and communism are rather interesting. The problem in these two ideologies, is actually that they have become entwined when actually they're very, very different. Socialism, in essence, means equal opportunity. Communism, in essence, means equal standard of living-equal housing, wages etc.
Communism of course, is evil. Undisputably evil.
Socialism on the other hand is a brilliant ideology. And if you combine Socialsm with capitalism you get a foolproof ideology.The onlt alternative to communism isn't fascism. It's capitalism with socialism thrown in. Don't ask me why no one has ever done it. Partly, I think because you Americans have been brainwashed by the Cold War into believing that anything Russia did at the time is a threat to your country. It isn't and actually, America HAS achieved the ideal socialism in many spheres though your educational system for the not-so-well-off has a long, long way to go. [Oh by the way, the US elections were quite amusing. It seemed like a banana republic for a while. Poor Bush.]
And whoever it was that said Hitler was not sick and revolting and a total ******* is totally wrong. He was. He took away the most fundamental right of all. He took away the right to live. Who the hell cares if he was kind to his dog?

Niffwan
Hitler did do some good things in his life. I'm not denying that.
But he also did some terrible things in his life. Some very terrable things in his life.
The way I view good and evil is that if you do a lot more evil things than good things, you're evil, or a bad person, or whatever you want to call them. If you do a lot more good things than bad things, you're good. However much more bad things you do than good things determines how bad you are (and same with amount of good things), and Hitler did way more bad than good. He killed MANY, MANY, MANY people and singled out people with certain races and beliefs, and, unfortunately, his beliefs are still around today. He wasn't a person, but a monster.

Welcome, Lorien Wanderer!





Actually, much as I would like to respond to everything that Niffiwan wrote, it's already oscillating out of sight!

He's responding to multiple responses of multiple idiocies.

That mean's having to respond to manifold responses to multiple responses of multiple idiocies!

Gaaaaaah!

Much better to summarize at this point...






Niffiwan, basically there are a few problems with your grasp on Reality. GOOD and EVIL self-evidently exist, a priori.

The rest is a matter of classification. One may definitely say that Communism is evil. I did. I believe it to be so because it requires Despotism to succeed, as Marx himself points out in the Communist Manifesto, as previously cited. It ignores Human Nature and is not workable.

In my experience, shades of grey usually reveal lots of black and white, visible as distinct elements only upon examination with higher resolution.

If I meant Communism was ABSOLUTELY EVIL I would have said so. It is enough to merely say that Communism is evil and to expect that to be understood, if not accepted, in the generic sense.





It is this approach to reasoning that results in acceptance of Stalin's genocides for the sake of housing a few, in standard fashion or otherwise.

Or of Hitler's Holocaust because he truly did love his dog.

Or of Communism for the good that people do despite it.






I do not have a detailed understanding of the Swedish picture. I think I have a grasp of the English-Canadian-German brand, the French brand, and the Israeli brand.

I have heard that Sweden works better. I recall it being said that this was as much a circumstance of demographic homogeneity as anything.






America probably can be described as an ad hoc blending of Socialism and Capitalism. This is arrived at through the outcomes of political contests and changes in concensus from time to time.

When Eisenhower calls for an Interstate Highway System, he employs a Socialistic principle, whereby the People tacitly approve their Representative's taxation of themselves for the purpose. In pure Capitalism, we would rely on private enterprise to generate investment into a transportation system that would pay for itself.

We do this sort of thing all the time. And we deny this sort of thing all the time.

Anyway, if Swedes have the freedom to change their form of Government, and want to live in a more directly Socialist fashion these days, that's their perogative. The important thing is that measure of freedom so that they can change it if they wish. Most Socialist nations do have Freedom enough for that, and this is why I would not classify Socialism as evil. I haven't heard of a Socialist Manifesto that persuades people to despotism!





Communism relys upon the honesty of the People, as Niffiwan repeatedly agrees.

And that's precisely why it can't work!

Pure Communism has never been tried because it CAN'T be tried. You will never find an honest enough band of revolutionaries to accomplish it! And you will never find an honest enough people to maintain it.

Marx was not a realist. To believe in Communism is to depart from Reality. Like the Unabomber's Manifesto, the Communist Manifesto brilliantly diagnoses some of the problems with its contemporary civilization. In both cases, however, the solutions are insane.

Hey Gilthalion.
Actually, I feel communism is departing from rationality not reality. It's irrational to expect everyone to get the same wages when one may be a better worker than the other. Irrational to expect one goverment to function when the citizens do not have the freedom to vote it out of power. To not make as much money as you deserve. To work for everyone else's happiness but not your own.
It's irrational, not unreal.

Hmmmmmm.

OK! I can accept that stipulation. I tend to rhetorical excess at times.

Gil, to Niffiwan: "Niffiwan, basically there are a few problems with your grasp on Reality. GOOD and EVIL self-evidently exist, a priori."

Me, to Gil, in a previous post: "You do not demonstrate: you impose."


One's "Reality" is clearly another's religion here.

a priori's are often dogmas, to which opposition has, in the past, brought a sentence of death by hanging, or burning, or flaying, or all of the above.

I do think nature and the universe is amoral (no, not immoral!), but in no way would i think this to be an a priori: it's a belief i have, to be strenghtened or weakened according to what I and others learn as we go on living.
Belief in absolute Truth, absolute Good and Evil, however, ARE religious beliefs, a priori's not to be contested.

I would respect your position if you said: "I believe that Good and Evil exist"
But instead, you willfully choose to say that to believe otherwise is a "problem with [our] grasp on Reality"

Again, I find this attitude pitifull.
It does go well however with a despotic-minded attitude, an attitude which however you vehemently (and rightly) oppose.

I'm sure that deep down you abhor despotism, as one can see in most of your posts; however, as I think (and only think) I have demonstrated above, you hold a double-language.

Respectfully,
juntel

Doublethink is a concept George Orwell employed in 1984 to convey the ability of the brainwashed mind to simultaneously believe contradictory things to be simultaneously true.

One sees it in modern political dialogue continuously these days.

I suppose to you, my way of thinking resembles that sort of thing. Actually, you fail to see consistency because you do lack the experiences that I have had and it is otherwise impossible for you to truly understand it, though you may intuitively grasp it.

I sometimes fail to appreciate the effect that the expression of my certainty about the Absolutes of Reality can have. Still this cannot always be helped. What I am reminded of is that not everyone shares this certainty and insistence upon it can seem quite jarring to those who do not share it.

I'm sorry about that, but I don't run across very many people in Alabama who think that Good and Evil are simply a matter of preference in systems of belief.

This is the merest reflection of the imposition of this certainty that God himself made upon my perception of Reality. Most everyone has felt something of the touch of God in some fashion on some occasion.

Folk of my own faith in Jesus Christ testify to directly experiencing God, as I have and do, as Tolkien evidently did as well. I can't speak in anyway for folk of other faiths, except to say that Good and Evil are universal concepts, as is God. I also can't speak for folk who choose not to choose (which is still a choice).

Absent this experience, I might be forced to conclude that Right and Wrong are concepts without foundation in the structure of the universe and are therefore not necessarily Real in anyway whatsoever.

But it is hard for me to recall consideration of things without belief in Good and Evil, and it has been long since my mind moved in paths unaccustomed to the presence of God.

He is always there/here. Even now.

To me it is not Religion, it is Reality.

One might say that there is a level of faith in my perception of God that is higher than my faith in my perception of the keyboard I can see and touch. But this perception is no less of Reality than the other.

But you don't know that yourself, juntel, and so to you there is no objectifiable way to determine this, there is no empirical foundation in the structure of things to suggest it, and for me to insist upon it is insulting, imposing, and in the end, pitiful or even dangerous.

But if my courage held, I would insist that God is real (and more!) to my very death.

I would not be quite as insistent about this keyboard.




For what it's worth, I think there is nothing so courageous/foolish as believing that there is no God. How those folk go on living is beyond my grasp.

I do respect, however, thoughtful folk who are open-minded, and who, above all, Never Stop Dreaming.

... as if coming from Mr. O'Brian himself...

I, and others, would then know what Reality IS when/if we become christians, somehow.

Until then, we seem to be condemned, according to Gilthalion, to have "a few problems with your grasp on Reality", since "GOOD and EVIL self-evidently exist, a priori."

Self-evidence? a priori?

Those terms could have been (and i'm sure have been) used to maintain the belief of a flat earth.

Therefore, my statement that "You do not demonstrate: you impose" still stands strong.


"To me it is not Religion, it is Reality."

To you.
Also to others of other religions, but then they have their own "reality", according to their own faith (there's a whole world outside of Alabama and - hold on to your chair! - even outside America!)


"I think there is nothing so courageous/foolish as believing that there is no God. How those folk go on living is beyond my grasp."

You have then to learn about the nature of belief.
And to learn that those who don't believe in your deity - including both those who don't believe in any deity as well as those believing in another deity - are as justified in their beliefs as you are in yours.

Your comments about others' positition on "Reality" is then, as i've remarked in a previous post, tantamount to philosophic despotism, which, if it ain't altogether despotism itself, was/is/will be used as justification of despotic states.

Hence my remarks about your double language still stands.

It is, I believe, self-evident that Good and Evil exist, as distinct things and they are presented to us through people and incidents. Good and Evil have to exist. Rationality points this way, all signs. Without their existence, the world would not function.

But I am also an atheist. And I"m getting along just fine. Let us not confuse Reality with Religion. They are in fact, absolute opposites. If you are a realist (and this is only my point of view. So don't pounce on me all you believers out there) you cannot believe in God. Whereas if you aren't a hardcore realist you take comfort in the fact that someone up there is controlling the chaos down here. Good for you. It's a crutch but if it makes you happy there's nothing better.


Also, I don't remember Gilthalion saying anything to the effect that only Christians will get anywhere in life. That is a despicable way to think, because all religions are equally, well...'good' and unrealistic. So there is no way a Christian is better than a Hindu, or say a Muslim.

No one has definitively proven that there is even life outside of Alabama, much less outside of my view or earshot. (That's something of a joke.)

I insist upon the existence of God because this is a part of my experience.

It is evidently disturbing to some that I insist upon it when the issue directly is dealt with. It is also disturbing to some if this thinking permeates the entire structure of my thought and expression.

Sorry.

But I am not forcing anyone, cannot force anyone, and would resist anyone who would force anyone, to belive anything that I say.

That is hardly philosophic despotism.

It is my natural response to my direct perception of God as Reality, especially following upon the moral/eternal choice I made at that juncture. (For details visit the nearest Gospel of John.)

I cannot be held responsible for any effect this may have upon another system of beliefs, or any emotional responses to their juxtaposition. If I lose my freedom of expression (and I am not yelling "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse, or something like that), then inevitably everyone's freedom to express themselves will be in jeopardy.

And I pray that you all DO experience God. I tell you I have and that I don't expect you to believe me until you do. Now, why this is upsetting to some, I don't really understand. I see it and hear it (more often outside Alabama than not). Some are tolerant of my views and some are not.

There are certainly Christians who are themselves intolerant.

But I hardly think that the way I have expressed myself has demonstrated intolerance, much less despotism, philosophical or otherwise.

But it does seem to me that today's brand of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism demands tolerance of all views but mine.

As US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rhenquist noted of Justice John Paul Steven's opinion in a pivotal case regarding free expression, there is a movement of thought in society today that is "bristling with hostility towards religion."

Prophets foretold that such times would come again. It's hardly a surprise, indeed, preachers of the last two or three generations have chronicled its return in the sermons of the 20th Century.

Many wonder if this will be a small or a great season of such times and even if it might not forebode the Apocalypse.

I'm not sure myself, but the archetype certainly seems to be enjoying a revival of attention these days in many genres. At any rate, it is all part and parcel of the topic of this thread, and that seems certain to me.

Anyway, Merry Christmas one and all, and Happy Hanukkah, too!


P.S. I've never heard of Mr. O'Brian (I'm sure I will), but Merry Christmas to him, too!


Lorien Wanderer, I actually do understand how folk "keep on going" so to speak. This was more rhetoric, a reference to the angst and loss of a feeling of meaning felt by many who may deny themselves what you think to be a crutch.

Firstly, I misspelled: it should have been O'Brien, not O'Brian. And he's a character from 1984, the novel you mentionned earlier.


Secondly, my main concern in my recent posts was to address this comment you made to Niffiwan:

"Niffiwan, basically there are a few problems with your grasp on Reality. GOOD and EVIL self-evidently exist, a priori."

You should understand that one's self-evidences have more to do with one's beliefs giving a particular color to facts, rather than with actual evidences.

Each person's deity or deities does in fact give them a particular look on the reality around them, giving it a particular meaning. It is, indeed, part of each person's experience.

However, this is no reason to condescend people in saying that if they don't adhere to your own belief-tinted views of reality that they don't have a firm grasp of it.
"Holier-than-thou attitude" is the expression that comes to mind...


Merry Christmas to you too.

Now when you say "I don't expect you to believe me that you do." it is, I must admit, a rather holier than thou attitude. How about 'if' instead of 'until' because you see, as atheists we don't believe in the existence of God which thereby makes your sentence pure fantasy for us.

Self-evidence does exist in some cases. It is self evident that I am tapping away at my keyboard right now. And it is also self-evident that Good and Evil exist. However, it is not self evident that God exists. That's debatable.

Merry Christmas to you too!
What exactly do you do on Hanukkah? We don't celebrate it here.

AA has potential which is rapidly being lost. Division and desencion are being played up by those seeking personal power.
Remember "the meed inherit the Gulag" and "Gun control is not about guns, it's about Control".

Wake up America before you find yourself in the position of Australia or Great Britain. On the road to a police state.

Oh! That O'Brien! It's been a while and I didn't make the connection. (He was the one who brainwashed the protagonist?)

How rude!

Since I do not have the despotic powers (or inclinations!) of Mr. O'Brien, I reject the allusion.

I did not create the Reality I've experienced and which has reformulated my perceptions and expressions. I do understand (a little better each day) how upsetting (or annoying) it is for someone to positively affirm a perception of reality which some others reject.

And for what it's worth, to correct the sort of missimpression this conflict of perceptions creates, I hardly consider myself "holier than thou." I'm a foul and lowly creature of greater pride than worth.

I only would argue that I am better informed by direct experience than some are by their philosophical preference.

Which may present those who hold a contrary view with a dilemma of some sort which can be met by declining to respond, by stipulating corrections, by debate, by argument, or by force.

Mr. O'Brien would choose the latter if it were within his power.

And the ugly truth is, that there are all too many folk who would do the same. Getting back to the subject of the thread, this is one of the foundational principles of American Government. The Founders recognized the imperfectibility of humanity as a self-evident Truth. This is why Spock1 retains his right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort and as a deterence against Tyranny.

It is difficult to debate, to find a shared frame of reference, and it would be impossible to govern, if every debate were always hung upon objections to the Self-Evident.

Unfortunately, self-evident is not universally evident.

To say that there is no Good and Evil because there can be no absolutes and that there is no Reality to these things, objecting to the self-evident nature of them on the idea that self-evidence is impossible, and to insist that I am a philosophical despot for not acknowledging the viability of some contrary philosophy (while I am extolling my own), is splitting a hair mighty thinly.

Isn't it enough that there be tolerance for each to assert his or her own views, subject to criticism of others?


[c] ~~~[/c]


On another front, if one accepts Good and Evil as a part of that which is Real, how does one then conclude decisively that there is no God? I certainly cannot empirically prove His existence to anyone. But I do not believe that a contrary proof is possible, either.

I am forced to admit that there are no physical properties to the known Universe from which Good and Evil can be derived. I would hold that in some sense, therefore, since they are evident, these must be representative of a somehow spiritual nature of Reality that coexists with the Physical. Wouldn't this alone preclude a definitive proof against the existence of God?

I don't remember the details of this story (and am too lazy to research it at the moment). There was a king in Europe (I want to say Frederick the Great) who interviewed a Christian philosopher (I want to say Descartes but it might have been Erasmus) and posed the following question (and I paraphrase):

"What proof is there that God is real?"

Said the wise man, "The continued existence of the Jews."

(Which, as someone else could explain better than I, is a part of what Hanukkah is all about!)

"I hardly consider myself 'holier than thou'"

It's about how you act, not how you consider yourself.


"I am better informed by direct experience than some are by their philosophical preference"

...meaning that those who have different view than you (here) do so only because of philosophical day-dreamings?

Experience can also teach that experiences can be deceiving as well as enriching/empowering: deep preconceptions and/or deep superstition and/or incrustated (sp?) dogmas (secular or religious) can curb the interpretations of experiences into stronger delusions.
DoubleSpeak and NewSpeak of 1984 was a linguistic way of encapsulating the mind so that it (the mind) couldn't think otherwise than what BigBrother wanted it to. The ultimate religion.

Self-evidences, whatever you and me and other think they are, must be challenged, put down or reaffirmed, but always doubted with healthy criticism: once those self-evidences are taken for granted, we risk one day to live on a flat earth again. Or worse.


As for the "right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort and as a deterence against Tyranny...

As long as you keep those arms out of schools, as long as those arms aren't used by lynching mobs, as long as those arms and those rights are not weilded by wackos who think they are fighting against tyranies (McVey)...
As long as what constitute a Tyranny isn't taken as a self-evident truth, for then tyrannies are then presently in existence all around, one's tyranny being another's fight agaisnt tyranny... (McVey, Wacko, KKK, Neo-Nutsies, Islamic extremists, Christian extremists, Communist extremists, ... et j'en oublie!)


"to insist that I am a philosophical despot for not acknowledging the viability of some contrary philosophy (while I am extolling my own), is splitting a hair mighty thinly"

Accusing someone of having a few problems with [his/her] grasp on Reality because he/she doesn't agree with you is a good way towards philosophic despotism.
For instance, I do not consider your religious inclination to be for you a problem on your grasp of reality; it is one of the so many ways in this world to make sense of reality, of experiences. I would be foolish (and a good way towards philosophical despotism) to say that 1,000 million christians, 1,000 million muslims, 760 millions hindus, and the many so others, just have a reality-grasping problem.

It is one thing to hold to one's own side of the argument; it is another to dismiss another's point of view by saying he/she is not living your kind of reality, tinted by your beliefs.
Rather than using in arguments an easy label like self-evidence, one could try to explicit why one thinks these are indeed self-evidence.

If your self-evidences are for you absolutely unquestionable, then it clearly is at least a first step to despotism, for you may alienate those who would dare ask some questions; and a society that doesn't check itself, doesn't check its values with the ever-increasing experiences that life brings on, is a Tyranny.


"I certainly cannot empirically prove [my God's] existence to anyone. But I do not believe that a contrary proof is possible, either"

This is the stance taken by agnostics.
I do not un-believe out of empirical proof.


"I am forced to admit that there are no physical properties to the known Universe from which Good and Evil can be derived. I would hold that in some sense [***] these must be representative of a somehow spiritual nature of Reality that coexists with the Physical"

Now we're getting somewhere... reminding me of what I said in an earlier post ( "So far away, so close... that's how I feel sometimes...")

But what put us faraway from each other is my omission from your sentence above: [***]= "since they are evident"

They are evident, with their own meaning, to you.
To others too, of course; to others, but maybe in many different ways, since often one's religion is another's evil.

These Good and Evil then, since not part of Physical reality (at least as agreed from above, if i didn't misunderstand you view), are part of some Nature, since we're talking about them.
It remains to be seen, therefore, where they really lie... which for me, in my personal opinion, is one of those imponderables, unprovable/undisprovable things in life.
For me Good and Evil lie in human nature, not as absolutes, but as point of views, opinions (or lack thereof); but also as deep ingrained schemes (or whatever word one could use, champagne hasn't worn off yet!) that helped humans to survive throuhgout ages, millenia, millions of years... and probably also much farther ancestors...
Can i prove this? Nah... As I said above, it's for me an imponderable...
For me Good and Evil are religious-based concepts coloring human interpretation of reality for so long, and ever will be.
For the hope of an Ultimate Benefactor for a better life, and of an Ultimate Scapegoat for all the bad that happens in life, will ever be stronger than any science. Such, I believe, is human nature (in too few words, of course...)

But, hey! I just may be wrong! And being wrong is not always so catastrophic.

What's important for me is what I do from what I believe. And what others do from what they believe. No need for Heaven or Hell: these places are, for me, right here downs on earth, created by you and I and all of us.

"I hardly consider myself 'holier than thou'"

It's about how you act, not how you consider yourself.

It's about the fact that I act in direct response to my experience and how others may consider me in response to that. And I can't help that much.


"I am better informed by direct experience than some are by their philosophical preference"

...meaning that those who have different view than you (here) do so only because of philosophical day-dreamings?

...meaning that some who hold a different view ON THIS SUBJECT (the self-evident existence of Good & Evil and in particular the existence of God), do not have my experience. If I were blind, I should not presume to tell the sighted man that what he sees does not exist, unless I can present evidence to that effect. Of course, being blind, he will never convince me of what he sees, unless I acquire sight and see it myself.

Likewise, as mentioned, I don't necessarily expect anyone to take me at my word about the existence of God, since I cannot present empirical evidence to that effect. I hope (and pray) God does that himself for these.

"Blessed are those who have seen and believed. Still more blessed are those who believe and have not seen."


Self-evidences, whatever you and me and other think they are, must be challenged, put down or reaffirmed, but always doubted with healthy criticism: once those self-evidences are taken for granted, we risk one day to live on a flat earth again. Or worse.

I think that healthy is perhaps the operative word. I see nothing healthy about doubting Good and Evil. Now, if you want to argue about WHAT is Good or Evil (or neutral) that is a debate that can result in progress.


Accusing someone of having a few problems with [his/her] grasp on Reality because he/she doesn't agree with you is a good way towards philosophic despotism.

I think that a healthy grasp on Reality requires an understanding that Good and Evil are a part of things. This is a self-evident matter upon which all social contracts throughout history have been drawn.

While I agree that to apply this form of reasoning to all matters, especially with the force of law, would indeed open the door wide for Despotism, it is poor logic to insist that therefore the self-evidence of Good and Evil can be, SHOULD BE, discounted.

As noted, I do not encourage despotism of anysort. But to say that I am despotic because I do not believe in the viability of any system of beliefs, philosophical or political, that does not acknowledge Good & Evil, is simply wrong. (Not evil.)

While Good has been called Evil, and Evil, Good, by despots and demogogues, that does not discredit their legitimate use in Politics. One should certainly hesitate (and perhaps I should hesitate longer) before applying such labels.

But "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The abuse of this principle by some is not grounds to forbid its proper use by others.

Which is why I don't mind being questioned about my unalterable opposition to Communism. The fact that so many of the Westerners who have posted to this thread have expressed an unhealthy tolerance for this wicked revolution, in the name of open-mindedness, demonstrates the need for better education in exactly these principles.

While I support the rights of folk who think Communism is simply a failed or flawed political philosophy, with elements that might be safely implemented, I retain my right to vigorously disagree.

I hope that this has cleared matters up.

"I act in direct response to my experience"

Others may have different experiences, hence different views from yours that comes from them.
I don't think it is fair to say that therefore they have "a few problems with [their] grasp on Reality".
That is what is "holier-than-thou" in your attitude.


"I see nothing healthy about doubting Good and Evil"

I see nothing healthy about doubting about the healthiness of doubting Good and Evil.
If those are necessary for you to go on understanding/accepting the world, than so be it.
I, myself, see no need of them.
And that is from my experiences, however inferior therefore you may find them to yours.


"But to say that I am despotic because I do not believe in the viability of any system of beliefs, philosophical or political, that does not acknowledge Good & Evil, is simply wrong"

I say you are very close, if not in the right way, of intellectual despotism, when you denigrate these other beliefs. By the way you and/or others have described Communism as Evil, it is in no way out of possibilities that this condescending attitude will be also (or is also) applied to any dissenting views.


"The fact that so many of the Westerners who have posted to this thread have expressed an unhealthy tolerance for this [Communsim] wicked revolution, in the name of open-mindedness, demonstrates the need for better education in exactly these principles"

Wicked revolution? So, you would have advised the people of Russia to stay with tsarism? The revolution was not a reaction against a putrid petrified monarchy that wasted the people it was supposed to justly rule and govern?

Sheesh!!! I almost afraid to ask what you think of the French Revolution...

Revolutions do not happen out of vacuum.
Better education may be needed for some who think they are better educated.

Complacency is the worst of all ills of education and science.

Which is the basis of my need to doubt such concepts as the so-called Good and Evil, the so-called self-evidences, etc...