why not also show skepticism of the secular?

[charles brough]

yes, I think that you have yet to show that capitalism and its alleged benefits are even a wide spread idea, it may be a wide spread political meme, but at what level do i individuals promote it. Yes your statements that capitalism is somehow part of a heterogeneous ideology of secular society is absurd , or at least unsupported.

So your whole construction is rather vague, capitalism is not universally supported and promoted by individuals.

Just what kind of an economic system do you think we have and that the people want? If it is not capitalism, what is it? What other economic system is there other than communism? Not socialism; its just a theory held by a minority of people. All "socialist" countries are only ones run by idealistic socialists running a capitalist economy in which prices are still set by supply and demand, corporations still dominate the system even if the government ownes stock in some of the larger ones. Socialists have not been able to convince the public to leave capitalism. Western secular ideology is dead set against any other economic system. Both the East Asian Marxist systems and Cuba have or are in the process of leaving the communist economic system and adopting more of our Western secular ideology.

Wow, another unsupported assertion, social mores vary upon the area and subsociety that one looks at.

Oooh, the psychic powers now?

And so when are you going to support your assertions?

So yet another unsupported assertion, what makes you think that the vast majority of human existence was anything other than a level playing field?

I will give you a hint, agriculture comes rather late in human existence.

No, I expressed why I think it is a god idea for an idividual, if you actually tried to do more than project, you would know that many scoieties stille xist that feel disequality, especially in political power are beneficial.


Wow, yet another assertion on your part, was there a warehouse sale on assertions without evidence?

You have yet to show that there is even a consistent belief in the things you label as secular ideology.


Except you have not shopn that those are more than political rhetoric, in the COTUS, some of those are expressed legal frame works.

I notice you also pared down your list.

Individualism is not again a demonstrated value amongst individuals.

You keep asserting your premise, you have yet to demonstrate it.

Democracy is again a legal framework, you have yet to show it as more than rhetoric, are workplaces democratic? How many part of social interaction promote democracy?

may societies are oligarchies, even within the US

No I stated my reason for why I feel individuals may benefit from a level playing field. I never stated anything like what you just said, please stop making stuff up.

Um, so you can't present coherent evidence and you want to blame it on the 'secular value of science'? I say you are just full of rhetoric and don't know how to construct or back your arguments with coherent evidence of more than your personal opinion.

This is just a string of one-liner "anti-assertion assertions." You are like Gaspasho; you prefer to nit-pick instead of taking even one complaint and dealing effectively with it. You are too emotionally involved in your secular way of thinking to deal with the subject objectively.

 

[charles brough]

Can you give some examples of people who have said anything remotely approaching that? Anywhere?

Not yet. It was just a question.

 

[charles brough]

What Humes Fork said:

"Equality is a value, and values are not matters of fact. So speak of equality as a true or false value is to speak of a pizza being tasty as true or false.

Likewise with rights, they are social constructs, and the rights we have are granted to us by society, not by any god or by nature. Over the centuries we have moved toward more equal and more individualized rights."

Yes, Humes was no fool.

 

[Gazpacho]

You are too emotionally involved in your secular way of thinking to deal with the subject objectively.

Of course. If several people perceive the same weaknesses in your argument, that's really the only explanation, isn't it? Emotional involvement. What else could it be?

 

[kerikiwi]

Not yet. It was just a question.

To which you already knew the answer, so it was a silly question

 

[Dancing David]

Just what kind of an economic system do you think we have and that the people want? If it is not capitalism, what is it? What other economic system is there other than communism? Not socialism; its just a theory held by a minority of people. All "socialist" countries are only ones run by idealistic socialists running a capitalist economy in which prices are still set by supply and demand, corporations still dominate the system even if the government ownes stock in some of the larger ones. Socialists have not been able to convince the public to leave capitalism. Western secular ideology is dead set against any other economic system. Both the East Asian Marxist systems and Cuba have or are in the process of leaving the communist economic system and adopting more of our Western secular ideology.



This is just a string of one-liner "anti-assertion assertions." You are like Gaspasho; you prefer to nit-pick instead of taking even one complaint and dealing effectively with it. You are too emotionally involved in your secular way of thinking to deal with the subject objectively.

Apparently all you have is assertions and no basis for establishing the objective basis of any of your statement.

Considering that I can think of at least five major countries (in western europe) that have a mix of capitalism and socialism, your premise seems a tad bit over blown.

So I hope you undetsand that your hyperbole does not help your argument, nor makes conversation any easier with you.

I think if you weren't so set on you monomanical expressions you might find that most people on this forum are very sceptical of many social conventions.