(October 10, 2010 at 1:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Does the fact that some Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old mean that Christianity involves that belief? No. Likewise, just because some capitalists may believe in capital as a God (although you've yet to cite any sources for that), doesn't mean that capitalism involves the elevation of capital to god-like status.

Thanks Adrian. I may have not made it clear enough so far, but my hypothesis - that capitalism is a religion - contains within it the idea that it is a behaviour of capitalists to deny that capitalism is a religion and to deny that it behaves like a religion, even to themselves. The thread I started was therefore intended to see if it is possible shine some light on something that has previously been in darkness. If I have left that idea out, then I am grateful for the opportunity to include it now.

I started to allude to it in my post #75 when I made reference to "the survival of capitalism, particularly its need to hide from full view its structure and its authoritarian mechanisms. I'll elaborate in more detail later on." Unfortunately I haven't had a chance yet to elaborate, but I don't think any religion, whether it be catholicism or capitalism, has at its helm a group of knowing directors who are constantly planning the religion's next move. Decision-making is largely reactive, and religions acquire structures and policies which happen to benefit their survival.

I do not think that there is any significant group of capitalists, nor even some capitalists, who "believe in capital as a God" i.e. they don't sit down praying to capital or otherwise indulging themselves in ritual worship of capital, and then go out implementing what they've been praying about. If they literally believed in capital as a God then I'd have thought it would all be out in the open, and this debate would be unnecessary. But belief in a deity is not a necessary part of most definitions of religion, hence Buddhism is still a religion, as (in my argument) is capitalism. It is behaviours other than literal worship and literal belief in a deity that categorise capitalism as a religion.

Therefore, it is on the basis of the behaviour of capitalist interests that I say it is a religion, not their expressed beliefs, or even secret beliefs, in any supposed deity. The behaviour of capitalism as a whole system, how it acts on the world, betrays it as a religion, not what its leading lights say or believe.

(October 10, 2010 at 1:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Your argument is flawed from the start because at no point in the definition (oh noes! not those!) of capitalism does it ever suggest anything even remotely religious.

A lot of people think that capitalism is an oppressor, but at no point the definition does it suggest anything even remotely oppressive. Does this fact mean that any argument that capitalism is an oppressor is flawed?

Quote:Higher social standards could drive economic recovery
Published: 12 October 2010
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

Social measures such as fair pay for workers and financial support for the unemployed are helping to protect jobs and underpin economic recovery worldwide, experts claimed at an international conference in Brussels yesterday (11 October).

Policies saved or created 20 million jobs

By implementing policies consistent with the 'Decent Work Agenda' and the 'Global Jobs Pact' that was agreed at the International Labour Conference in Geneva in June 2009, countries have been able to avoid ''an even worse jobs crisis,'' said Torres, who claimed that around 20 million jobs have been saved or created as a result of such policies.

In the aftermath of the economic crisis, emerging economies cannot just rely on income from exports to traditional net-importers such as the USA and some European countries, where public spending cuts and other fiscal austerity measures are likely to result in decreased levels of consumer demand in the next few years.

Take that capitalism

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I didn't link you to any of the Churchill posts. I agree you made some contemptuous comments about one or two of the middle ones apart from #1 and #20. I see no comments at all from you about my references to the work of Walter Benjamin, although when I referenced Marx you did make a dismissive remark telling me to have my own ideas and that I should not quote other writers.

I did more than make contemptuous comments. Just because you chose to stop reading and retaliate with your own and provide little else (particularly in the first few posts you've responded to) doesn't mean that that's all I've provided.

You have yet to give me or anyone any reason to believe anything you've said about Capitalism being a religion and not one of those posts provide it. I responded specifically to the first post because it was the only one specifically to address this topic, but all of the assumptions your statements are founded upon are unsupported.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Thank you for now partially replying to Post #1. I agree that I state a number of things which I believe to be true although it is particularly ungenerous to dismiss them all as "baseless assertions".

Unless I'm mistaken, I've responded to the entire post. If I've missed something pertinent you can put it up and I'll address it.
Baseless assertions is what happens when you say something to be true without really giving any reason for the reader to believe this is the case.
For example, telling me that apples are stupid because purple is a stupid color is not only inane, but also baseless because apples do not have the necessary pigmentation in order to produce a purple apple (you know, short of genetically engineering). This statement already reached a conclusion based on a false premise and that's what you've been doing about this whole 'capitalism is a religion' thing.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Not only that, if you read the post, over three quarters of my remarks are posed in the form of questions, inviting others to comment on what I think are quite reasonable and interesting ideas.

As I've just pointed out, your statements are based on false premises and baseless assertions. In order to have a discussion stemming from your questions, I would have to accept your premise to be true and since they clearly aren't, that premise has to be addressed because if they aren't true, then your questions are irrelevant.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: And that's it! That's your counter-argument to my idea that capitalism is a religion!

Just as with religious claims on god, divinity, the afterlife, miracles, and other points they make, the burdon of proof is on you. You have to give me some reason to accept your premise and you haven't done it. Not at all.
You've told me to go and re-read your previous posts to find the proof you've provided, but I can't do that because you haven't provided any.
Further, my counterarguements have addressed all this. Just because you read my more nuanced arguements and come out with 'you're wrong, nya nya nyaa nyaa' doesn't mean that's all I wrote.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: You ask why atheists would have a 'stance' as atheists about capitalism. My argument is that capitalism is a religion, so atheists, being at the very least sceptical of religious ideas, should be as vociferous and as rejecting of capitalism as they are about rejecting christianity, islam and judaism. But they tend not to be, and that makes me wonder why.

That's absolutely inane. There are several atheists here repeatedly telling you why - it's because it's not a religion.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: You assert that, "No one worships capital as a god." Really that simple sentence takes us back to the debate at the core of my argument, but no further forward in terms of examining its validity. I say people do worship capital as a god, because by worship I mean they regard it with ardent devotion: they do degrees in the study of it, build careers around it, businesses and industries, start wars over it and they cut public services on the basis of its needs, treating anyone who disagrees as blasphemous.

This is exactly what I mean by broadening the definition of a religion so much that you've essentially nubbed off the corners of a cube to fit it in the circle hole.
People don't worship capital. They use it. It's a tool and it is used as such. People do not get degrees in money-ology (akin to theology) people get degrees in things accounting, economics, and business because the exchange of money is necessary in the exchange of goods and services and people treat it exactly as such.
There are no places of worship for money of any kind and people do not devote themselves to money in the same way that christians devote themselves to god. The two are completely and wholly seporate things and are defined as such.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: You keep asking for evidence. I know what I'm going to say will probably give you a pretext for another bout of dismissive remarks, but on the subject of evidence I'd better just make it clear that I see "evidence" as a relatively minor player when it comes to philosophical or political ideas, for a couple of reasons. I often say that if I were presented with a valid proof of the existence of God, it wouldn't stop me being an atheist. If it got to the stage of being presented with a valid proof of such a ridiculous idea, I would have to doubt my own sanity (really, don't feel the need to comment on that) so the validity of my interpretation of the evidence would be flawed. For this reason, evidence is generally kinda interesting but by no means conclusive in philosophy.

Then this 'discussion', such that it is, is essentially over.
You've admitted that the dictionary definition doesn't fit your use of the term religion.
You've admitted that evidence to you is secondary in proving your point.
Your conclusion is thus based on the lack of both your desire to be constrained by the english language use of the term 'religion' by broadening it so much that anything could be a religion and that despite the fact that you cannot provide me anything in which I could use to see your arguement as even relatively close to being anything like truth - let alone an arguement with any validity.
Further, you did not pose a philisophical arguement - you outright asserted that capitalism is a religion without even holding that point up for discussion until I and others called you out on that. Philosophy is a school of thought that discusses the nature of existance, reason, mind, and the nature of existance. The Matrix, as the movie, is a thought on existance and a question of reality through the simple question of what is reality? What you did is mistake the importance of currency and the methodology of the exchange of goods and services with the ideas of life, death, spirituality, creation, and morality.
The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another except in such a general sense that you could define anything as a religion as long as more than one person follows that idea.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I am far more interested in the coherence of people's arguments than I am in evidence. I don't dismiss evidence, but equally I know that in philosophy, the presentation of evidence often leads to demands for more evidence. You end up with a mass of perplexing evidence, but at the end of the day you still have to make your own decision what to believe. The process is the same with people who insist that dictionary definitions of words are the only legitimate tool for interpreting the use of words in debates about philosophical concepts. The problem I see is that for every dictionary definition you then need to start looking up all the words containing the definition. This eventually gets you nowhere. Far better to discuss the internal coherence of the arguments people are putting forward, and to agree to disagree if you cannot reach agreement.

The thing about the dictionary is that the people who print them usually perform that kind of research. You see, languages exist because words have definitions - you always use one word in precisely the same way each time. Sometimes that changes but sometimes it doesn't - that's why terms like 'gay' have archaic defintions that can sometimes be outrageously different than modern uses.
That is how languages can even sometimes evolve into completely different languages given time and isolation. English is a perfect example of a language that has defined roots in virtually every language on the planet given its wide use around the world.
However, that doesn't mean a person can just start using words however he or she chooses and expect others to follow. That would lead to chaos and language itself would become meaningless.
Now, my point here is that you're not using 'religion' in the same sense that anyone else is. This is because religion is a defined thing which, as we've already discovered, a fairly exacting definition and few dictionaries tend to stray from any one definition - usually just rewordings of the exact same meaning. However, what you're doing is saying that a not-religion is a religion because the dictionary doesn't have the proper definition for the way in which you want to define religion as and that dictionaries, which exist precisely so allow anyone to know and understand these definitions - is wrong.

Well, I have to tell you, I'll believe the dictionary before I believe you - particularly since the dictionary definition mismatch you have going on here isn't the only reason I don't believe you.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: If you managed to point out any coherent internal contradictions then I'd have more respect for your position, but just repeating "That's not true" and "where's your evidence?" isn't what I'd call a coherent counter-argument to the ideas that I've presented.

Evidence wasn't the only thing I've asked for. Your arguements have severe issues with not being logical or rational. Your arguements are not based on anything other than, from what I've been able to determine from this entire thread, nothing. Your definitions of terms is outright wrong.
This is in addition to having no supporting evidence. There are no united states money churches. There are no sunday services to praise money. There are no prophets to the all mighty dollar. There are no holidays exclusively to praise capitalism or any saint (or whatever) specifically or even indirectly devoted to capitalism. There are no capitalism anything that does anything like any religion anywhere. There are no rituals, morals, life lessons, moral codes, or anything that Captialism teaches.
The beginning and end of Capitalism is a methodology of trade and economics and you have given me nothing to convince anyone otherwise.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: You gave an argument that Superman fandom can be said to be a religion. Well - it's more a cult than a religion. I'd say a cult is just applicable to the limited number of people under its influence, whereas a religion is more fundamental to a bigger proportion of the population because it's about beliefs and values pervade the whole social structure.

You've already practically proved my point. The fact that you've even given the concept merit already means you've defined it so broadly the the arguement could be made for ANYTHING popular.
I'll expand that a bit: Although I don't have exact numbers on Superman's popularity - I am aware that Superman's fans range in the tens of millions (at least) worldwide. Movies and television shows have been made about him all over the world and the original action comics #1 has sold for oodles of money. Superman as a brand name is worth billions of dollars.
If we define Superman Fandom as religious in nature, it would be a religion with many millions of followers worldwide.

But it doesn't end there. More to the point of capitalism, by default, if capitalism is a religion, then every economic system is a religion. All of them. Each and every one of them fits the definition you have given religion entirely because it has a large impact on our daily lives instead of a small or insignificant impact either profoundly to individuals or broadly to a large swath of the population.
But your definition also allows for other things to be defined as either religious in nature, a religion, or a cult. This includes all brand names with a great deal of popularity (like Mountain Dew or Coca Cola), popular television and movies (Avatar, Harry Potter, Inception, the Simpsons), popular individuals and personalities (brangelina, Oprah, Jon Stewart, Fox News personalities, etc), video games (World of Warcraft, Starcraft), and probably many other things but it still covers just about everything based on how I've argued that Superman is a religion because those things could potentially be anything and that's why your arguement fails and fails hard based on any logical or rational reasonings.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: You also said that capitalism professes no beliefs about existence and the purpose of life, morality, so it can't be a religion. In response to that I'd say first that capitalism doesn't have to profess any beliefs about the existence and purpose of life in order to be a religion. As it happens, I think that most capitalist propaganda does suggest that the profit principle applies to everyone and there is a whole moral code around living within your means and not making others pay for your needs, for example through the welfare state. One capitalist teaching would therefore be that people must get through life while balancing the books, and not make a loss - don't allow your expenditure to exceed your income over your lifetime. A lot of thinking about welfare is influenced by this profoundly moral belief which ties into the capitalist work ethic among other things.

... so let me get this straight...
In addition to not basing your arguements on supporting evidence, the definition of religion or capitalism, you're now going to include the fact that capitalism is a religion despite having no religious teachings, morals, guidelines, or rituals?

Also - Capitalist propoganda? Whose capitalist propag... nevermind.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I am arguing that Capital is the central figure, and is personified in many forms: the accountant, the Treasury Minister, the Governor of the Bank. But there is no requirement that this central figure should be a person or even that there should be a central figure at all. Usually there is such a figure, but it is not compulsory, and in any event I think Capitalism has one.

By that arguement, the guy who owns the McDonalds from where I get my McDonalds food is the minister of the church of McDonalds.
But that's just one of my patented dismissive remarks, which I have given to you because that thing you posted above is ridiculous. Accountants don't worship money nor do they preach money as though it has anything to teach. He handles money in the same way that my grocer handles food.
Why is it that you can't seem to tell the difference?

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: You then said "there are no tenants of faith, rules, or codes in which a person is to live their life by" Well I think that one tenet of faith is that capitalism is an inevitable system, a "given" and that anyone who argues against it is mad or a troublemaker. Rules are elaborated around the profit principle and the guilt associated with failing to live up to it.

My computer has a technical manual too. It recommends the ways I should and should not use my computer and from what it tells me I'm certain that I should not take it into the shower with me. That doesn't make the technical manual for proper computer operation a religious text any more than your definition of a 'tenant of faith.'

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I have difficulty understanding the first sentence or how murder relates to it. I recognise that capitalism per se does not identify murder as a moral outrage - I wonder if that is why it has continued to allow the other religions their existence. There is no point in capitalism allowing christianity, islam etc to exist if they do not have a function that is beneficial to capitalism.

That's because those are religions. They have an effect on people's lives that's distinct and completely seporate from the manner to which capitalism affects anyone's life. The reason that Capitalism hasn't quashed anything is because Capitalism isn't an organized faith of any kind and doesn't have that kind of focused power.

(October 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Weddings tend to be an excuse for a party. Marriage is highly useful to capitalism as it establishes a productive unit of consumption. I agree that capitalism delegates the recognition of this legal arrangement to the sub-religions because they tend to be better at it. Capitalism must tread a careful path: if it is too blatent in its interference in everyday life then it exposes itself to the risk of being replaced by a more rational, less oppressive system. That's why the other religions are tolerated: to lend legitimacy to rituals and morals that are necessary to the survival of the capitalist system.

There isn't any response to this that hasn't already been said.
I'll just add that between this and every other response you've given thus far is that Capitalism just like a religion except in every way that a religion actually works and operates in the real world.

Thanks TheDarkestofAngels. All of the posts I have made in this thread have provided reasons to believe that capitalism is a religion and should be treated as such. I respect the fact that you don't agree with my reasons or my reasoning. This is because you have a different opinion from me about the subject. However it is incorrect to say that all of my statements or assumptions are unsupported - again, I respect the fact that you have different opinions about the observations I have made about capitalism and their similarity in my mind to aspects of religion. I'm afraid I still disagree with your accusation that I have made "baseless assertions". Any assertions I have made have been based and backed up - you may disagree with the strength of the argument or the base. That's fine.

I think we've covered enough of who's said what or not in response to what so with you permission I'll move on to slightly more colourful territory. I have not at any point told you that apples are stupid because purple is a stupid color. That would be, as you say, "inane". I also agree it would be a baseless assertion. It is good to agree on that at least. Unfortunately though I do not see any similarity between that baseless assertion and the arguments, opinions and observations that I have outlined to support the hypothesis that capitalism is a religion. This does not mean that my hypothesis is objectively right, but my argument and my reasoning do not in any way bear a similarity to any suggestion that apples are stupid because they are purple.

I did ask several questions in Post #1, which you could have a discussion about even if you disagreed with any of the supporting observations, opinions and arguments I have put forward throughout this thread respecting the hypothesis that capitalism is a religion. You can choose not to have a discussion though - it's up to you. I do not accept any particular burden of proof being on my shoulders as a result of expressing the hypothesis that capitalism is a religion. If one person has a burden of proof in an argument, everyone else has an equal burden of proof in my mind. If people argue there is no god have a burden of proof, then people who argue there is a god have a similar burden of proof, and people who argue that we cannot know one way or the other also have a similar burden of proof, particularly for giving so much importance to the concept of 'knowing'. However I do think proof is an over-rated concept and largely unachievable. I therefore do not feel under any obligation to give you "some reason to accept" my premise. I'm not asking you to accept my premise that capitalism is a religion, my motivation is simply to invite discussion about it.

I certainly at no point told you "to go and re-read" my previous posts to find the "proof" I've provided. I would not be so inane as to claim I have provided any proofs. Please don't misrepresent what I have said. I have to say that 'you're wrong, nya nya nyaa nyaa' is a misquote. I certainly never said that or anything like it.

I'm sorry that you think my opinion that atheists should be as vociferous and as critical of capitalism is also "inane". The fact that several atheists have repeatedly told me here why they think atheism is not a religion doesn't, unfortunately, settle the matter once and for all, as you suggest. This is because it's an argument, a controversy, an exchange of opinions. I respect your right to hold the view that I have broadened the definition of a religion so much that I've essentially nubbed off the corners of a cube to fit it in the circle hole. I don't agree with your view that I have done this, because I don't think I've altered the definition of a religion in the slightest, I've been very careful to refer to the dictionary definitions that were first posted by my opponents in this thread.

I never said people get degrees in "money-ology." The definition of religion does not require any places of worship. Your suggestion that no-one devotes themselves to money in the same way that christians devote themselves to god is highly arguable both ways. I think you can guess where I will fall in that argument. My comments about evidence in philosophical arguments is that no evidence in itself is of overwhelming and conclusive importance. Interpretation of evidence is a crucial stage in all scientific and philosophical enquiry. A small amount of very weak evidence can be interpreted correctly to produce correct statements, a large amount of very strong evidence can be interpreted incorrectly to produce incorrect statements. Evidence can come in the form of concrete facts or it can come in the form of other opinions and other interpretations, in which case the testing of the evidence and its interpretation may be carried out by examining the internal coherence of all the interpretations. Concrete facts may therefore well be a minor player. The choice of the words "of secondary importance" in my supposed admission is actually your choice of words, not mine. Do correct me if I have said otherwise because I would need to revise my meaning if I had sad that - I tend to think I would avoid the word 'secondary' because it might imply that I support a process of reaching conclusions by putting evidence second chronologically in a sequential process of analysis, which seems a bit out of order to me.

I certainly do not think the english language is there to constrain us, I think it is there to liberate us to discover new ideas and philosophical concepts - same with any language. As it happens I do not think that I have broadened the definition of religion at all, when referred to dictionaries by others I have repeatedly come back and pointed to exactly the definitions contained therein. It is not true to say that I have changed the definition of a religion such that anything could be a religion. Please do not misrepresent me.

I have very much opened the argument that capitalism is a religion up for discussion and I have developed and elaborated on my argument with every post - except obviously those off-topic posts about Churchill's words which was an unfortunate diversion. To say that I have not held my argument up for discussion is a misrepresentation and I would ask you not to misrepresent me in that way.

I disagree that capitalism has not shaped the way we deal with the ideas of life, death, spirituality, creation, and morality. It is central to my argument that capitalism has imposed itself upon all these areas.

I do not agree that dictionaries are a source of research about the internal coherence of the arguments that people put forward in philosophy. Dictionaries are a source of information about words, in particular their most common usages. They are not legislation and they do not contain rules and regulations about what people are allowed to say and what they are not allowed to say. Even given that I think this, I do not think that I have not gone outside dictionary definitions of religion or capitalism in this thread. Languages do not exist because words have definitions. Languages evolved with the human ability to attach complex sounds to concepts. Definitions come after the invention of the sound - don't they? It is also incorrect to say that "you always use one word in precisely the same way each time." The same individuals use the same words differently, and different individuals use the same words differently.

The freedom to change words, to change their meanings and to invent words is why languages evolve and why the world has had many thousands of different languages. Even given this fact, I still do not think I have strayed from the actual definitions of the words religion and capitalism. I certainly do not think I can just start using words however I choose and expect others to follow. I have not attempted to do so. I have from the start presented arguments about concepts and ideas. You and others have misrepresented me as changing words and their meanings during this thread, which I would ask you not to do. I have used the dictionary definitions of the word religion.

It is incorrect to say my arguments are based on "nothing". You say that "there are no united states money churches. There are no sunday services to praise money. There are no prophets to the all mighty dollar. There are no holidays exclusively to praise capitalism or any saint (or whatever) specifically or even indirectly devoted to capitalism." The definition of religion requires none of these things.

In my view it is incorrect to say that there are no "morals, life lessons, moral codes, or anything that Captialism teaches." On the subject of Superman fandom you have described a form of entertainment that sounds to me like a cult TV series. I probably wouldn't spend a lot of time arguing with someone who described it as a religion, though my preference would be to say it is cult entertainment. I think there are differences between a cult entertainment production and a big religion. Coca Cola certainly has iconic status in the religion of capitalism, and Harry Potter is a bit of a cult. You can describe them as religions if you want to, but my preference would be to describe them as products and productions that have a bit of a cult status. Using words in this way doesn't cause my argument to fail.

I don't really understand why you are suggesting I am saying that capitalism has no teachings, morals, guidelines of a religious nature - my argument is that it is full of them. I am sure the guy who owns McDonalds would be as bemused as I am at his being described as a minister of the church of McDonalds. Accountants appear to me to regard money with ardent devotion. Some of them realise they have got a boring job, but then so do a lot of priests. I have not used the expression 'tenant of faith' in respect of capitalism. I disagree that Capitalism has not "quashed anything."

I accept that you reject my hypothesis that capitalism is a religion. Although you argue very forcefully and you have misrepresented a lot of what I have said, I am grateful for your reply.

(October 1, 2010 at 5:48 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Authoritarian, inconsistent, making claims to be universal, dependent on sacred tenets, elevating a tiny number of individuals to the status of prophets, saints and celebrities who hold the gaze of the hypnotised masses; highly dependent on elaborate metaphor, hugely adept at propaganda, deeply secretive while claiming to be transparent; revering of many godlets but worshipping the one true god Capital above all others

The words you're looking for are 'socialism' and 'democracy'.

(October 17, 2010 at 3:38 am)ChromodynamicGirl Wrote:

(October 1, 2010 at 5:48 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Authoritarian, inconsistent, making claims to be universal, dependent on sacred tenets, elevating a tiny number of individuals to the status of prophets, saints and celebrities who hold the gaze of the hypnotised masses; highly dependent on elaborate metaphor, hugely adept at propaganda, deeply secretive while claiming to be transparent; revering of many godlets but worshipping the one true god Capital above all others

The words you're looking for are 'socialism' and 'democracy'.

Nah that's capitalism, socialism makes higher people to pay for low people

(October 17, 2010 at 6:29 am)Ashendant Wrote: Nah that's capitalism, socialism makes higher people to pay for low people

No, dumbass, socialism makes everyone a slave to the government. This isn't fucking Candyland we live in.

So capitalism is a religion, atheism is a religion, communism is a religion, science is a religion, blah, blah, blah. I eat cereals in the morning. That MUST be a religion!

There is such things as abuses and misuses of the language.

(October 17, 2010 at 9:13 am)little_monkey Wrote: There is such things as abuses and misuses of the language.

The guy doesn't believe that people should use standardised definitions; his entire purpose here is to abuse and misuse language.

(October 17, 2010 at 7:56 am)ChromodynamicGirl Wrote:

(October 17, 2010 at 6:29 am)Ashendant Wrote: Nah that's capitalism, socialism makes higher people to pay for low people

No, dumbass, socialism makes everyone a slave to the government. This isn't fucking Candyland we live in.

I live in a socialist country and i'm not a slave to the government... in fact it protects me from abusive corporations, and helps the people that can't help themselves(and let some game the system...)