Fruit_Inspector

That's Marx's genius plan to achieve freedom? Everyone works less? That sounds like the 5th-grader running for class president on the platform of implementing all-day recess.


Sorry Gary, it sounds nice but it ain't gonna work.


And between you and Marx, the solution is to decrease the amount of hours everyone works and significantly de-link from the world economy. And this will somehow promote human flourishing because Timmy can spend more time being an unproductive dog yoga instructor rather than a productive coal miner, right?


Have you thought through the consequences of such a plan? Do you have any solutions for the problems that will arise? Have you actually considered the specifics of how you will meet everyone's physical needs that doesn't end with millions starving to death? Or do you think all the details will just work themselves out simply because you want them to?

Fruit_Inspector

Thanks. Life got crazy for a while, but I was intrigued by the new site and got the itch to argue with strangers online again.


I think you're right about them being ignorant of these issues. I'm pretty sure the only thing they're certain of is that a violent* revolution needs to happen and that will somehow solve all the world's problems. The details can work themselves out later.


*probably

Fruit_Inspector


I have never understood how Marxists believe that once they have actualized their Communist society, they think people are just going start working for nothing other than personal fulfillment.


Do they not realize how many crappy jobs are out there that provide all the modern comforts they take for granted?


Are they really willing to give many of those up?


Are they going to do their fair share of work at their local sewage treatment facility solely because of the sense of fulfillment it gives them?


Do they really expect that everyone will get to realize their full potential as an organic soybean farmer, or whatever creative passion they want to pursue, no matter how little they actually contribute to society?


Do they think that all the people who mooch off the current generous and bloated welfare system only do so because of the evil influence of Capitalism?


Do they really believe all of these people will become hard-working and productive individuals because Communism has the magical power to make everyone stop being lazy and selfish?


Do Marxists really believe this?

Fruit_Inspector

Interesting...but to be fair, I don't think the government has created hotlines for turning people who are not pro-Trump. I also don't think there any TACO hotlines. If I was more favorable towards food stamps, I could be possibly talked into a taco hotline though. I do love tacos.

Fruit_Inspector

Remember when the government created a hotline to turn people in if they weren't standing an arbitrary six feet apart while outside, even if they were feeling completely healthy? That was a wild time....

Fruit_Inspector

I don't think the analogy really works. Sharing a nude photo of someone is not misrepresenting them, even if it is an "improper use" of information (if we can even call the photo information or knowledge). Actually, the whole problem is that you are accurately representing that person.


And even though the woman is the subject, the peeper is technically the originator of the photo so any intent for that information belongs to him, not the woman. If the researcher is the originator of his research regardless of the subject, the same should be said of the photographer.

Fruit_Inspector

That's actually a perfect example. People are not going around saying, "Stonehenge was built around 70 years ago." Even you had to add the qualifier "as we see it now" to avoid the ridiculous statement, "Stonehenge is only about 70 years old." It would be most accurate to say Stonehenge was built thousands of years ago, then restored and reconstructed in recent years. The monument is not a different monument, even if it does not look exactly the same as it did thousands of years ago.

Fruit_Inspector

So let me make sure I have this straight. You are redefining "right wing" to simply mean anyone who is pro-Trump, as opposed to its previously and commonly understood meaning. Then, you get mad because this newly redefined group is redefining "Communism" to something other than its previously and commonly understood meaning.


Aren't you doing the same thing that you are accusing them of allegedly doing?

Fruit_Inspector

Let's test that logic:


The word "Stonehenge" is estimated to have originated around the early 12th century. And apparently "several" now means between 2 and 10 (debatable). So I guess Stonehenge is several hundred years old, right?

Fruit_Inspector

And who is "the right" that you are referring to? Because that seems like a broad brush of a few minority opinions you might see on social media.

Fruit_Inspector

Christians do have knowledge about the conditions which determine why a person goes to heaven or hell. Namely, a person who sins against God is condemned; if that person dies in a state of condemnation, they will go to hell. A person who genuinely repents and believes the gospel is no longer condemned and will go to heaven.


Christians do not have knowledge of a particular person's beliefs at the time of their death. This means that a Christian would have a hard time claiming that a particular person will go to hell, especially if that person is still alive with time to potentially be saved. It would be illogical to say that a person who is alive has the potential to be saved, but they are definitely going to hell.


What a Christian can say is that if a person dies under condemnation of sin, and they do not repent and believe they gospel, then they will go to hell. This avoids claiming knowledge of the future.


A Christian can and should try to determine if people are currently under condemnation, not who will ultimately end up in hell.