Neoclitorus
Best
we can call the union of state and corporate power anything you want.
you use words to stop conversation.
you argue in bad faith.
Is agnosticism a cop-out?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
you use words to stop conversation.
you argue in bad faith.
Into the Night
Verified User
Neoclitorus
Best
Neoclitorus
Best
Into the Night
Verified User
DuPont is not the government, NoName. It never was.
In this case we can call it a mindless conspiracy theory. No such union exists in this country.
Certainly their are incestuous relations between government officials and corporations. The insider deals of Nancy Pelosi and NVidia, the DOD and revolving door with the primes. But that is corruption, not an actual merging of corporation and state.
FASCISM is ultimately the supremacy of the state - precisely what the democrat party promotes. The "corporations" under Mussolini sold no stock, did not trade on any exchange, and the ownership was determined by the state. It was collectivist totalitarian, adding a profit motive to traditional socialism to improve efficiency. Very similar to what Communist China uses today.
ROFL
Oh the irony.
Neoclitorus
Best
it's not theoretical.
the government gives big contractors the wars and business rules they want.
fascist state capture.
the corporatons love it actually.
they're not coerced into it by evil statists.
Neoclitorus
Best
the state is controlled by corporations from behind the scenes via pacs and big donors
it's called state capture.
I thought you said fascism is the union of corporations and the state? If DuPoint gets corporate welfare, how exactly is that a union, a merger? A closer example of corporations in bed with government would be the telcos of old, or the power companies with government enforced monopolies.
Neoclitorus
Best
Wars? Yes, we have bought and paid for members of congress who profit off of war - Joe Biden was a prime example. The current forever war in Ukraine is purely to line the pockets of the MIC and the government hacks in their pocket.
But that is corruption, not fascism.
No one said they were. They are buying favors from corrupt government officials.
Corruption is not fascism. You toss around words and terms without knowing the meaning of them.
Fascism is ultimately the supremacy of the state, the concept that ALL power is the rightful domain of the central, in our case federal, government.
Mussolini was one of Vladimir Lenin's top lieutenants and deeply dedicated to the cause of socialism. But of course he was a megalomaniac and not going to play second fiddle to anyone, Il Deuce was the boss.
Mussolini set out to fix some of the deep flaws of the Bolsheviks. First was the issue of human nature. The Bolsheviks addressed this by corruption, Lenin and later Stalin made corruption a central feature of Communism, because nothing gets accomplished without the promise of reward. Graft is a poor way of managing.
Italy is the birthplace of the modern market, Venice the heart of the Renaissance. Also the rise of the Guilds. The Marxists in academia like to lie and claim that Fascism is "corporatist" - whatever the fuck that means. But in reality Mussolini followed the guild structure. Stakes in business were handed out as political reward, and as quickly revoked - generally with out of favor former stakeholder being murdered. What you term "corporations" have little to nothing in common with the public corporations that trade stock on exchanges.
Neoclitorus
Best
it's pretty much legal. that makes it fascism.
The MIC is a an example of corruption. Corruption is not fascism. The government does not appoint the owners and directors of Raytheon or Lockheed. In fact, it typically is the primes bribing government officials that drives actions such as the forever wars and many weapons programs.
Corruption is not fascism.
Neoclitorus
Best
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. It is not about belief or the lack of it; it is only about the lack of it.
Not exactly. Agnosticism is a position on what is knowable. It is important that we use the correct words.
This is where you err. Atheism is the lack of theism, and therefore cannot be characterized as any type of theism.
Atheists (of which I am one) do not have any faith that there is/are no deity/deities. Those who have an affirmative faith of any type, even a faith in the nonexistence of any deities, are not atheists.
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
We're well beyond this. It really is all about you. But hey, claiming to be the owner of morality is on a par with most of your other positions. I'm fine with it. It's not like anyone can claim that you are somehow being vague.
Of course, morality isn't subjective. Morality is completely objective and concrete, and just happens to align exactly with your morality. It's funny how that works.
I had no idea that I wanted any of this. Thank you for clearly declaring this for me. How do I repent?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Correct. Two Christians might have differing experiences. One might have had a revelation of sorts while the other not. The Christian who had the revelation might be totally convinced that God is obviously knowable and hence he has a position that the truth of Christianity is completely knowable and is therefore not agnostic in the least. The other Christian might be totally devout, but have the position that Christianity is a matter of faith alone, that nothing about it is knowable to mortals in the natural universe, and that we shouldn't demand to see holes in the hands ... thus establishing his agnosticism. Beyond their differing positions on what is knowable, their individual beliefs/faiths might be completely identical.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Sure. Agnosticism is a position on what is knowable and makes no statement about what is believed or what ideas spark your interest.
To get a firm handle on the concept, you have to distinguish between "what you believe" and "what you know," ... and then you must convert the "what you know" into an analysis of "what can be known" and "what is knowable."
Example. You park your car in slot 24C and you enter a building to attend a conference. Once you are inside, you continue to believe that your car remains in slot 24C. At this point, this is your belief because somebody might have stolen your car, your brakes may have given out causing your car to roll out of its space, your car might have been towed for having been illegally parked, etc. You begin to discuss with another conference goer whether the status of cars out in the parking structure can actually be known. At first, you are agnostic on this point because the cars simply cannot be seen through concrete and steel; however, the other guy mentions that other parking structures have surveillance cameras that allow the cars to be viewed by the security desk, and based on that, you change your mind on the matter, i.e. you cease to be agnostic because your new position is that the status of cars in the structure can be known. A third individual then mentions that you shouldn't be so hasty. The security monitors require faith that feed is live from the camera, and not a video recording of the day prior. You then revert back to being agnostic on the idea, now thinking that car status is actually unknowable.
This is an important distinction because if you know that your car is just fine in slot 24C, then there is no longer any issue of your belief on the matter. Only when you don't know ... do your beliefs come into play. If an issue is not knowable, i.e. your position is one of agnosticism, you are saying that it is relegated entirely to being a matter of faith/belief.
Let's apply this to current events.
Global Warming and Climate Change are religions that are rooted in the fallacy that such faith/beliefs are actually knowledge/wisdom that is known, not merely believed, by virtue of dishonestly being claimed to be settled science.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Into the Night
Verified User
Redefinition fallacy. Corruption isn't fascism.
Into the Night
Verified User
Government is not controlled by any corporation, NoName.