Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

A lot of veiled B.S. in this, kind of a "nicer" warm, fuzzy way to describe communism....

I don't know about communism, it's more hippie-like. But I suppose any 'ism' that does not include God will be called commie or hippie or worse. As I said I avoid all isms.

fisherman bob wrote:A lot of veiled B.S. in this, kind of a "nicer" warm, fuzzy way to describe communism....

What did YOU smoke today?!

Mike they don't have any free money to give you, so why are you sucking up?

I hope you didn't donate!

It's extremely disturbing when somebody blindly follows drivel such as this. And it's even more disturbing that I should feel it necessary to have to explain some of the statements on this "manifesto." But here goes:
"A progressive philosophy of life without supernaturalism". I.E. It must be regressive to believe in religious miracles. Religion, therefore, is irrational, regressive thinking. Miracles can't possibly be real, and those many millions of people who have experienced miracles, must by definition be regressive.
"Affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives that...aspire to the greater good of humanity". I.E. Somebody cannot by, by definition, be ethical if they are not guided by a sense of doing good for humanity. I guess somebody doing their own thing, regardless of whether it's legal or not, regardless of whether they are only doing good for themselves, cannot be ethical. And who is to judge whether somebody is doing good for humanity? What are the criterion? Is it up to the state, I wonder? Hmm..
"Knowledge of the world is derived by...rational analysis." What is ratonal analysis? Who decides what is rational or irrational? A billion people who believe in the miracles of their religion must be irrational. This is why in the Soviet Union and Communist China, many religions were banned.
"Humans are the result...of unguided evolutionary change." Prove it. Billions of years ago by complete dumbass luck random molecules in a primordial ooze evolved into life. And advanced forms of life such as hummingbirds are the result of this dumbass luck.
"Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness." Really? And work shall set you free. Joseph Stalin asked millions of farmers in the Soviet Union to give the state all their crops, so that the crops could be redistributed to benefit society. When they refused 10 to 20 million were slaughtered. It must be a universal truth then that working to benefit society MUST maximize individual happiness, huh.
I'm sorry Mike. You keep posting this far left drivel. It really doesn't take into acount individuals. It doesn't take into account personal religious beliefs. In all "progressive" ideology what inevitably happens is that a central authority dictates what's right and wrong for indviduals to think and do. It's as simple as that.
The humanist "doctrine" to me is a warm, touchy feely, acceptable version of hard-line socialist or communist thinking. I don't buy it, not for one second.

fisherman bob wrote:It's extremely disturbing when somebody blindly follows drivel such as this. And it's even more disturbing that I should feel it necessary to have to explain some of the statements on this "manifesto." But here goes:
"A progressive philosophy of life without supernaturalism". I.E. It must be regressive to believe in religious miracles. Religion, therefore, is irrational, regressive thinking. Miracles can't possibly be real, and those many millions of people who have experienced miracles, must by definition be regressive.
"Affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives that...aspire to the greater good of humanity". I.E. Somebody cannot by, by definition, be ethical if they are not guided by a sense of doing good for humanity. I guess somebody doing their own thing, regardless of whether it's legal or not, regardless of whether they are only doing good for themselves, cannot be ethical. And who is to judge whether somebody is doing good for humanity? What are the criterion? Is it up to the state, I wonder? Hmm..
"Knowledge of the world is derived by...rational analysis." What is ratonal analysis? Who decides what is rational or irrational? A billion people who believe in the miracles of their religion must be irrational. This is why in the Soviet Union and Communist China, many religions were banned.
"Humans are the result...of unguided evolutionary change." Prove it. Billions of years ago by complete dumbass luck random molecules in a primordial ooze evolved into life. And advanced forms of life such as hummingbirds are the result of this dumbass luck.
"Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness." Really? And work shall set you free. Joseph Stalin asked millions of farmers in the Soviet Union to give the state all their crops, so that the crops could be redistributed to benefit society. When they refused 10 to 20 million were slaughtered. It must be a universal truth then that working to benefit society MUST maximize individual happiness, huh.
I'm sorry Mike. You keep posting this far left drivel. It really doesn't take into acount individuals. It doesn't take into account personal religious beliefs. In all "progressive" ideology what inevitably happens is that a central authority dictates what's right and wrong for indviduals to think and do. It's as simple as that.
The humanist "doctrine" to me is a warm, touchy feely, acceptable version of hard-line socialist or communist thinking. I don't buy it, not for one second.

I think you're reading way too much into this.
Someone on BM called me a humanist.
I'm not really into following "clubs" or authority figures.
I guess you missed my George Carlin post that everybody else liked so much.
But, I happened to see this and it looked like something I'm pretty much in agreement with, more or less.
I posted it for the person who called me such, that's all.

I'm more into Star Trek, not Josef Stalin.
I think I mentioned it at some point that I do consider myself more of a Left-Libertarian.
I'm not supportive of power being concentrated too much ANYWHERE; the state, corporations, Republicans, someone's mother, wherever.

Mike Nobody wrote:

fisherman bob wrote:Left-Libertarian.
I'm not supportive of power being concentrated too much ANYWHERE; the state, corporations, Republicans, someone's mother, wherever.

What about a 50.0000000000000000001% majority?

In a communist state there's no such thing as majority rule. It always comes down to a tiny number, in some cases ONE, who leads by decree. In the humanist rules (above) the few will decide what is "rational," what defines "service to humanity," "personal happiness," etc. I don't like any form of governance where an individual who marches to their own beat is likely to be ordered to march to a work camp...

fisherman bob wrote:In a communist state there's no such thing as majority rule. It always comes down to a tiny number, in some cases ONE, who leads by decree. In the humanist rules (above) the few will decide what is "rational," what defines "service to humanity," "personal happiness," etc. I don't like any form of governance where an individual who marches to their own beat is likely to be ordered to march to a work camp...

Chill out dude.
We live in a Democratic Republic (so far, anyway).
Separation of powers and rule by LAW is fine by me.
We've gotten off track since 9/11, by ignoring the constitution.
All sorts of crazy sh!t has been happening as a result.
But, it is not the sort of thing I am in support of or suggesting.
This is a list of personal beliefs, not a rule book to govern anybody.

fisherman bob wrote:It's extremely disturbing when somebody blindly follows drivel such as this. And it's even more disturbing that I should feel it necessary to have to explain some of the statements on this "manifesto." But here goes:
"A progressive philosophy of life without supernaturalism". I.E. It must be regressive to believe in religious miracles. Religion, therefore, is irrational, regressive thinking. Miracles can't possibly be real, and those many millions of people who have experienced miracles, must by definition be regressive.
"Affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives that...aspire to the greater good of humanity". I.E. Somebody cannot by, by definition, be ethical if they are not guided by a sense of doing good for humanity. I guess somebody doing their own thing, regardless of whether it's legal or not, regardless of whether they are only doing good for themselves, cannot be ethical. And who is to judge whether somebody is doing good for humanity? What are the criterion? Is it up to the state, I wonder? Hmm..
"Knowledge of the world is derived by...rational analysis." What is ratonal analysis? Who decides what is rational or irrational? A billion people who believe in the miracles of their religion must be irrational. This is why in the Soviet Union and Communist China, many religions were banned.
"Humans are the result...of unguided evolutionary change." Prove it. Billions of years ago by complete dumbass luck random molecules in a primordial ooze evolved into life. And advanced forms of life such as hummingbirds are the result of this dumbass luck.
"Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness." Really? And work shall set you free. Joseph Stalin asked millions of farmers in the Soviet Union to give the state all their crops, so that the crops could be redistributed to benefit society. When they refused 10 to 20 million were slaughtered. It must be a universal truth then that working to benefit society MUST maximize individual happiness, huh.
I'm sorry Mike. You keep posting this far left drivel. It really doesn't take into acount individuals. It doesn't take into account personal religious beliefs. In all "progressive" ideology what inevitably happens is that a central authority dictates what's right and wrong for indviduals to think and do. It's as simple as that.
The humanist "doctrine" to me is a warm, touchy feely, acceptable version of hard-line socialist or communist thinking. I don't buy it, not for one second.

Bravo!! Inspiring to say the least.

Slacker, we may not agree on everything, that's okay, but this humanist stuff really pissed me off.

Hey Mike,

You feeling OK?

I scrolled down the Bandmix general forum page and it looked like you had a really bad case of Postarrhea.

fisherman bob wrote:Slacker, we may not agree on everything, that's okay, but this humanist stuff really pissed me off.

Yeah, working to uphold human rights and civil liberties can really piss a person off I see.

Mike Nobody wrote:

fisherman bob wrote:Slacker, we may not agree on everything, that's okay, but this humanist stuff really pissed me off.

Yeah, working to uphold human rights and civil liberties can really piss a person off I see.

. Didn't I just explain what humanism is really about? You still don't get it. When somebody else defines your human rights, civil liberties, and individual happiness, you have none. It's been proven time and time again, from the Soviet Union to North Korea. I STUDIED this in college with a professor who LIVED it. This garbage doesn't work.