Pope criticizes the ‘cruelty’ of capitalism

[Voco_proTatiano]

I had hoped mine was a fellow Alpha-Plus.

Ok, so how come you don’t get that a tethered lamb will attract a tiger, whereas a pile of cabbages will attract an elephant.
It’s not rocket science.
Present both to both, and the result will be the same.
The tiger will not even notice the pile of cabbages unless they stink rather strongly, and the elephant will ignore the lamb unless it is eating the cabbages.
You bait your trap according to the catch you want.
It is not rocket science.

 

[GreenJeans]

Ok, so how come you don’t get that a tethered lamb will attract a tiger, whereas a pile of cabbages will attract an elephant.
It’s not rocket science.
Present both to both, and the result will be the same.
The tiger will not even notice the pile of cabbages unless they stink rather strongly, and the elephant will ignore the lamb unless it is eating the cabbages.
You bait your trap according to the catch you want.
It is not rocket science.

So, the weak are attracted by junk food, and the strong by healthy food? This is why we need a shopping nanny for the poor and weak. Or perhaps we could limit food stamps to the purchase of healthy food? No more DingDongs and malt liquor for the unemployed? Freedom for the strong, but not the weak.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So, the weak are attracted by junk food, and the strong by healthy food? This is why we need a shopping nanny for the poor and weak. Or perhaps we could limit food stamps to the purchase of healthy food? No more DingDongs and malt liquor for the unemployed? Freedom for the strong, but not the weak.

Bingo!
We are getting somewhere.
You accept limited access to some unhealthy products like tobacco, alcohol , heroin, hand-guns, automobiles, etc.
Why not treat other unhealthy products the same way?
But oh dear, that would harm the capitalists who are by targetting the weak and foolish, maximizing their profits.
We can’t do that, it would not be capitalism.
Capitalism has to be untethered.
Capitalism is the law of the jungle.
But the law of the jungle is for beasts of the jungle.
G_d set us apart from the beasts.
Those who want to behave like beasts are turning their backs on G_d.

 

[mark_a]

the stupid are better at things like septic tank pumping, cleaning out chicken coops, and anchoring the evening news.

Ha!! A superiority attitide AND a sense of humor!!

 

[Contarini]

Of course I’m serious. The stupid deserve the same chance on this earth as the smart. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Each of the stupid should be allowed to reach the pinnacle of his abilities. My system would foster this notion for the good of all humanity. It would be easy to get the stupid to believe what the smart tell them, and they would lead long and contented lives.

An embryo bank of the smart would ensure a continued supply of smart people who could tell the stupid what they want to hear. Both sides would be in equilibrium, disease a thing of the past, with prosperity and a loving sense of community for all.

Remember, we’re all in this together.

Any society where any group of people plans and determines the fate of everyone else is a profoundly evil society. Period.

Smart people are just as prone to evil as dumb people, and they can do a lot more harm. I would far rather have a hereditary absolute monarchy (a rather nasty form of government in my opinion, though I like other forms of monarchy) than an oligarchy of the intelligent.

Edwin

 

[GreenJeans]

Bingo!
We are getting somewhere.
You accept limited access to some unhealthy products like tobacco, alcohol , heroin, hand-guns, automobiles, etc.
Why not treat other unhealthy products the same way?
But oh dear, that would harm the capitalists who are by targetting the weak and foolish, maximizing their profits.
We can’t do that, it would not be capitalism.
Capitalism has to be untethered.
Capitalism is the law of the jungle.
But the law of the jungle is for beasts of the jungle.
G_d set us apart from the beasts.
Those who want to behave like beasts are turning their backs on G_d.

Well, only the poor, stupid, and weak need the nanny. We can let the rich, smart, and strong continue their healthy diet. But, I do agree the rich man bears a heavy burden.

 

[GreenJeans]

Any society where any group of people plans and determines the fate of everyone else is a profoundly evil society. Period.

Smart people are just as prone to evil as dumb people, and they can do a lot more harm. I would far rather have a hereditary absolute monarchy (a rather nasty form of government in my opinion, though I like other forms of monarchy) than an oligarchy of the intelligent.

Edwin

Please. Benign shepherding of the less fortunate is a duty of the more fortunate. This should be self-evident to all but the most hard-hearted. With controlled embryo selection we will ensure that the burden on the smart is not overwhelming, and we will allow only enough of the stupid to keep our pools free of algae, streets swept, and cars waxed. I don’t want to do that work. Do you? To maintain a sense of dignity among the stupid, which is obviously relative, we can award plumed hats with different colored feathers to denote special accomplishment.

 

[anthony022071]

We could never eliminate socio-economic inequality. It isn’t for man to be man’s own salvation through his own activity.The poor will always be with us,as Jesus said. Even still,Christians have
a duty to be gratuitous in helping those in need,person to person.
It’s no good to put trust in programs and bureaucracies and work-systems and institutions. The only proper way to equality is personally on the authority of commandment from God. " You shall love your neighbor as yourself " (your neighbor being also whoever is in need,weak,and vulnerable), “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The basis for human dignity is “God created man in his own image.”

 

[Contarini]

Please. Benign shepherding of the less fortunate is a duty of the more fortunate. This should be self-evident to all but the most hard-hearted. With controlled embryo selection we will ensure that the burden on the smart is not overwhelming, and we will allow only enough of the stupid to keep our pools free of algae, streets swept, and cars waxed. I don’t want to do that work. Do you?

No. But what I want is not the point. This is one place where I think the early Communists had it right–menial and boring work should be shared by everyone and not palmed off on some unfortunate people. Of course some people enjoy physical work much more than I do (and are much better at it), and I’m happy to let them do it!

Human beings can’t be trusted to run the lives of other human beings. Period.

Edwin

 

[ribozyme]

No. But what I want is not the point. This is one place where I think the early Communists had it right–menial and boring work should be shared by everyone and not palmed off on some unfortunate people. Of course some people enjoy physical work much more than I do (and are much better at it), and I’m happy to let them do it!

Human beings can’t be trusted to run the lives of other human beings. Period.

Edwin

I agree, that is how we apportion that type of work in a socially just society.

I do not see how using embryo selection for increased intelligence would harm the selected embryo. In fact, the embryo will mature so he/she will be free to pursue any intellectual endeavor.

 

[GreenJeans]

No. But what I want is not the point. This is one place where I think the early Communists had it right–menial and boring work should be shared by everyone and not palmed off on some unfortunate people. Of course some people enjoy physical work much more than I do (and are much better at it), and I’m happy to let them do it!

Human beings can’t be trusted to run the lives of other human beings. Period.

Edwin

If the stupid are acting at the limit of their abilities and that entails street sweeping, then we are offering them the opportunity for personal excellence. Would you take that opportunity away so a smart guy who hates sweeping and does a lousy job can feel like he is sharing the burden? Do we let the noble feelings of the smart trump the inherent dignity of the stupid? Would you let a smart guy take away the job of a stupid guy? That would be cruel, inhumane, and definitely lacking in charity. Embryo selection allows us to eliminate all the travails of mankind.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I agree, that is how we apportion that type of work in a socially just society.

I do not see how using embryo selection for increased intelligence would harm the selected embryo. In fact, the embryo will mature so he/she will be free to pursue any intellectual endeavor.

1/ Embryo selection implies embryo deselection. That is murder. Some states may sanction such murder, but murder it remains. Period.

2/ Egg and sperm selection is a different matter, but how to screen an egg without danaging it is at present beyond science.

3/ Should it be possible, then, to try to select for some perceived good, would be playing at G_d. Whereas screening out dangerous genetic defects such as haemophilia, sickle cell, etc., would I consider, be acceptable, provided that does not involve the destruction of a viable embryo, then that might be acceptable, but trying to set a criterion for positive selection, brings us back to Hitler’s eugenics, and can never be acepted.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The one thing that it seems people have missed here, is that it is not clear from the article that the pope is necessarily criticizing capitalism. It appears that he is criticizing some of the side effects of capitalism.

One of the side effects is that people can become quite rich, which by itself is not necessarily bad, however, the methods people use to get rich can be bad. This of course, is where the Church comes in, and a place where the Church in my opinion needs to play a larger role. Making money is necessarily evil, but it is not necessarily virtuous either. There are many nuances between purely good and purely evil which the church can help us sort out.

 

[freesoulhope]

VATICAN CITY - Benedict XVI criticizes the “cruelty” of capitalism and colonialism and the power of the wealthy over the poor in his first book as pope released on Friday.

finaly somebody who agrees with me

 

[ribozyme]

1/ Embryo selection implies embryo deselection. That is murder. Some states may sanction such murder, but murder it remains. Period.

2/ Egg and sperm selection is a different matter, but how to screen an egg without danaging it is at present beyond science.

3/ Should it be possible, then, to try to select for some perceived good, would be playing at G_d. Whereas screening out dangerous genetic defects such as haemophilia, sickle cell, etc., would I consider, be acceptable, provided that does not involve the destruction of a viable embryo, then that might be acceptable, but trying to set a criterion for positive selection, brings us back to Hitler’s eugenics, and can never be acepted.

Believe me “low IQ” should also be classified as a “dangerous genetic defect” as the genes for low intelligence weren’t weeded out effectively during the ice age. Richard Lynn states this only increased the IQ of the Caucasian and Mongoloids to 100 and 105repsectively. Clearly, genes for low IQ genes are prevalent in these populations (and they are more prevalent in other racial groups according to Richard Lynn) and such genes need to eradicated.

Since low IQ is an impediment for pursuing knowledge, genes that cause low IQ should be considered deleterious and must be decimated!

During embryo selection, one should consider the embryos that are not selected are aggragates of deleterious genes. And besides their quality of life would be lower when considered to the selected embryos.

 

[freesoulhope]

One of the side effects is that people can become quite rich, which by itself is not necessarily bad, however, the methods people use to get rich can be bad.

And that method is capitalism. The point of capitalism, is about groups of people or individual competing with one another to have a better life style; some becoming rich and powerful and wanting stay rich through war or otherwise (there is no such thing as fair competition); its about nothing else. In any competition there are losers. These people are not losers because they are immoral, like some people like to say on this forum; they are losers because that’s the nature of the game; it is the nature of Capitalism. It’s never been for the benefit of the human family; it’s always been about Survival of the fittest (where still very much like animals).

The government and the rich have to throw crumbs that they dont want to throw, and they have to appear to be in the right by mentally conditioning the masses through the media, in order to keep order; keep power: keep people working in the jobs for low wages; keep the system running; and keep the poor, poor, through brainwashing and psychological oppression. They know full well that there would be no system, and they would have no power, if the whole world suddenly got up one day and started providing for them and working with each other for the benefit of humanity rather then for the benefit of a system of people that are destroying us and dividing us; and they have made certain things inaccessible so that it is almost impossible for us to unite and be self productive.

There was a time when capitalism was a necessary evil; but we have in are hand now the technology to wipe out poverty for good in are own western countries, let alone anybody else. It is disgusting that, in one of the most riches countries in the world, there is any such thing as poverty, and that profit is more important then the human family and the human being. A human being under this system, is just a work horse for the rich and powerful; nothing else.

 

[freesoulhope]

(and they are more prevalent in other racial groups according to Richard Lynn) and such genes need to eradicated.

.

People are mentally oppressed. Those who grow up with the right support, and live in the right conditions, are more likely to have better grades and better lifestlyes. That is not to say that a poor person cannot achieve, or that somebody who lives in a better position cannot fail; indivisual choice also has a part to play. But i would think that genes have a very small part to play if any.Do you have any evidence?

 

[ribozyme]

And that method is capitalism. The point of capitalism, is about groups of people or individual competing with one another to have a better life style; some becoming rich and powerful and wanting stay rich through war or otherwise (there is no such thing as fair competition); its about nothing else. In any competition there are losers. These people are not losers because they are immoral, like some people like to say on this forum; they are losers because that’s the nature of the game; it is the nature of Capitalism. It’s never been for the benefit of the human family; it’s always been about Survival of the fittest (where still very much like animals).

The government and the rich have to throw crumbs that they dont want to throw, and they have to appear to be in the right by mentally conditioning the masses, in order to keep order; keep power: keep people working in the jobs for low wages; keep the system running; and keep the poor, poor, through brainwashing and psychological oppression. They know full well that there would be no system, and they would have no power, if the whole world suddenly got up one day and started providing for them and working with each other for the benefit of humanity rather the for the benefit of a system that is destroying us and dividing us; and they have made certain things inaccessible so that it is almost impossible to do so.

There was a time when capitalism was a necessary evil; but we have in are hand now the technology to wipe out poverty for good in are own western countries, let alone anybody else. It is disgusting that, in one of the most riches countries in the world, there is any such thing as poverty, and that profit is more important then the human family and the human being. A human being under this system, is just a work horse for the rich and powerful; nothing else.

I dislike capitalism. For Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, it is only fair that those who are “blessed” with good genes and high IQs inherit the Earth, and they have the right to exploit anyone in their way.

I don’t have The Bell Curve in front of me, but they say that:
“success or failure in the American economy, and all that goes with it, are increasingly a matter of the genes that people inherit.”

hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/026.html

 

[freesoulhope]

I dislike capitalism. For Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, it is only fair that those who are “blessed” with good genes and high IQs inherit the Earth, and they have the right to exploit anyone in their way.

I don’t have The Bell Curve in front of me, but they say that:
“success or failure in the American economy, and all that goes with it, are increasingly a matter of the genes that people inherit.”

hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/026.html

It is false to think that those with gifts, have more rights or should oppress those with out, simply because they have a gift. The value of a human being is not what he or she can be used for. The intelectual indivisual is not wholly self resourcefull and needs the not so inteligent labouring backs and hard work of others in order to have a foundation to work on.

Some times its not a matter of IQs that people inherit anything. The people with the IQs are servents to thoughs who issue brute force to implement what i liked to a call “Organised world oppression”. In otherwords the intelectual inherets nothing; he belongs to the system like everyone else.

 

[GreenJeans]

It is false to think that those with gifts, have more rights or should oppress those with out, simply because they have a gift. The value of a human being is not what he or she can be used for. The intelectual indivisual is not wholly self resourcefull and needs the not so inteligent labouring backs and hard work of others in order to have a foundation to work on.

Some times its not a matter of IQs that people inherit anything. The people with the IQs are servents to thoughs who issue brute force to implement what i liked to a call “Organised world oppression”. In otherwords the intelectual inherets nothing; he belongs to the system like everyone else.

Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, and Bill Gates are very smart guys who made billions in the computer industry because they created things people wanted. I wasn’t oppressd into buying the computer I am using. Who thinks they were?