Incendia

That's not communism, that's an extreme form of egalitarianism. Many communists are follows of egalitarianism but egalitarianism isn't actually a part of communism. I've seen your argument done before. Yeah, the 'aim' part isn't part of the ideology. I just phrased it badly. By aims I meant a communist society requires those goals to be completed. A better way of saying it would have been: Communism is socio-political system which requires the abolishment of wage labour and establishment a stateless, classless society. It also requires the abolishment of private property, making everything the common property of everyone. It is also the final stage of civilisation in Marxian Philosophy. Or: A communist society is one in which private property, wage labour, the state, and class society have been abolished; and where all property is the common property of everyone. Communism is described as the final stage of human civilisation in Marxian Philosophy.

So they were ~3862.4256 years away from communism if you assume that 1 step is 1 metre. (At least I think I'm correct...might not be.)

We are not wrong. Want to know why we have no sources? ...because no one ever writes about how those countries did not achieve communism. None of those countries has fulfilled the definition of communism!

They all wanted to be communist - none of them actually tried it though...they all tried socialism...specifically state socialism. They were not actually communist. None of those countries successfully achieved it. PS. Communist State? That's an oxymoron. Communism wishes to abolish the state.

None of those countries abolished wage labour, private property, the state and class based society. The abolishment of wage labour, private property, the state and class based society are the requirements for establishing a communist nation.

There have been no communist countries. The oppression is due to bad leader - not communism. I find your logic flawed, sir. Your logic applied to chocolate: Eating chocolate can lead to one being overweight and possibly even getting diabetes. Therefore why would anyone like chocolate?

I'll give you the definition of communism - as it seems some of you don't actually know what it is: Communism is socio-political system which aims to abolish wage labour and establish a stateless, classless society. It also aims for the abolishment of private property, making everything the common property of everyone. It is also the final stage of civilisation in Marxian Philosophy.

They hate communism because they don't know what it is, even if they think they do. Most of those who hate it think that Soviet Union and China are/were communist. I have yet to see anyone here prove they even know what communism is. Most of those who hate it think that the Soviet Union and China etc. were communists. They were not. They were totalitarian authoritarian corrupt with command economy and terrible leaders. Just wanted to point out that it's not communism that is bad, it's the people associated with it...like Stalin and Mao.

Frequency sounds better if explained as a property of matter rather than a dimension.

The only thing i'm saying you are wrong about is calling this frequency a dimension. Frequency does not fulfil the definition of dimension. Dimensions are length, width, height and time. The other dimensions can be used to measure or calculate location. Frequency does not allow me to do those two things like the others. --- I think your speculation is interesting. It's a shame that others don't seem to agree with me...except perhaps you. (If others were interested, wouldn't they post?)

4th dimension is time...vibration isn't a dimension.

Me? No I can't change that. I can merely talk about it, apply it to myself, and hope that others will do the same. ...but i'm sure more people would be more careful if having a child with someone had the same social significance to it that marriage does. If it doesn't, well no harm done. Besides...there are people who get married after too much alcohol. If you seek to express love, giving most of your money to clergy is not the way to do it. You can have the fancy party, the speeches, the big fancy cake and presents thing without marriage. At-least without the clergy you don't waste money hiring the clergyman and you don't have to waste your time in a boring ceremony.

Stable Family argument for marriage is invalid. One may have not married and still have a stable family. --An irrelevance follows-- Stable Family requires love right? Marriage is often seen as the ultimate expression of love. In my opinion, having a child with someone should be the ultimate expression of love. Not a one day religious ceremony which is a great big waste on money. If having a child with someone became the ultimate expression of love then people might be more careful to avoid impregnating someone/becoming impregnated.

I don't view declining marriage as a problem...(useless religious tradition anyway.) Probably has something to do with the increase of Atheism, and the things mentioned by Marat and Swansont.

Dekan...what you are describing sounds like Karma. That is not how souls work. I already know souls aren't physical...I never said they were. Souls are a spiritual, immortal part of you. They live on after death and go onto the afterlife.

Yes, but what does all that have anything to do with souls?

Yes, but the minority that remain are the biggest, most problematic contradictions of all.

Not all those contradictions are mere translation errors. @Marat: What? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Sounds a bit like the film Avatar if you know what I mean... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About the trinity...I agree with Isaac Newton on that...and he didn't believe in it.

What are you talking about? Family law? When did gay marriage come into any of this? When did family weakness come into this? Are you sure you put the quote of my post in the right place? NHS: National Healthcare Service ...you know? ... like the one in Britain. You may know it as Universal Healthcare. All of Europe has it. So does Japan...and Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_healthcare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe If a similar service were set up in the US then the government would save 1 billion US dollars; no one would need health insurance; and 0% of bankruptcies would be due to medical bills (in contrast to the current ~60% of US bankruptcies being due to medical bills). Another benefit is that hospitals would become non-profit. You wouldn't have greedy hospitals trying to make as much money from people's insurance as they can. (Testing people more than necessary, increasing prices of medicine and surgery, etc.) Bankrupted because of surgical bills? How horrible. A Universal Healthcare system could and does prevent such problems.

My statement is not incompatible with the video.

You are forgetting that there is no outside and so you couldn't leave even if there was an edge, which there isn't.

It doesn't say that when you get to the edge you end up in the middle. It doesn't say anything of the sort. There is no edge.

I don't know the verse, but the 10 commandments says you should only worship Yaweh. That implies that you shouldn't also worship Jesus.

The universe is not infinite. Steady State theory is nonsense and wrong!