jryan

Follow me here: That definiton of faith is not a definition of extremism... so the answer to your initial question is "No". Quite simply, for your hypothesis to to be true that faith is, by default, extermist, there would have to be some definition of "faith" and "extremism" that were the same. There is not, so the answer is "No".

Yeah, Phi is you. But your argument isn't requesting a more universal definition of faith or extremism. Instead your argument is based on your own personal definition of faith and a definition of extremism that doesn't fit your hypothesis. I don't see where further definition is needed in this context. Put very simply, extremism is not the default for faith because you haven't established the required baseline to qualify the term "extremism" in context and the only context I can see where faith would be extremist is in a society that is, on average, atheist. So the answer would be "Yes" in Japan (65% Atheist) and "No" in the U.S. (3-9% Atheist). Therefor your original question was unanswerable. Also I do not accept your personal definition of faith. Faith (Merriam-Websters): 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

I am not pretending anyone said anything: I never attributed the statement to you, I simply continue to use it because nobody but me has challenged the assertion that Amish is an extreme religion or faith. On an aside, concerning the supposed Amish extreme anti-technology... while that may be true, I would sure as hell rather an Amish built dresser to an Ikea dresser. That is an odd statement when most of this debate I have been debating extremism on your definition... which itself invalidates the argument. Extremism isn't default because there is no default society from which to measure extremism. I don't personally agree with this definition, but why bother arguing my definition when your definition is self defeating. I mights as well meet the argument on your grounds and skip the semantics. I am also not using my own personal definition of "socialism" or "person" (the latter any more than you are, anyway) ... but Phil has definitely argued specifically from his own personal definition of "Faith" and has said so explicitly.

It is a relevant point because the argument currently on the table in favor of "Military is Socialist" is using a definition of socialism and it's terminology that would make all government "socialist". This is obviously not a true assumption (or is to me anyway) which leads to the conclusion that the definition is flawed. That falls under the "that which defines everything defines nothing" category, for me. So, by the "military is socialist" can someone point to a government entity that they would not classify as socialist? I'm not trying to be evasive, but I am simply trying to understand the nuance of the argument at hand. I never said it was. That is more appropriately defined as Statism.

Then you are changing the definition of extremism that you provided. "Religious Extremism: any religious theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies; the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived religious center of a society; literal interpretation and strict adherence to a set of basic religious principles." Also, by Mr. Skeptic's definition then Amish are not extremist because they are within the allowed range. Also, even by that definition there can be no default extremism since their is no such thing as a default allowable range of religion. Well, that is because most people in this thread are of the same mind, and share a perceived center from which religion is extreme... but that isn't the standard for the nation as a whole, or the world as a whole, so any non-qualified declaration of default extremism is pointless because their is no default against which you can measure the extremity. In the U.S. faith is most certainly not extreme. This is another problem where you use words that you have defined for yourself and use them as if your definition of of the word is the standard. In this case it isn't. What you describe as "faith" is closer to the definition of religious extremism.... so by your definition of faith the question would essentially be "is extremism the default for extremism".. which is not really conducive for debate. "Have most American's been to the moon? .... I define "the moon" as McDonald's drive thru window..." This is the style of discussion we seem to be having here. I don't except your re-defintions of the terms, so there is little left to discuss. Again, by the actual definition of extremist the answer is "No". But I also question your notion of quantifiable faith. How would you quantify such a thing? Can you give me an example of how faith would be measure in such a case?

My point is that the U.S. Government does not meet the qualifications of a Socialist Government.. or hasn't, traditionally. The fact that the "service" provided has no direct economic purpose leads me to conclude that it is not socialist. Furthermore, the slavery comment was in regard to the thought that the soldiers, which would be the military "means of production", can not be owned by the people... or any people. Now, I see some merit in the thought that a conscript army is socialist, because a conscript compulsory army is, to a greater extent, owned by the people.

That doesn't change the point that extremism is measured, by your definition, from the "societal center". So in the U.S., for example, the answer would be "No" because at least 83.9% of Americans have faith, so *faith* is not extremist in the U.S. any more than religion is... but atheism would be considered extremist.

You are mixing analogies. No, they are people now as I define personhood at the only clear line that can be drawn, at conception. The point is that you can't even call an egg at least one life, even without abortions or miscarriages. It's not one potential person, it could become zero to many people at a later date. No WE can't. You have inserted a blinder in this example, too. So bland is this blind spot that you have a frog species spontaneously springing to life from nothing rather than accept that the species didn't actually die in the first place. If the eggs and sperms are separated then of course there is no murder. Well, if we want socialized anything we have to at least maintain the population... socialized anything doesn't work with a shrinking population (ask Greece)... but that is probably more a thread for politics. Also, if you want to be cold and calculating, it is far healthier for the species to keep an influx of new genetics rather than prolong the lives beyond breeding years. I'd personally like to protect both vulnerable ends of the life cycle.

That is a pointless dodge as I can simply reword my question in a fashion to cancle your response: Is embezzeling $50,000 ambiguous if you don't know how many people the money was stolen from? But you can't give birth to 1/4 of a person either. Pregnancy results in whole numbers, not fractions. Abortion likewise ends 1 or 2 of 3 or 4 lives. But it can not end 1/4 of a life. Sure, and what is your point here? Pro-Life, or religion based pro-life at least, has no moral objection to natural biological occurances. They have a problem with artificial occurances. Thereby equating a bug with a fetus when it has nothing in common while it has everything in common with a human being. But let's take a step back for a minute and go the non-human route. Let's say that biologists find a pond in the brazillian rain forest full of frog eggs and a group of dead, thought to be extinct, bull frogs in the vicinity.. victims of a fungus that has not effected the eggs. A quick test of the eggs finds that they are a genetically diverse, fertilized and viable sampling of that frog species eggs... complete with little squirming fetuses. By your argument there is no compelling reason to protect the eggs because the frog species is already extinct.

Your question is whether or not extremism is the default for religion and your definitions put extremism as a subjective term based on the surrounding society. So by your argument extremism isn't the default for religion as the definition has no default reference since there is no default society. I mean, would you consider atheism to be extremist as well?

Economic definition of "company": 3 a : a chartered commercial organization or medieval trade guild b : an association of persons for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise c : those members of a partnership firm whose names do not appear in the firm name. These is not applicable to a government unless that government controls the industry. Furthermore, it would be hard to classify the military as a tradtional service as traditionally we pay our customers so that they will allow us to protect them (see Japan, Germany, etc.)... and we wouldn't qualify as customers as we are part of the same organization.

This continues to be a bizarre diversionary argument. Is embezzlement morally ambiguous because you can't tell how many people will be affected? Is it less less problematic to kill one person than 2 or 3 or 4? This is semantic nonsense. By your argument an infant is zero people because infants are infants. That does not make it right to suck their brains out. So, in other words, you have to define what a person is other than "not a fetus" and explain how that definition should be an acceptable line to draw in the continuum of human life from conception to adulthood.

There is a 0.4% chance one fertilized egg becoming identical twins. Identical triplets occur in 0.00012% of all prgnancies... identical quads occur in 0.0000014% of egg fertilizations and identical quints occur in 0.000000018% of all pregnancies. So you can assign whatever adjective to those chances as you see fit. Bugs are zero people because bugs are bugs and can never be people.

Where did you get that definition from? Also, by that definition "extremism" would be rather malleable depending on the society. This seems like such a definition would still mean "No" for the original question since the question does not take into account the society it is being judged by. It's like asking "are liberal views by default extremist?" No, I am not equating extremism with violence.

I was making a joke about what a socialist military would look like that doesn't actually produce any of their own equipment.. so absent the traditional government owned industry I made the comical assumption that you meant soldiers. Ha hah... he he.. ok, not so great. We are the employers as we are all the government. But we don't OWN them and we don't PRODUCE their equipment. I have made numerous examples of National Socialist government entities (Ilyushin, MiG, Deutsche Emaillewaren-Fabrik) but there are many more. The rule still applies in socialism: "government own the means of production". By the way, nobody is forced to pay for the Military, it is discretionary money, and therefor comes out of the discretionary budget. As such, 43.4% of Americans do not pay for the Military. So anyone could chose to not pay for the military, they just need to make at or bellow the income level met by that 43.4%. It's not a happy choice if you make a good living... but it is a choice.

Well that is my point. If that is how you define "Religious Extremism" then you are defining it wrong. You are defining "Religious Fundamentalism". To you they are extremists because you are using the word incorrectly. They are a fundamentalists sect of the Mennonite faith... who are also not extremists.

This is a non argument as the money argument cuts both ways... and more heavily to the pro-AGW argument, for that matter. Here is just one contributor to pro-AGW studies and legislation. There are hundreds of groups like this As I pointed out elsewhere, Greenpeace has invested far more than Exxon.

But you aren't talking about a bug. You are talking about fertilized human egg. There would be a majority of entomologists that would strongly question your definition of a bug.

But you are throwing around the word "extreme" in a fashion that "religious extremism" was never meant to define. What you are talking about is religious fundamentalism, which isn't by definition "extremism". Amish are fundamentalist but but you couldn't rightly argue that they're "religious extremists".

But it is not a product in an economic sense, it is a service. Not only is it a service, it is a service that derives all of it's effectiveness through capitalist purchases. Plus, the US government doesn't build the tanks and planes and ships either. So again, absent the materials used by the military you are left with the people... who can't be owned. Also, using such a definition of "socialist" there is no need for such a thread because by such an all encompassing definition all government would therefor be socialist.

When you mentioned that a fertilized egg could be zero people the natural assumption would be that you meant a pregnancy that failed to reach full term... which, absent abortion, means miscarriage.

I figure that the military is organization and training, so the only pure socialist violence possible would be federally produced soldiers committing violence with said federally produced products. Knees elbows, feet and flatulence would also count... assuming the food was grown on communes. The Soviets would count as a socialist army because they were also an industry unto themselves that produced the weapons that they used. But the soviet military was also more of a National Socialist industry with competing industrialists vying for the adoption of their solution to various military needs over competing industrialists (MiG -vs- Ilyushin. etc.).

But you are redefining "Socialist" to suit your argument. The military is a service, to be sure, but it is not a SOCIALIST service because it owns no industry and produces no materials. No, WE the people do not OWN the Military. WE the People ARE the Military. The Military, absent the goods purchased from capitalist industry, is nothing but people... and we abolished the ownership of people long ago.

That is really contorting the economic definition of "industry" and "product". Also, if the military went around punching people with their fists and soldiers were created in Federal birthing tanks then you may have a point, and a foundation for a sci-fi novel.

So is a new born.. should we be able to kill them as well? And as for there being no benefit to the host mother during pregnancy, you are wrong. How far do you budge in your stance on other life and death issues? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I find your logic troubling. 75% of all pregnancies end with a live birth, while 25% miscarry. The pro-life stance is that every human life created should be given that 75% chance to be born. So you can now argue why they shouldn't be given that 75% chance at survival. Arguing that a 25% miscarriage rate is problematic for the pro-life argument isn't really valid because in that 25% an abortion would turn out to be unnecessary anyway. The whole idea of an abortion is to stop a life that may be born. There is also the rare case of abortion due to health risks to the mother, but in those cases abortion is justified if the risks are life threatening since the death of the mother would kill the unborn child anyway. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What IS your point? By the way, "mutualistic parasite"? I think you mean "symbiotic relationship".