The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING
- This topic has 216 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
' The PHML disapproves of all cultures, beliefs, faiths, and practices that do not rest on sound logic or facts .Thus, belief in God, gods, or ghosts, belief in religion and religious rites and rituals, idolatry, palmistry, astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, ayurved, alternative medicine, and other similar stuff which each are just a load of rubbish, from the perspective of an enlightened human, are in conflict with the PHML.The concept of an omnipotent God is just a piece of the silly and benighted. The enlightened know it's the truth, not God, that happens to be all-mighty. And the main drawback of the idea of God the Creator is the fact that nothing but nothingness can emerge out of nothingness. Sir Isaac Newton also believed in God the Creator, but he forgot outright to throw light on how God created the great big universe with billions of stars, planets, moons, meteors, comets, black holes, pulsars, quasars, nebulae, et cetera, et cetera out of the infinite vacuum. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein who discoveredE= mc2 outright dismissed the Newtonian God the Creator. According to Einstein, the universe cannot have a ' Creator ' because it was never created— the universe, as Einstein believed, existed all along and will exist for all eternity ; it is without beginning or end, and hence cannot have a ' Creator ' or a Destroyer. The god aswell as the ghost is also, as the enlightened view it, the fruit of a flight of fancy befitting the silly and benighted.' Faith is stronger than reason, ' says the silly. But the enlightened know the faith is little more than a set of unscientific, ridiculous ideas and beliefs. Faith isn't enlightening ; nor does it have an answer to any problems relating to life or the universe, be it the accumulation of wealth at one pole leading to the pauperism of billions at the other or the phenomenon of global warming or the social pollution due to the barbarian institution of matrimony ( the poor and vulgar marry and procreate just to swell the army of the poor and vulgar and the gang of the antisocial and terrorists, and thus they pollute the society ).Christianity preaches universal love and forgiveness, which means Christianity wants you to love and forgive both the good and the bad, i.e. all the innocent along with the culprits such as thieves, robbers, murderers, smugglers, abductors, gangsters, druc peddlers, girls traffickers, child abusers, Mafiosi, extortionists, rapists, terrorists that pumped shot into Malala, the ISIS gunmen that committed the Paris massacre, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, it ought to be obvious to every sensible human now that the Christian faith is truly the path that is certain to lead the human civilisation to extinction.And what does Buddhism truly teach ? Buddha's principal teaching is life is a boundless sea of grief. Therefore, Buddhism asks its followers to seek nirvana , the Buddhist variety of suicide, meant to escape the life that has got nothing but no end of sorrow and suffering for you.Islam preaches jihad and mut'a , you know, and Islam is also known for its feminophobia*. ( * fear of the female ) Islam is so afraid of literate, free girls that it has asked its followers to spray acid, in order to punish girls that love freedom and learning, onto their faces and riddle them with bullets. And jihad means killing innocent humans, young and old, male and female, and both kafirs and non-kafirs ( i.e. those Muslims that refuse to obey dictates of jihadis). And mut'a is the Islamic name of what you know as prostitution.And as I view it, Hindutva (Hinduism of today) means barnashram, the nonsense called idolatry, worshipping beasts (e.g. the holy cow and Hanuman, the monkey god), and banning beef eating. The enlightened view barnashram as something that not only is a downright falsehood but is an affront to the humanity, as well. And Hindutvaites love and respect beasts like cows and hanumans more than humans— so much so that they might even kill you if they can know you eat beef or do not worship Hanuman.Like palmistry and idolatry, none of astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, et cetera are sensible or scientific, as the enlightened view them. ' [ excerpt from The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING quoted by ALB; see ALB's comment dated 23/03/2017 ] ' Good stuff. I like it. ' [ comment by ALB on the above quote ] Thank you a lot for liking it. In this connection, I feel I should bring it to your notice that the sensible fail to find a sound logic to justify a civilised human's indulgence in something like matrimony that happens to be a hundred per cent barbarian, both by origin and in essence, culture, and by my view of a communist, a communist is far more civilised than a non-communist. I'd like to restate the following points in defence of my stance on matrimony and would like you to take cognisance of them. ( 1 ) Matrimony has got NO merits. ( 2 ) Matrimony, true or a travesty of it, happens to be FUNDAMENTALLY antifeminine.( 3 ) Half the sky ( i.e. the entire womanhood ) have got NOTHING truly meaningful to derive from matrimony. ( 4 ) A man is NOT a lion of a man. ( I define a lion of a man as a guy with capacity to make a worthy husband, and by a worthy hubby, I mean a guy with capacity he need be possessed of in order to be able to fully and properly discharge his matrimonial duties and obligations, i.e. to ensure the financial and social security as well as a decent lifestyle of all his family members and to ensure decent upbringing of all his kids, et cetera. ) ( 5 ) Matrimony performs NO meaningful role in an individual's life. ( 6 ) Matrimony performs NO meaningful role in society or the State. ( 7 ) All advanced civilisations along with some backward ones like India recognise and respect relationships outside of marriages and fruits of such relationships.
ALB wrote: mcolome1 wrote:Moral issues of the Churches and priests of the left. That isn't newActually, it's quite good on religion, giving them all any equal kicking:Quote: The PHML disapproves of all cultures, beliefs, faiths, and practices that do not rest on sound logic or facts .Thus, belief in God, gods, or ghosts, belief in religion and religious rites and rituals, idolatry, palmistry, astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, ayurved, alternative medicine, and other similar stuff which each are just a load of rubbish, from the perspective of an enlightened human, are in conflict with the PHML.The concept of an omnipotent God is just a piece of the silly and benighted. The enlightened know it's the truth, not God, that happens to be all-mighty. And the main drawback of the idea of God the Creator is the fact that nothing but nothingness can emerge out of nothingness. Sir Isaac Newton also believed in God the Creator, but he forgot outright to throw light on how God created the great big universe with billions of stars, planets, moons, meteors, comets, black holes, pulsars, quasars, nebulae, et cetera, et cetera out of the infinite vacuum. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein who discoveredE= mc2 outright dismissed the Newtonian God the Creator. According to Einstein, the universe cannot have a ' Creator ' because it was never created— the universe, as Einstein believed, existed all along and will exist for all eternity ; it is without beginning or end, and hence cannot have a ' Creator ' or a Destroyer. The god aswell as the ghost is also, as the enlightened view it, the fruit of a flight of fancy befitting the silly and benighted.' Faith is stronger than reason, ' says the silly. But the enlightened know the faith is little more than a set of unscientific, ridiculous ideas and beliefs. Faith isn't enlightening ; nor does it have an answer to any problems relating to life or the universe, be it the accumulation of wealth at one pole leading to the pauperism of billions at the other or the phenomenon of global warming or the social pollution due to the barbarian institution of matrimony ( the poor and vulgar marry and procreate just to swell the army of the poor and vulgar and the gang of the antisocial and terrorists, and thus they pollute the society ).Christianity preaches universal love and forgiveness, which means Christianity wants you to love and forgive both the good and the bad, i.e. all the innocent along with the culprits such as thieves, robbers, murderers, smugglers, abductors, gangsters, druc peddlers, girls traffickers, child abusers, Mafiosi, extortionists, rapists, terrorists that pumped shot into Malala, the ISIS gunmen that committed the Paris massacre, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, it ought to be obvious to every sensible human now that the Christian faith is truly the path that is certain to lead the human civilisation to extinction.And what does Buddhism truly teach ? Buddha's principal teaching is life is a boundless sea of grief. Therefore, Buddhism asks its followers to seek nirvana , the Buddhist variety of suicide, meant to escape the life that has got nothing but no end of sorrow and suffering for you.Islam preaches jihad and mut'a , you know, and Islam is also known for its feminophobia*. ( * fear of the female ) Islam is so afraid of literate, free girls that it has asked its followers to spray acid, in order to punish girls that love freedom and learning, onto their faces and riddle them with bullets. And jihad means killing innocent humans, young and old, male and female, and both kafirs and non-kafirs ( i.e. those Muslims that refuse to obey dictates of jihadis). And mut'a is the Islamic name of what you know as prostitution.And as I view it, Hindutva (Hinduism of today) means barnashram, the nonsense called idolatry, worshipping beasts (e.g. the holy cow and Hanuman, the monkey god), and banning beef eating. The enlightened view barnashram as something that not only is a downright falsehood but is an affront to the humanity, as well. And Hindutvaites love and respect beasts like cows and hanumans more than humans— so much so that they might even kill you if they can know you eat beef or do not worship Hanuman.Like palmistry and idolatry, none of astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, et cetera are sensible or scientific, as the enlightened view them. [ excerpt from The PHML ]Good stuff. I like it. [ comment by ALB on 23/03/2017 ]I am not talking about religion, the way most of these organization act is religious. Some of them force members to get marry, and they get involve in the personal life of their member, like the churches do. It is up to an individual to smoke or not smoke, or to drink or not to drink is up to the individual also. Many leftist groups wil not accept as member a person who has been incarcelated. The Marxist Leninists they also reject god and all kind of religion, but in many way the follow they bourgoise morality, some do not accept homosexual as part of their membership, or women because they are prostitute. The Stalinists used to say that homosexuality was a petty bourgeois mental disorder and they rejected religion [ comment by mcolome1 on 23/03/2017 ]I'd like you to take cognisance of what in my view happens to be the most important point in regard to the true communist attitude to matrimony, namely the fact that communism happens to be fundamentally opposed to matrimony. Another most important point is none of matrimony, drugs, drinks, smoking, etc fit in with the Principle of healthy and meaningful living. How religion or some people claiming to be Marxist-Leninists or non-Marxist-Leninists view does NOT carry much weight in this matter, does it ?
I feel I should give my cordial thanks to all of you who have taken part in this debate. A humble seeker after the truth, I count it a great honour that my post ( the first one by me on this website ) has received over 150 responses so far.
' But I don't see why a person who wants a classless, stateless, moneyless, communist (socialist) society has to forego smoking and alcohol:Quote:The PHML requires you to lead a healthy, both physically and mentally, and meaningful life. In order to remain healthy and strong, you have to avoid all unwholesome food and stuff like alcohol, tobacco products, narcotics and all such things that lead to addiction or morbidityThat strikes me as a personal choice which a political party can't require of its members (we have vegetarian members but that's up to them. The rest of us eat meat). Same goes for "matrimony". Of course it's a private property institution but should members be expelled if they get married? Should we refuse to admit new members who are married? I don't think so. ' [ comment by ALB on 23/03/2017 ] I've already replied to the comment by ALB quoted above on 25 March, 26 March, and 27 March 2017.I'd like to add a few words more to my earlier comments. As a communist, you must work hard to accomplish your mission in life, i.e. the organisatio0n of the communist REVOLUTION. You have to make a significant contribution to the communist cause. A true communist party have also got the same mission. However, the organisation of the communist revolution happens to be a great big task, the accomplishment of which calls for the active participation of the multitude, the born-poor-and-deprived millions. But the silly millions, the hard-working, exploited multitude, who have yet to awake to the disgusting fact that they were born poor to work hard and lead an existence befitting beasts of burden, and thus they were born victims of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE, and who find NOTHING wrong with and do NOT feel they ought to feel ashamed of the fact that notwithstanding it's them that produce all wealth and luxuries, they lead a bestial existence themselves throughout their life while a few idlers, the born-rich 1 per cent and the born-super-rich 80 guys, lead a life of fabulous riches and luxuries before their silly eyes won't organise the communist REVOLUTION just because they are NOT revolutionary people. A prerequisite of a REVOLUTION is the existence of a REVOLUTIONARY class. And the prerequisite of the communist REVOLUTION happens to be the existence of the class of the REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT. The proletariat comprised of the silly millions described above are NOT revolutionary. Nowhere in the present-day world the REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT is visible. The silly, benighted millions canNOT form the REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT. They can make Marxist-Leninists, Maoist terrorists, etc, but NOT the communist REVOLUTIONARY. They have to be enlightened before they turn REVOLUTIONARY. The question is, who are to enlighten those benighted fools ? As I see it, it's the mission in life of every communist and the mission of every communist party to provide the silly, benighted, vulgar millions with due enlightenment and thus make them turn REVOLUTIONARY. Am I RIGHT on this point ? In order to enlighten the benighted millions, you have to explain to them what communism means, what it is meant for, the significance and true nature of the institution of private property, the meaning of commodity, the fact that the capitalist mode of production is essentially the production and exchange of commodities, the fact that working for wages is in essence wage slavery, the fundamental law of the commodity economy, the political economy of inequality, et cetera, et cetera, so many issues and points as well as what matrimony means, its true nature, its class character, its anti-feminine characteristic, what truly meaningful it has got to give the proletariat, the true communist attitude to matrimony and a travesty of matrimony, et cetera, et cetera. A true communist and communist party canNOT evade any questions or points relating to private property or matrimony or any other institution of interest. You have to enlighten them about the fact that communism is fundamentally opposed to matrimony and the fact that there exists an irreconcilable contradiction between a guy's matrimonial mission and his communist mission. You have also to enlighten them about the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and the fact that matrimony and private property like the commodity economy, the division of society into classes, et cetera, as well as gambling, drinking, smoking, et cetera do NOT fit in with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. You canNOT approve of a communist's luxury of marriage and justify it by the argument, pretending to be unaware of its silliness, that it happens to be ' a personal choice ' whether to get married or stay single just as whether to choose a veggie dish or a non-veggie dish is viewed as ' a personal choice ' that admits of NO interference by the communist party in such matters. The point that ought NOT to have been missed is the fact that both a veggie dish and a non-veggie dish constitute healthy meals, something not only indispensable for living but in full harmony with both the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and the communist PRINCIPLES while not only matrimony happens to be a luxury, something dispensable outright, and something in total, direct, and irreconcilable contradiction to not only communism but the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living as well, it's also an unhealthy, harmful, and nasty luxury and belongs to the same category as smoking, drinking, gambling, addiction to drugs, et cetera do. Matrimony has got NO merits like drugs, drinks, smoking, gambling, et cetera. I've already dealt with and shown the hollowness of the silly argument that socialism and ethics being different things, there exists NOTHING like socialist ethics. The fallacy of such a line of reasoning becomes clear as day if we take cognisance of absurd conclusions we're led to by it, e.g. there exist NOTHING like medical ethics ( because medicine and ethics are different things ), the blue sky ( because blueness and sky are different things ), a dark night ( as darkness is altogether different from what we call night ), a black hole ( as blackness and a hole are not the same thing ), a rainy day, a red rose, a policeman, a woman doctor ( as womanhood is not the same thing as what the term ' doctor ' means ), a story book, reading glasses, a ceiling fan, a motor car, a ball-point pen, mango juice, a beauty queen, a glamour girl, a wild animal, a domestic cow, clean air, soft drinks, et cetera, et cetera. The fallacy of such arguments consists in the fact that the conclusion ( i.e. there can't exist any such thing as a soft drink ) does NOT follow from the premise ( i.e. the fact that softness and drinks are different things ).
' Did some girl hurt you? ' [ comment by Kilgallon on April 07, 2017 ]Would like to know what led you to the thought that I may have been hurt by some girl before I had posted this message.
Prakash RP wrote:' Did some girl hurt you? ' [ comment by Kilgallon on April 07, 2017 ]Would like to know what led you to the thought that I may have been hurt by some girl before I had posted this message.Don't know, let's just call it intuition.
' I don't think Prakhash bans squandering money on pets, does he? ' [ ALB's comment on 06/04/2017 ]I admit to this limitation of my view, and I admire you for not allowing it to escape your notice.
' Drinking, smoking, gambling and being married are not the same as being "addicted" to them. In fact I'm not sure what an "addition to matrimony" might be. ' [ comment by ALB on 25/03/2017 ] ' The issue is not whether or not there could be a notional list of things that Socialists should or should not do, but what should be on any such list. Socialists should not be race prejudiced, anti-gay, religious, etc, as your list proposes, and obviously (it's absurd to suggest they might not be) against "raping, gang raping, trafficking, killing people". The question is should the list include such matters as smoking, drinking, gambling, getting married (or spending all your money on promoting socialism). ' [ comment by ALB on 28/03/2017 ] ' Why do you exaggerate all the time and draw invalid analogies? To say drinking is ok is not to condone "squandering" money on it. And "taking bribes" (and some other things you've mentioned such as rape) are not in the same category as drinking. Of course it is not a wise course of action for a socialist or any other worker for that matter to squander their money on drinking, gambling or drug-taking. ' [ comment by ALB on 28/03/2017 ] The distinction between a shark and a piranha are too distinct to escape even a child's notice. Still, I think even children won't make the mistake, if they're asked to name a single category for both sorts of the creatures, of failing to choose the category of fierce flesh-eating fish. There's NO good reason for failing to see the fact that both of a malignant brain tumour and an AIDS virus are almost equally deadly for a human being, and so they rightly belong to the category of deadly stuff. There's NO good reason either why an enlightened human should fail to see the fact that matrimony, smoking, drinking, gambling, gang-raping, drug taking, etc each are basically bad and the fact that NONE of them fit in with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. I also fail to see any good reason to justify the failure of an enlightened human who can clearly see why socialists ' should not be race prejudiced, anti-gay, religious, etc, ' to see why socialists should NOT be pro-matrimony ( or pro the travesty of matrimony ), pro-drinking, pro-smoking, pro-gambling, etc. I really find it hard going why socialists should consider it ' absurd to suggest they might not be ' opposed to ' " raping, gang raping, trafficking … " '. I should like to know what in the theory of communism suggests that communists ' should not be race prejudiced, anti-gay, ' pro rape, pro gang rape, etc, or that they ought NOT to engage in stealing, smuggling, trafficking in dames and drugs, gambling, taking drugs, receiving bribes, tax evasion, hoarding black money, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I know there exists abundance of material in the theory of communism and works of Marx and Engels to show that communism is fundamentally opposed to the institution of matrimony, and that communism approves of girls' freedom to engage in and relish any and any number of liaisons with boyfriends of their choice. I also know there's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest there exists any conflict between communism and the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. The ' invalid analogies ' were meant to throw light on the silliness of comments in reponse to which they were drawn, and so they may NOT be ' invalid ', I'm afraid to say. To say drinking [ or the luxury of matrimony ] is ok ' should mean ' to condone " squandering " money on it ' if we do NOT fail to take cognisance of the average earnings of the 99 per cent whose total possessions hardly match up to the total possessions of the 1 per cent.The way the vulgar millions indulge in what truly happens to be travesties of matrimony, knowing it well that the poor truly have got NOTHING truly meaningful to derive from such stuff that in essence happens to be rich men's luxury unbecoming of the poor gives me the impression that those fools are addicted to it like a drug addict that is unable to stop taking drugs.
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
Prakash RP wrote:I also know there's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest there exists any conflict between communism and the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living.There isn't really (unless you want to impose them on people). Most of them will be irrelevant in socialism/communism anyway (there'll be no legal "matrimony", women won't be economically dependent on men, no stealing, smuggling, trafficking in women and drugs, gambling, receiving bribes, tax evasion, hoarding black money, etc, etc.). But if you want to live by them, go ahead. Others may well choose a different lifestyle which includes some of things you don't like such as drinking and smoking. That wouldn't be in conflict with socialism/communism either.
In response to ' Reminder: 6 ' , I'd like to state the following.I haven't knowingly posted the same thing repeatedly. Nevertheless, some points in some posts may be similar or identical. But they have been stated with a view to either proving my position or making it stronger. I think in a debate, I am permitted to do it in the interest of debate. I can restate a point if someone misses it or fail to appreciate its proper weight, can't I ?If you find any of my posts exceptionable, please refer to it specifically. I must rectify my mistakes.
I'd like to rectify an error in my message dated 15/04/2017. The comment ' Why do you exaggerate all the time and draw invalid analogies? … ' by ALB was made on 29/03/2017, not on 28/03/2017. I regret this unintentional error. Nevertheless, I'd like to add the following points to this comment. There's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest that communism is for or against the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. There's NOTHING in the theory of communism either to suggest that communism is for or against drugs, drinks, smoking, or any other stuff meant for the gratification of your addiction to it.There's NOTHING in the theory of communism either to suggest that communism is for or against stealing, smuggling, receiving bribes, hoarding black money, trafficking in dames and drugs, rape, gang rape, etc, etc, i.e. all sorts of criminal activities. You're free to choose to make the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living your life principle or REJECT it outright. If you choose to REJECT the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living, you're free to indulge in smoking, drinking, taking drugs, receiving bribes, gambling, matrimony or sheer travesties in the name of matrimony, and any other activities that happen to be in direct and outright conflict with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living, and still you may profess to be a communist.Nevertheless, if you choose the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and make it your life principle, and if you're true to your principle, you canNOT indulge in luxuries like matrimony or a travesty of it or any other acts that fails to harmonise with this Principle.Communism is NOT just any ideology and outlook.NOR does the communist party happen to be just any political party. If communism is to prove NOT-just-any ideology, it has to stand for the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and make it a must for all communist without exception. Mind you, capitalism, the exploitation of man by man, the commodity economy, the social division into classes, money, matrimony, economic inequality, etc, etc do NOT fit in with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. Because communism is ' the most radical rupture with traditional ideas '*, it must stand for the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. The main limitation of the argument that the organisation of the communist revolution, because it is a great big project the success of which calls for the active involvement of the majority of the proletariat, demands that the membership of the communist party ought NOT to be restricted to true communists alone ( i.e. only those that are free of addiction to drugs, drinks, matrimony, et cetera, i.e. the stuff that does NOT fit in with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living ) is that by the same argument, you have to grant the membership at issue not only to all those that are NOT true communists but to drug addicts, drug peddlers, gamblers, smugglers, robbers, terrorists ( such as Maoists in India's jungles ), rapists, gang rapists, etc, etc, i.e. all those engaged in illicit trades and activities as well.There's NO good reason to believe that people addicted to drugs, drinks, matrimonjy, etc, the antisocial, and criminals will organise the communist REVOLUTION.[ * The Communist Manifesto ]
Prakash RP wrote:[ * The Communist Manifesto ]Just as an aside. You mention this but neither of its authors adhered to the whole of your "healthy living" principles. Both Marx and Engels drunk alcohol and smoked tobacco. Marx was legally married. Engels was better on this last matter but he went in for fox-hunting. Where they Communists? Or just bad Communists?
Engels lived without being married to an Irish girl. He did not believe in the institution of marriage
mcolome1 wrote:Engels lived without being married to an Irish girl. He did not believe in the institution of marriage
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.