The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING
- This topic has 216 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:Prakash you should readhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principleIt seems some 'socialists' have to understand basic 'liberalism' first.
Some so-called socialists follow Mao Tse Tung's conception of Liberalism
Dear all, I feel I should bring to your notice the following message made by Tim Kilgallon. I received it in response to a comment by me. Copies of both by comment and Kilgallon's are presented below. You may access them by clicking on this link too : https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/messages/view/3783#new . I'd like to know how you view it. Participants: Tim Kilgallon and Prakash RP Prakash RP29/03/2017 – 2:41pm' … the no booze idea gets the thumbs down from us. 'You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ? Tim Kilgallon29/03/2017 – 7:14pmNewListen bonny ladi dont need to justify my political beliefs to you. I'm a communist/socialist not a bloody monk. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke of gamble, feel free to make these choices. Do NOT DARE to tell me how to live my life. Now piss off you stupid sexist clown.
Prakash RP wrote:Tim Kilgallon29/03/2017 – 7:14pm Now piss off you stupid sexist clown.I fully endorse Tim's comments.
Prakash RP wrote:Dear all, I feel I should bring to your notice the following message made by Tim Kilgallon. I received it in response to a comment by me. Copies of both by comment and Kilgallon's are presented below. You may access them by clicking on this link too : https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/messages/view/3783#new . I'd like to know how you view it. Participants: Tim Kilgallon and Prakash RP Prakash RP29/03/2017 – 2:41pm' … the no booze idea gets the thumbs down from us. 'You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ? Tim Kilgallon29/03/2017 – 7:14pmNewListen bonny ladi dont need to justify my political beliefs to you. I'm a communist/socialist not a bloody monk. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke of gamble, feel free to make these choices. Do NOT DARE to tell me how to live my life. Now piss off you stupid sexist clown.just to clarify, this was in response to an unsolicited pm from this joker, not a comment. I stand by what I said but cannot elaborate as I have to rush off and put a few bets on before I head off to the boozer to have several pints of beer, with perhaps a number of whiskey chasers. I don't smoke, but am tempted to have a cigar today just for the hell of it!
Prakash RP wrote:You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ?Prakash RP wrote:Dear all, I feel I should bring to your notice the following message made by Tim Kilgallon. I received it in response to a comment by me. Copies of both by comment and Kilgallon's are presented below. You may access them by clicking on this link too : https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/messages/view/3783#new . I'd like to know how you view it. Participants: Tim Kilgallon and Prakash RP Prakash RP29/03/2017 – 2:41pm' … the no booze idea gets the thumbs down from us. 'You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ? Tim Kilgallon29/03/2017 – 7:14pmNewListen bonny ladi dont need to justify my political beliefs to you. I'm a communist/socialist not a bloody monk. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke of gamble, feel free to make these choices. Do NOT DARE to tell me how to live my life. Now piss off you stupid sexist clown.First, that was a private message between you and him, and it should not have been published in the forum, that is the reason why I did not answer your message either because I know this type of trick, but in any, he is right. You are bringing issues that are not part of this forum. The question is Why are you sending private messages to the members of this forum ? What are you looking for in a forum that is not going to support your issues ?
Unlike the regular nuisances here Prakash does agree with the objective of a world classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control. The trouble is that he seems to prioritise his code of behaviour for socialists within capitalist society telling us what we should or should not do (most of which we wouldn't dream of doing anyway). Which is annoying and puts people off. And he goes too far in what is to be shunned. Also, as has been noticed, his code assumes that only men can be socialists. Pity really that he doesn't concentrate instead on spreading the idea of socialism/communism as here:http://prakashrp-1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-definition-of-communism.html
ALB wrote:Unlike the regular nuisances here Prakash does agree with the objective of a world classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control. The trouble is that he seems to prioritise his code of behaviour for socialists within capitalist society telling us what we should or should not do (most of which we wouldn't dream of doing anyway). Which is annoying and puts people off. And he goes too far in what is to be shunned. Also, as has been noticed, his code assumes that only men can be socialists. Pity really that he doesn't concentrate instead on spreading the idea of socialism/communism as here:http://prakashrp-1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-definition-of-communism.htmlL Bird is a regular nuisance and L Bird also agrees with the idea of a world, classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control. But similarly to L Bird, this joker also believes and dictates that his view of what a socialist/communist should be is the only acceptable way for socialists to see the world.I see very little difference in their authoritarian, vanguardist, quasi religious approach.Personal liberty is, to my mind, very much part of the Socialist case. these two posters fail the "Socialist test" in this area.Anyway sorry I couldn't add any more, I've got a hotching hangover, never mind hair of the dog and all that!
Prakash what do you think of 'safer spaces', 'virtue signaling' and Marx's personal life as a communist.
Exploitation, corruption, production and exchange of commodities, money, easy money, black money, usury, division of society into rich and poor, the coexistence of fabulously healthy few alongside of millions sunk in abject poverty as well as stealing, robbery, swindling, etc, etc are also centuries old. So many customs, costumes, fashions, traditions, and superstitions ( e.g. suttee, racism, gender inequality, etc ), lingos ( Sanskrit, Latin, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, etc ), species ( dinosaurs, mammoths, etc ), ancient slavery, medieval serfdom, barons, monarchs, peasants, etc, etc, so many things are either things of the past or verging on extinction to prove the thesis that perpetual change is the law of nature true. Maybe people ' using Opium, Marihuana, and coca leaves for centuries ' will continue doing so to prove it wrong. Maybe the Dark Ages did NOT precede the Enlightenment. Maybe capitalism did NOT follow feudalism and will exist for ever to prove, to the delight of some ' socialists ', that the materialistic conception of history is plain nonsensical, a load of rubbish.
There was NO trick, sir. I'm new to this forum. I really did not know that anyone is free to write anything they like in a private message using this website. I sent private messages as I didn't know it's objectionable. My private messages contained the same content as what I posted in this thread in response to the comments on my post. Then, according to your judgment, I'm in the wrong. OK, I must keep it in mind.
' Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ? ' [ ALB made this comment ( on 27/03/2017 ) to counter my view : ' Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ? ' [1] He also quoted, in this regard, my view that ' [v]isiting brothels with a view to gratifying your desire ' has got the full approval of the Principle of healthy and meaningful living. [2] ] My dear friend, I feel I should thank you for pointing to a serious limitation of my views, the apparent conflict between the two views referred to above. I must admit that I was not aware of it before you brought it to my notice. I consider it serious and think it ought to be addressed duly. Nevertheless, I think we're agreed on this point that some limitations does NOT necessarily make a thesis or theory outright invalid or useless. It's silly to prescribe beheading someone in order to cure them of their headache, isn't it ? The statement [1] was meant to throw light on the obvious conflict between the mission of marriage ( i.e. your matrimonial duties and obligations ) and a true communist's mission in life. I don't think it necessarily means that by my view, a true communist must give up food and drink or decent food, healthy drink, and decent lifestyle to lead ' an ascetic ' life and die ' an ascetic '. Communism is fundamentally opposed to asceticism or self-abnegation. But, I think it does NOT mean that communism is for silly, wasteful indulgence in stuff like drugs, drinks ( alcoholic ), matrimony, etc. Nor does a decent lifestyle means a sumptuous lifestyle of the super-rich as a decent meal does NOT mean a sumptuous meal in a sumptuous restaurant or hotel meant for the 1 per cent or the 80-85 guys known as super-rich. I expect a communist to lead an exemplary lifestyle the benighted and vulgar millions of the born poor that sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries for the enjoyment of the born rich and the born super-rich that live a sumptuous lifestyle that they watch sillily as beasts of burden do while they lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life are supposed to watch and learn from what decent and meaningful living means.
Prakash RP wrote:. Nor does a decent lifestyle means a sumptuous lifestyle of the super-rich as a decent meal does NOT mean a sumptuous meal in a sumptuous restaurant or hotel meant for the 1 per cent or the 80-85 guys known as super-rich. I expect a communist to lead an exemplary lifestyle the benighted and vulgar millions of the born poor that sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries for the enjoyment of the born rich and the born super-rich that live a sumptuous lifestyle that they watch sillily as beasts of burden do while they lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life are supposed to watch and learn from what decent and meaningful living means.Pradesh, you read and come across as a Calvinistic puritanical sort of person on here.I don't think there is any danger of any of us living an ostentatious lifestyle. I also think that the people who make the revolution will be able to make decisons as to how best to manage expectations without judgements from the past as to how they should do it.Moderate indulgence in potentially addictive substances, alcohol, drugs etc. is a part of every day coping mechanisms and is culturally induced also.Where I live Scotch whisky played a huge part in lifestyle choices, but this has changed somewhat as people moved onto more European continental choices of wine and so on . Addictions are different though and are often accompanied by symptoms of other deep lying issues and the treatment of those including the addiction, is resistant to accepting diagnosis as such.Those are resistant to control either socially or otherwise and liable ot result in a bad reaction to any such control, by more recourse to the substance being abused until personal hurt forces the addict to seek help.It is called 'reaching bottom' in alcoholc treatment parlance.I expect to manage my own behaviour rather than hector or lecture others as to how they manage theirs.So I hope my few words on here are not misplaced in any way.
jondwhite's comment ( dated 31/03/2017 ): ' Prakash what do you think of 'safer spaces', 'virtue signaling' and Marx's personal life as a communist. ' Dear jondwhite, I've got no idea of what you mean by ' " safer spaces" ' and " virtue signaling " '. I'd like you to elaborate a little on these terms. I do not know much about Marx's personal life, nor do I feel interested in it right now. I'm interested in his works ( the theory of communism, materialistic conception of history, etc ). As far as I know, Marx married two times and fathered some children. His second marriage was preceded by the famous work, Capital Volume I, by him. Therefore, I view his 2nd marriage with outright disapproval because it was fully mature Marx who did it, something the theory of communism is fundamentally opposed to, knowingly.
Prakash RP wrote:Therefore, I view his 2nd marriage with outright disapproval because it was fully mature Marx who did it, something the theory of communism is fundamentally opposed to, knowingly.Balderdash!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.