4 ms·

> Looks like I hit a nerve. Set aside all the BS and answer the question. On what moral grounds does Socialism justify confiscating property and sacrificing liv

> Looks like I hit a nerve. Set aside all the BS and answer the question. On what moral grounds does Socialism justify confiscating property and sacrificing lives? We can certainly disagree about what is or is not Capitalism but this is what Socialism does and you know it. BTW, this is my original point; the Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate cannot be answered in politics or economics, your efforts notwithstanding. It is an ethical question that you are evading and ultimately will lose. This is weak ass "u mad" stuff because you can't respond to anything I've said. Rapidly alternating between referencing history and refusing to respond to points in return that also reference history makes your argument look weak and makes you sound like an ass. > I selected this out of all of what you wrote because it perfectly illustrates the (poor) level of your thinking. This claim is a clear self-contradiction. The opposite of expropriation is a voluntary trade or donation. To say that property or lives can be expropriated without violence is complete non-sense. lol most people would not consider taxation or squatting or repossessing capital assets "violence". Ask I dunno, anyone if they'd think that > The fact that socialism disarms the victims and controls the legal system so as to threaten violence if the expropriation is opposed is a massive evasion of the facts. Moreover, the rest of your thoughts on this are a mish-mash of equivocations, false analogies, contradictions, irrelevancies, misrepresentation and other errors. This is not what socialism is. Please stop referencing history if you flatly refuse to engage with any of my references to history, and especially if you don't even understand what you're talking about. lol the "this is flim flam fiddle faddle" remark at the end is convincing to nobody if you don't actually engage w/ the arguments in a concrete way.

dmfdmf 8y ago
> Ask I dunno, anyone if they'd think that LOL, talk about weak. So now your argument is "everyone agrees with ME". That is not an argument and is a logical fallacy. >This is not what socialism is. Please stop referencing history if you flatly refuse to engage with any of my references to history I think you know this is exactly what socialism is but you refuse to admit it. It is impossible to have a discussion in a vacuum without any reference to history, that is a strawman representation of my position. My position, and my original post comment, was that the Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate can't be resolved with discussions about politics, economics or technology and that it is essentially an ethical debate not that history in these fields is irrelevant. Moreover, the fact is (and you are proof of this) that one cannot even comprehend historical facts or even economic systems without first identifying the ethical system that underlie them. Your ignorance on these issues is a direct result of your ignorance of the ethical issues. Like Weinstein, you need to get out of politics and economics and study ethics if you are sincere about understanding Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate. If you disagree with me on that point then feel free to move on.
- almostdeadguy 8y ago
  lol buddy you've patently ignored every reference to history I've made, you're not entitled to a captive audience. Engage in the discourse or don't. If you want to go back and actually address all the points I've made thus far instead of disregarding it as nonsense that's below you, I'll wait and I'll address the history you're bringing up after you're done. Otherwise fuck off.
  - dmfdmf 8y ago
    >Otherwise fuck off. Where does the hostility come from? Let us not forget the context -- you posted on MY sub-thread comment where I claimed that the Socialism -vs- Capitalism debate is an ethical question not about economics nor political. If the tables were turned and you posted your long drivel on the economics and politics of Socialism and Capitalism (according to you) and I tried to hijack the thread and demand that you argue ethics, well, I think you would be bit perplexed and perhaps a little angry for the unfair imposition. I have been clear from the beginning on my view (you are free to disagree) and that I am not interested in getting sucked into the details and minutia of politics and economics nor pointless discussions on what is or is not Socialism without defining the ethical premises. Both Socialism and Capitalism rest on different ethical systems and if you are a serious advocate of Socialism I highly recommend that you study ethics. If you want to spout non-sense unopposed with many "upvotes" perhaps you should take this discussion to reddit.com/r/latestagecapitalism, you will be at home there or on reddit in general because everyone agrees with you.
    - almostdeadguy 8y ago
      Yeah I gave you a lot of criticism about your framing of the "ethical systems" underlying these two modes of production from a philosophical perspective and you refused to discuss those as well. And this isn't "your thread" like its your living room or some shit, that's not how discussion has ever worked online. Engage in the discourse or don't.
      - dmfdmf 8y ago

dmfdmf 8y ago

> Ask I dunno, anyone if they'd think that LOL, talk about weak. So now your argument is "everyone agrees with ME". That is not an argument and is a logical fallacy. >This is not what socialism is. Please stop referencing history if you flatly refuse to engage with any of my references to history I think you know this is exactly what socialism is but you refuse to admit it. It is impossible to have a discussion in a vacuum without any reference to history, that is a strawman representation of my position. My position, and my original post comment, was that the Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate can't be resolved with discussions about politics, economics or technology and that it is essentially an ethical debate not that history in these fields is irrelevant. Moreover, the fact is (and you are proof of this) that one cannot even comprehend historical facts or even economic systems without first identifying the ethical system that underlie them. Your ignorance on these issues is a direct result of your ignorance of the ethical issues. Like Weinstein, you need to get out of politics and economics and study ethics if you are sincere about understanding Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate. If you disagree with me on that point then feel free to move on.

almostdeadguy 8y ago
lol buddy you've patently ignored every reference to history I've made, you're not entitled to a captive audience. Engage in the discourse or don't. If you want to go back and actually address all the points I've made thus far instead of disregarding it as nonsense that's below you, I'll wait and I'll address the history you're bringing up after you're done. Otherwise fuck off.
- dmfdmf 8y ago
  >Otherwise fuck off. Where does the hostility come from? Let us not forget the context -- you posted on MY sub-thread comment where I claimed that the Socialism -vs- Capitalism debate is an ethical question not about economics nor political. If the tables were turned and you posted your long drivel on the economics and politics of Socialism and Capitalism (according to you) and I tried to hijack the thread and demand that you argue ethics, well, I think you would be bit perplexed and perhaps a little angry for the unfair imposition. I have been clear from the beginning on my view (you are free to disagree) and that I am not interested in getting sucked into the details and minutia of politics and economics nor pointless discussions on what is or is not Socialism without defining the ethical premises. Both Socialism and Capitalism rest on different ethical systems and if you are a serious advocate of Socialism I highly recommend that you study ethics. If you want to spout non-sense unopposed with many "upvotes" perhaps you should take this discussion to reddit.com/r/latestagecapitalism, you will be at home there or on reddit in general because everyone agrees with you.
  - almostdeadguy 8y ago
    Yeah I gave you a lot of criticism about your framing of the "ethical systems" underlying these two modes of production from a philosophical perspective and you refused to discuss those as well. And this isn't "your thread" like its your living room or some shit, that's not how discussion has ever worked online. Engage in the discourse or don't.
    - dmfdmf 8y ago