4 ms·

Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy. I hear that one a lot. It's an oldie, but a goodie. Communism is a subset of socialism; the share they same root philosophy. T

Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy. I hear that one a lot. It's an oldie, but a goodie. Communism is a subset of socialism; the share they same root philosophy. They never actually implemented true communism because it's not possible. Humans will always create a hierarchy. Where no official hierarchy exists, they will create unofficial ones.

unprepare 11y ago
Let me get this straight: >Communism is a subset of socialism and > Socialism always results in tyranny. but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes. Does that mean that: > Square is a subset of rectangle so >rectangle always results in four right angles given that my only examples of rectangles are squares? Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subset of socialism is plainly incorrect. By your own admission: >Humans will always create a hierarchy Socialism could not have been tested, because it would require social ownership of the production of goods, and co-operative management of those resources. Hierarchy means they did not have co-operative management of resources, they had hierarchical management of resources.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.
  - wfo 11y ago
    The poster you're responding to is trying to show you that your "argument" is nonsensical mindless garbage and has no basis in rational thought. And being very polite about it to boot.
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      And your response is supposed to represent the height of intellectual rationality, I suppose?
    - dang 11y ago
      Please don't insult other users on HN, even when you think they're wrong. When the site guidelines ask you not to call names, "nonsensical mindless garbage" is the kind of thing they have in mind.
      - wfo 11y ago
        The post was so incendiary/insulting my natural inclination to strike back in kind got the better of me but I recognize fighting fire with fire does not make for a good community so I'm sorry about that and will watch it.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    Actually, this has nothing to do with mathematics other than one of the two examples being from geometry. This was pure deductive reasoning, a concept borrowed from philosophy. Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      > Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."
      - unprepare 11y ago
        I'll give you a new example to work with, scrubbed of geometry so you can more easily understand it: Premise: >Za is a subset of Z >Za always results in behavior1 Conclusion: > Z always results in behavior1 How does this argument prove that behavior1 occurs in all instances of Z, when you've only shown us that a subset of Z (in this case Za) exhibits behavior1? How do you plan to prove that other subset Zb, Zc, Zd, etc follow this same rule when you've failed to provide even a single example? Or if you still are unable to answer that question, can you please show us in what way i misrepresented your argument to create a strawman? you not only have yet to actually address this point, you also have yet to address my point concerning your own words on hierarchy and the incompatibility with that and the idea of co-operative management of resources. Once you can make your argument make sense, you can begin looking at counterarguments for fallacies and semantics, else you will have this situation where you are digging yourself a deeper hole by misunderstanding counterarguments and rashly trying to mislabel them as fallacies. Editted formatting
- t0rb3n 11y ago
  The GDR was socialist and arguably a tyranny. Edit: As was The Third Reich.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    From what little I know about East germany and post-WW2 soviet history - wasn't GDR controlled by the communist state of soviet russia? Was it socialistic in name only, or actually socialistic in structure and policy? Was Nazi germany not a dictatorship? How is that compatible with socialism at all?
  - dghf 11y ago
    If National Socialism was socialist because it had "socialism" in its name, then the GDR was democratic for the same reason.

unprepare 11y ago

Let me get this straight: >Communism is a subset of socialism and > Socialism always results in tyranny. but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes. Does that mean that: > Square is a subset of rectangle so >rectangle always results in four right angles given that my only examples of rectangles are squares? Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subset of socialism is plainly incorrect. By your own admission: >Humans will always create a hierarchy Socialism could not have been tested, because it would require social ownership of the production of goods, and co-operative management of those resources. Hierarchy means they did not have co-operative management of resources, they had hierarchical management of resources.

PopeOfNope 11y ago
Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.
- wfo 11y ago
  The poster you're responding to is trying to show you that your "argument" is nonsensical mindless garbage and has no basis in rational thought. And being very polite about it to boot.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    And your response is supposed to represent the height of intellectual rationality, I suppose?
  - dang 11y ago
    Please don't insult other users on HN, even when you think they're wrong. When the site guidelines ask you not to call names, "nonsensical mindless garbage" is the kind of thing they have in mind.
    - wfo 11y ago
      The post was so incendiary/insulting my natural inclination to strike back in kind got the better of me but I recognize fighting fire with fire does not make for a good community so I'm sorry about that and will watch it.
- unprepare 11y ago
  Actually, this has nothing to do with mathematics other than one of the two examples being from geometry. This was pure deductive reasoning, a concept borrowed from philosophy. Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    > Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."
    - unprepare 11y ago
      I'll give you a new example to work with, scrubbed of geometry so you can more easily understand it: Premise: >Za is a subset of Z >Za always results in behavior1 Conclusion: > Z always results in behavior1 How does this argument prove that behavior1 occurs in all instances of Z, when you've only shown us that a subset of Z (in this case Za) exhibits behavior1? How do you plan to prove that other subset Zb, Zc, Zd, etc follow this same rule when you've failed to provide even a single example? Or if you still are unable to answer that question, can you please show us in what way i misrepresented your argument to create a strawman? you not only have yet to actually address this point, you also have yet to address my point concerning your own words on hierarchy and the incompatibility with that and the idea of co-operative management of resources. Once you can make your argument make sense, you can begin looking at counterarguments for fallacies and semantics, else you will have this situation where you are digging yourself a deeper hole by misunderstanding counterarguments and rashly trying to mislabel them as fallacies. Editted formatting
t0rb3n 11y ago
The GDR was socialist and arguably a tyranny. Edit: As was The Third Reich.
- unprepare 11y ago
  From what little I know about East germany and post-WW2 soviet history - wasn't GDR controlled by the communist state of soviet russia? Was it socialistic in name only, or actually socialistic in structure and policy? Was Nazi germany not a dictatorship? How is that compatible with socialism at all?
- dghf 11y ago
  If National Socialism was socialist because it had "socialism" in its name, then the GDR was democratic for the same reason.