The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
This exchange.PJPOWER said:
Care to offer an example where that is the case? You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.ecdanc said:
You seem to struggle with reading.PJPOWER said:
You seem to like definitive words (no one, everyone). Unusual for someone that claims to have philosophy knowledge. I usually avoid them, but that’s just me.ecdanc said:
The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert.PJPOWER said:
Much. You can say “fuck whatever” all you want and not upset me in the least professor. It’s just when you pretentiously act like you know what you are talking about that irritates me and others around here.ecdanc said:
Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better?PJPOWER said:
You seem to have plenty of both.ecdanc said:
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.PJPOWER said:
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.Spiritual_Chaos said:
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"PJPOWER said:If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already...
and fuck Communism
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
0 -
Maybe you should google "A beginners guide to historic ideologies" before participating.PJPOWER said:
Maybe you should google “communist state”...Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the ideology of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.0 -
to that I would quote the famous, but unknown author "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". The same goes for capitalism. In the real world, you have to make decisions and trade offs. It's kind of the bitch about life.ecdanc said:
People.mrussel1 said:
Destruction of what? Do you think the act of exploiting the resources of the weaker developed during the 17th century when market economies began? I'm pretty sure the Romans, Greeks, Persions, Carthaginians, Egyptians and plenty of others ended up in the same place.ecdanc said:
Capitalism's effects are not "collateral damage"--its destructiveness is its very essence.mrussel1 said:
Every single economic system has had substantial collateral damage to humans. Communism, with the consolidation of power into a few, has shown itself to be both brutal AND ineffective.ecdanc said:
You should realize we don't disagree on a vital point here: capitalism HAS been "successful." I'm claiming that its "success" is predicated on horrible things happening to large numbers of people. Bubonic plague was pretty successful in the Middle Ages, but that doesn't mean I'm going to celebrate it.mrussel1 said:
No, the economic failure shaped the view. Communism had its chance. It failed. It subjected its people to abject poverty, oppression and murder. The historical record is clear. You are the ignorant one, pretending it didn't happen. If it was so successful, why is it dead?ecdanc said:
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.PJPOWER said:
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.Spiritual_Chaos said:
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"PJPOWER said:If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already...
and fuck Communism
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
Also "other things are bad" does not refute the claim "this is bad."0 -
Agreemrussel1 said:
to that I would quote the famous, but unknown author "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". The same goes for capitalism. In the real world, you have to make decisions and trade offs. It's kind of the bitch about life.ecdanc said:
People.mrussel1 said:
Destruction of what? Do you think the act of exploiting the resources of the weaker developed during the 17th century when market economies began? I'm pretty sure the Romans, Greeks, Persions, Carthaginians, Egyptians and plenty of others ended up in the same place.ecdanc said:
Capitalism's effects are not "collateral damage"--its destructiveness is its very essence.mrussel1 said:
Every single economic system has had substantial collateral damage to humans. Communism, with the consolidation of power into a few, has shown itself to be both brutal AND ineffective.ecdanc said:
You should realize we don't disagree on a vital point here: capitalism HAS been "successful." I'm claiming that its "success" is predicated on horrible things happening to large numbers of people. Bubonic plague was pretty successful in the Middle Ages, but that doesn't mean I'm going to celebrate it.mrussel1 said:
No, the economic failure shaped the view. Communism had its chance. It failed. It subjected its people to abject poverty, oppression and murder. The historical record is clear. You are the ignorant one, pretending it didn't happen. If it was so successful, why is it dead?ecdanc said:
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.PJPOWER said:
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.Spiritual_Chaos said:
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"PJPOWER said:If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already...
and fuck Communism
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
Also "other things are bad" does not refute the claim "this is bad.""Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Who are you trading off? The poors, right?mrussel1 said:
to that I would quote the famous, but unknown author "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". The same goes for capitalism. In the real world, you have to make decisions and trade offs. It's kind of the bitch about life.ecdanc said:
People.mrussel1 said:
Destruction of what? Do you think the act of exploiting the resources of the weaker developed during the 17th century when market economies began? I'm pretty sure the Romans, Greeks, Persions, Carthaginians, Egyptians and plenty of others ended up in the same place.ecdanc said:
Capitalism's effects are not "collateral damage"--its destructiveness is its very essence.mrussel1 said:
Every single economic system has had substantial collateral damage to humans. Communism, with the consolidation of power into a few, has shown itself to be both brutal AND ineffective.ecdanc said:
You should realize we don't disagree on a vital point here: capitalism HAS been "successful." I'm claiming that its "success" is predicated on horrible things happening to large numbers of people. Bubonic plague was pretty successful in the Middle Ages, but that doesn't mean I'm going to celebrate it.mrussel1 said:
No, the economic failure shaped the view. Communism had its chance. It failed. It subjected its people to abject poverty, oppression and murder. The historical record is clear. You are the ignorant one, pretending it didn't happen. If it was so successful, why is it dead?ecdanc said:
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.PJPOWER said:
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.Spiritual_Chaos said:
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"PJPOWER said:If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already...
and fuck Communism
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
Also "other things are bad" does not refute the claim "this is bad."0 -
I think you’re projecting your own inadequacies now, but I won’t hold it against you, it’s got to be frustrating living in a country that will most likely never align with your communism utopia fantasy.ecdanc said:
This exchange.PJPOWER said:
Care to offer an example where that is the case? You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.ecdanc said:
You seem to struggle with reading.PJPOWER said:
You seem to like definitive words (no one, everyone). Unusual for someone that claims to have philosophy knowledge. I usually avoid them, but that’s just me.ecdanc said:
The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert.PJPOWER said:
Much. You can say “fuck whatever” all you want and not upset me in the least professor. It’s just when you pretentiously act like you know what you are talking about that irritates me and others around here.ecdanc said:
Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better?PJPOWER said:
You seem to have plenty of both.ecdanc said:
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.PJPOWER said:
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.Spiritual_Chaos said:
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"PJPOWER said:If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already...
and fuck Communism
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
0 -
Wow, captain pretentious with a come back. You assume too much. It’s all good, like chicken strips.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Maybe you should google "A beginners guide to historic ideologies" before participating.PJPOWER said:
Maybe you should google “communist state”...Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the ideology of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.0 -
Very. Even more frustrating than dealing with people who think "fuck communism" is a thoughtful statement.PJPOWER said:
I think you’re projecting your own inadequacies now, but I won’t hold it against you, it’s got to be frustrating living in a country that will most likely never align with your communism utopia fantasy.ecdanc said:
This exchange.PJPOWER said:
Care to offer an example where that is the case? You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.ecdanc said:
You seem to struggle with reading.PJPOWER said:
You seem to like definitive words (no one, everyone). Unusual for someone that claims to have philosophy knowledge. I usually avoid them, but that’s just me.ecdanc said:
The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert.PJPOWER said:
Much. You can say “fuck whatever” all you want and not upset me in the least professor. It’s just when you pretentiously act like you know what you are talking about that irritates me and others around here.ecdanc said:
Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better?PJPOWER said:
You seem to have plenty of both.ecdanc said:
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.PJPOWER said:
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.Spiritual_Chaos said:
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"PJPOWER said:If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already...
and fuck Communism
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.0 -
Burn your assumptions.PJPOWER said:
Wow, captain pretentious with a come back. You assume too much.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Maybe you should google "A beginners guide to historic ideologies" before participating.PJPOWER said:
Maybe you should google “communist state”...Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the ideology of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
You are being intentionally obtuse or argumentative.... or both.ecdanc said:
Who are you trading off? The poors, right?mrussel1 said:
to that I would quote the famous, but unknown author "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". The same goes for capitalism. In the real world, you have to make decisions and trade offs. It's kind of the bitch about life.ecdanc said:
People.mrussel1 said:
Destruction of what? Do you think the act of exploiting the resources of the weaker developed during the 17th century when market economies began? I'm pretty sure the Romans, Greeks, Persions, Carthaginians, Egyptians and plenty of others ended up in the same place.ecdanc said:
Capitalism's effects are not "collateral damage"--its destructiveness is its very essence.mrussel1 said:
Every single economic system has had substantial collateral damage to humans. Communism, with the consolidation of power into a few, has shown itself to be both brutal AND ineffective.ecdanc said:
You should realize we don't disagree on a vital point here: capitalism HAS been "successful." I'm claiming that its "success" is predicated on horrible things happening to large numbers of people. Bubonic plague was pretty successful in the Middle Ages, but that doesn't mean I'm going to celebrate it.mrussel1 said:
No, the economic failure shaped the view. Communism had its chance. It failed. It subjected its people to abject poverty, oppression and murder. The historical record is clear. You are the ignorant one, pretending it didn't happen. If it was so successful, why is it dead?ecdanc said:
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.PJPOWER said:
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.Spiritual_Chaos said:
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"PJPOWER said:If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already...
and fuck Communism
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
Also "other things are bad" does not refute the claim "this is bad."0 -
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.ecdanc said:
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.0 -
You said we have to make decisions and tradeoffs. I'm pointing out that historically the tradeoff for capitalism has been "we'll trade poor people for wealth accumulation." People are all about sacrifice when it's not their sacrifice.mrussel1 said:
You are being intentionally obtuse or argumentative.... or both.ecdanc said:
Who are you trading off? The poors, right?mrussel1 said:
to that I would quote the famous, but unknown author "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". The same goes for capitalism. In the real world, you have to make decisions and trade offs. It's kind of the bitch about life.ecdanc said:
People.mrussel1 said:
Destruction of what? Do you think the act of exploiting the resources of the weaker developed during the 17th century when market economies began? I'm pretty sure the Romans, Greeks, Persions, Carthaginians, Egyptians and plenty of others ended up in the same place.ecdanc said:
Capitalism's effects are not "collateral damage"--its destructiveness is its very essence.mrussel1 said:
Every single economic system has had substantial collateral damage to humans. Communism, with the consolidation of power into a few, has shown itself to be both brutal AND ineffective.ecdanc said:
You should realize we don't disagree on a vital point here: capitalism HAS been "successful." I'm claiming that its "success" is predicated on horrible things happening to large numbers of people. Bubonic plague was pretty successful in the Middle Ages, but that doesn't mean I'm going to celebrate it.mrussel1 said:
No, the economic failure shaped the view. Communism had its chance. It failed. It subjected its people to abject poverty, oppression and murder. The historical record is clear. You are the ignorant one, pretending it didn't happen. If it was so successful, why is it dead?ecdanc said:
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.PJPOWER said:
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.Spiritual_Chaos said:
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"PJPOWER said:If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already...
and fuck Communism
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
Also "other things are bad" does not refute the claim "this is bad."0 -
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?mrussel1 said:
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.ecdanc said:
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.0 -
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.ecdanc said:
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?mrussel1 said:
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.ecdanc said:
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.0 -
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"mrussel1 said:
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.ecdanc said:
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?mrussel1 said:
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.ecdanc said:
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.0 -
Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.ecdanc said:
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"mrussel1 said:
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.ecdanc said:
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?mrussel1 said:
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.ecdanc said:
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.0 -
1) You're really embracing the dismissal of entire academic disciplines. I'm used to it, but you don't get the high ground on accusations of arrogance if you're going to do that.mrussel1 said:
1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.ecdanc said:
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"mrussel1 said:
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.ecdanc said:
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?mrussel1 said:
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.ecdanc said:
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.
2) I haven't tried to.0 -
Once more, you totally misrepresent a position. No one dismissed your position, nor did I say that there is absolutely human nature. You are the one that is dismissive of counter-arguments, going so far as doing so in your classroom. You are projecting your issues on us.ecdanc said:
1) You're really embracing the dismissal of entire academic disciplines. I'm used to it, but you don't get the high ground on accusations of arrogance if you're going to do that.mrussel1 said:
1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.ecdanc said:
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"mrussel1 said:
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.ecdanc said:
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?mrussel1 said:
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.ecdanc said:
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.
2) I haven't tried to.0 -
Because my discipline has rejected the notion of human nature. It wasn't my decision, no more than current scientists decided the earth is round. What's complicated about that?mrussel1 said:
Once more, you totally misrepresent a position. No one dismissed your position, nor did I say that there is absolutely human nature. You are the one that is dismissive of counter-arguments, going so far as doing so in your classroom. You are projecting your issues on us.ecdanc said:
1) You're really embracing the dismissal of entire academic disciplines. I'm used to it, but you don't get the high ground on accusations of arrogance if you're going to do that.mrussel1 said:
1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.ecdanc said:
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"mrussel1 said:
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.ecdanc said:
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?mrussel1 said:
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.ecdanc said:
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....mrussel1 said:
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).ecdanc said:
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).mrussel1 said:
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.Spiritual_Chaos said:
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.mrussel1 said:Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.
2) I haven't tried to.
I mean, you seem to imagine higher education as a space where all ideas (no matter how inane) should be treated equally.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help