The Democratic Presidential Debates

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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 

People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"

That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.

That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.

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. 

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?  

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. 

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.  

Capitalism's effects are not "collateral damage"--its destructiveness is its very essence. 

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.  

People. 

Also "other things are bad" does not refute the claim "this is bad." 

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:

PJPOWER said:

ecdanc said:

PJPOWER said:

ecdanc said:

PJPOWER said:

ecdanc said:

PJPOWER said:

ecdanc said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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 

People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"

That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.

That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.

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. 

You seem to have plenty of both.

Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better? 

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.

The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert. 

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.

You seem to struggle with reading. 

Care to offer an example where that is the case?  You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.

This exchange. 

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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 

People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"

That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.

That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.

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. 

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?  

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. 

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.  

Capitalism's effects are not "collateral damage"--its destructiveness is its very essence. 

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.  

People. 

Also "other things are bad" does not refute the claim "this is bad." 

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.  

Who are you trading off? The poors, right?

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.  

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.

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.  

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). 

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.).

I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....

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. 

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.  

Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.  

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.

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.  

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). 

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.).

I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....

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. 

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.  

Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?

Yet another ridiculous comparison.  I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable.  That is just arrogance. 

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?" 

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.  

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.

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.  

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). 

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.).

I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....

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. 

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.  

Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?

Yet another ridiculous comparison.  I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable.  That is just arrogance. 

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?" 

1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance.  A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.  

2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.  

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. 

2) I haven't tried to.