The Democratic Presidential Debates

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

pjl44 said:

If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...

As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.

I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.

Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.

Do we have to agree to disagree on when we eat the rich? 😀

You'll have to agree on definition of rich first.  Your's is fucked up!

You don’t turn into food until at least 7 figures. 

Earnings or wealth?  

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

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. 

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.  

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?

I mean, you seem to imagine higher education as a space where all ideas (no matter how inane) should be treated equally. 

So you're saying that the debate that has gone on for centuries is now solved and no longer open for discussion.  You're saying that I could not find one academic who thinks that either there is human nature, or that is still a debatable topic, is that correct?  Just want to be sure before I do a little digging on the topic.  
Now, I know I can't find one true astrologist or geologist that argues the Earth is flat, so using your comparison as the jumping off point, I should not be able to find an humanities/philosophy academic that disagrees with your unassailable statement.  

Not that you care, but here is a small portion of what I tell my students:

"...when you write your own work, you need to keep in mind that your goal is to learn--and to stay within--our current epistemological boundaries. I'm going to put this as directly as I possibly can: [our text] outlines five foundational assumptions . . . . These are not something with which you get to disagree. Sure, you can personally disagree with them; but as a student in this discipline, you must accept them in order to produce any work that will count as knowledge. Just like current scientists have rejected much of 1950s science, current . . . . scholars have rejected [certain ideas]." 

The boundaries of this discussion are not your discipline.  No one cares what academics in your field set forth as truth.  That's not the real world, that's your world.  And if that's what you're doing, then this is why you can't identify with counter arguments nor convince anyone of your arguments.  You've created your own mental box.  

Except that's literally the subject of our current conversation. 

But, to perhaps move us forward, do you have a list of the academic disciplines that get to have epistemologies and which ones don't? Put differently, what are the areas in which you would actually admit that someone can be an "expert?" And in what areas could you never make such an admission?

I don't shun expertise, I shun unassailable statements based on empirically un-provable issues.  And it isn't literally the conversation...  

The statements aren't unassailable, but there are rules for how to....assail them. Rule 1) if you don't know why and how the statement has become accepted in a discipline, you don't get to assail it. 

So again, you are saying that I cannot find one philosopher who disagrees with your statement that human nature is a myth?  It's a simple question.  

I have never said that and it would be nonsensical for me to do so, because it would be a total non-sequitur from this part of the conversation. 

Yet flat earth being a myth is unassailable.  This is my point.  

And through all of that, communism is still a failed economic political and economic system.  There are no successes to which one can point.  

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

pjl44 said:

If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...

As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.

I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.

Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.

Do we have to agree to disagree on when we eat the rich? 😀

You'll have to agree on definition of rich first.  Your's is fucked up!

You don’t turn into food until at least 7 figures. 

Earnings or wealth?  

Yes

Ok, so no more saving for retirement!!!! SPend it all!

pjl44 said:

ecdanc said:

pjl44 said:

ecdanc said:

pjl44 said:

If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...

As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.

I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.

Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.

Do we have to agree to disagree on when we eat the rich? 😀

Man, with some of my socialist friends we can't even agree on when to eat the cows

I’m such a stereotype. 

There has to be somewhere that you deviate from orthodoxy. John Brown Gun Club local chapter president?

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

ecdanc said:

PJPOWER said:

ecdanc said:

PJPOWER said:

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. 

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. 

Very. Even more frustrating than dealing with people who think "fuck communism" is a thoughtful statement. 

Meh, I thought about it and studied it awhile before coming to that conclusions.  Maybe I should have said “communism is fucked” for a smidge less dismissal of the the idea.  If you want communism, join a cult or move to China and your dreams can come true.  

What did you mean when you say you "studied it?"

Exactly what I said...I have studied it.  The topic got brought up quite often while ascertaining my Sociology degree...If you are asking to what extent I studied it, my only answer is “enough” for me to justify a “fuck communism” statement of opinion, ha 
How much have you studied it?  

But it on the other page it didn't seem like you know basic things regarding it. So then, is your threshold of "enough" really anything to go by?

TF are you talking about?  Maybe your assumptions were blinding you again?  You are the one that said there was no such thing as “a communist state” aka “Marxist-Leninist state“...What did I get wrong professor chaos?  Did I fail to mention a Stallone movie reference?  Those seem to be the only references that resonate with you...