You claimed that everyone already owns their means of production but gave no explanation. You just said that the goals "are already being achieved" without socialism.
I cannot even wrap my head around that yet alone reply to it. I never moved any goal posts. You just misinterpreted where I originally placed them by inssisting I wanted an authoritarian society.
No, you said that I said everyone already owns the means of production. You say you aren't moving goal posts but you literally make 2 statements about what "I say" that contradict themselves right next to each other. Quote one never happened. I did say "The goals you are describing are ALREADY being achieved... WITHOUT Socialism or Communism." This was a direct reply to: (everyone was entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on) I really just want to revert to the topic and the answer to the question: If not by socialism (other than workers owning their means of production), how else can this be achieved? People are already entitled to "work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on". These things are happening now, under Capitalism. What you call "misinterpreting" is you ignoring the cognitive dissonance resulting from the gap in your logic and your inability to argue it, and attributing it to my "misunderstanding". I understand, I disagree, and this is me describing how and why you are wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia will get its come comeuppance... right now they are less of an enemy than others and can wait. Others are larger threats and it makes sense to cooperate with them (until it doesn't). OFC murder is horrible, but in the perspective of nation states it is standard operating procedure and par for the course of running any nation state. This move is strategic, and again, they are on "the list" because of their participation in the events of 9/11. They are going to be used then flipped on.
|
|
|
|
|
The 9th circuit court has the most cases overturned in the nation... that's what he is referring to. He is basically saying they do what they like regardless of the law.
|
|
|
|
27 times is a lot? Also lots of trips to South Korea there in the early 2000's and on... I didn't know South Korea was a war zone. Oh right, technically on paper it is a war zone even though there hasn't been a battle there for how many decades? xD Good try |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, why reply to me when you can reply to low hanging newbie fruit and avoid a response...
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly I don't think any kind of genital mutilation should be legal (aside from consenting adults tho I suppose). Certainly not in children. This case will likely be overturned and or prosecuted under other laws.
|
|
|
|
I am very disappointed in you because I typed up all of those real-world examples and clarifications only for you to disregard all of them and resort to name-calling. You didn't even communicate what you had a problem with other than semantics. You're really going to call someone names over a semantic disagreement?
Why would any of this fit my bias? I grew up in the most capitalist country with capitalist parents and have inherited rental property. I am an academic, a scientist who seeks to find examples of solutions to the world's social, economic and environmental problems. I've noticed patterns in my studies and formed my opinions from those.
Because you don't offer reality. All you offer is theories and desires, yet you offer ZERO information regarding HOW you claim we can get there. Also all of your arguments require we just simply ignore the endless history of failures of your ideology and the millions of lives it costs to try it over and over and over again. Socialism INEVITABLY results in a totalitarian state. How am I supposed to argue against a fantasy? On the previous page, I gave a pretty detailed explanation of how to achieve an economy of workplace democracies where people are free to start their own businesses or join cooperatives and explained how we can get there through Marcora laws, tax reform and education. I gave examples of cooperatives as well. Any questions? On the contrary, I haven't seen one example or explanation of how my ideology of workplace democracy/worker owned means of production has cost millions of lives. No, it was not at all detailed. Also I already responded to each and every one of those points. If you are just going to go around and round in circles I will just start quoting the replies I already made. All you said was about your desires and goals. You described little to nothing about how to get there, and what little was there was poked full of holes. Your argument relies completely upon redefining words as it serves you. The Ideology of Socialism and Communism has lead to the loss of millions of lives. You don't just get to exclude all the horrible failures of your ideology because "oh it wasn't REAL Communism/Socialism" This is a logical fallacy known as "no true Scotsman". What about all the lives lost in Holodomor? The Kulaks? Stalin? Lenin? What about under Mao? Pol Pot? Mugabe? Hitler? (he pushed national Socialism) I guess none of them count right? |
|
|
|
It is me trying to extend an olive branch to you. everytime I have described the socialist ideal, you say its not socialism and that actual socialism is defined by authoritarianism. Its an endless cycle until someone lets go of their definition. I just tried to concede that but even then you are unwilling to move forward. So I have made a tremendous effort to move forward with you but every one of your post is either based on personal attack or semantics. Luckily, I have the patience of an educator and will try to have an actual discussion. I haven't redefined anything but am willing to operate in your definitions because without common definitions of words, we can't have a conversation. -------------------------------- I will start from scratch back on topic. You said socialism wasn't the only way to achieve.... (everyone was entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on) I really just want to revert to the topic and the answer to the question: If not by socialism (other than workers owning their means of production), how else can this be achieved? If your answer is going to involve the words socialism, capitalism, communism, don't you think it would be helpful if everyone knew what you were talking about when you used those words? I don't want your olive branch. I am not here to be your friend. I am here to do my fair share of butchering in the slaughterhouse of the marketplace of ideas. Your arguments simply don't stack up. The moment you give me a legitimate argument based on empirical data I will address it. So far all you have is sophistry, moving goal posts, rhetoric, and refractory platitudes. You claim I am just using semantics and personal attacks all day, but I am putting to you very simple questions, facts, and references. Really this whole time you don't even really argue, you just imagine your point was something else and argue that after realizing you have no reasonable reply. I do so relish the absolute brazen bald faced gall you have to now talk to me as if I am the one who can not stick to a definition when literally it has been your nearly exclusive debate tactic from day one. Have you ever heard of projection? You might wanna study up on that one "Mr. Educator". The goals you are describing are ALREADY being achieved... WITHOUT Socialism or Communism. |
|
|
|
You don't know a damned thing about science. You just learned propane and hydrogen turn into liquids when compressed a couple weeks ago and think cars explode when you shoot the gas tank with a gun. Re: sirazimuth, We have been round and round and he never has any logic, its always just his little sophist games. Actually people love me at parties, I just hang out with people smarter than him and we get along fine  |
|
|
|
https://apnews.com/71d38227507640e796d0db0b9256f038Fake charges. I can't believe the right would use a paid actor to accuse an innocent individual. Absolutely disgusting behavior playing faux victims. There's a reason he's not investigation; there's tapes. Rofl. You have serious problems with logic and reading comprehension. "A spokeswoman for the district attorney would not say why prosecutors declined to take the case from Los Angeles police. Documents supporting the decision were not released because the case was referred to the city attorney and was still under investigation. The city attorney’s office will review the case, a spokesman said." The charges aren't fake, they are being referred to another jurisdiction. As your source clearly states it is still under investigation. Ahaha. The charges were dropped in LA. Now the case will probably pick up somewhere else when his law firm sues some poor Estonian actress who was paid off. The problem is the sheep are too blind to follow this ruthless attack by CONSERVATIVES and their like. When justice prevails, which I think it will, we'll see that this was a whole setup by a certain group who wanted to have the "actress girlfriend" make a scene "for a movie". I'm willing to guess the charges were submitted entirely falsify ("i didn't actually report him, wtf - actress!!!"). The lawsuit will go to find out who actually reported and will lead nowhere, thanks "government". Woo! Wanna take bets on how it'll play out?? Cause so far, I'm up a ton on predicting "eventualities" of events from GOP operations. Take a look at Mueller's "setup". Rofl. I think TMZ is going to have to issue a direct retraction "these events were fake" somewhere eventually. The lawsuit won't really go anywhere, but he'll be proven innocent. CONSPITARDS a decade from now will find this and use it AS ABSOLUTE PROOF he's gulity of a crime, because he was charged with the crime. People like TECSHARE throw out "HE'S GUILTY BECAUSE THEY'RE MOVING THE CASE SOMEWHERE ELSE" when the article clearly states he's not being tried by them. If you look at his side at this point in history, he knows there's tapes that disprove the "supposed" incidence, and the cops seized the tapes; he wants the tapes out in the public ASAP to show he's entirely innocent from this accusation. At this point, we're just waiting for that evidence to become public record to "definitely prove" that the accusations are FABRICATED. You are literally just making up quotes now and claiming I said them. Really convincing. The caps and oversized letters are a nice touch too. He is still under investigation. Come on you guys LOVE investigations right? |
|
|
|
Unions dude. When workers striked massively, humans changed. We went from 12 hour days 6 days a week to 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Now it's "earth strike" -- however, no unions exists to protect jobs and it's a damned shame.
Yeah, unions are never corrupt right? xD |
|
|
|
I think capitalism is the best way to help people, everyone should depend on their own work, their own sweat, if God wanted us to have communism as a model he would've established this in the initial laws he gave to Moses, (everyone was entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on) first laws of humankind.
The irony is you are describing workers owning the means of production....socialism. Capitalism involves many people working one man's land. Socialism is the only mechanism by which everyone could obtain their own land/animals to work. Capitalists depend on the work of their workers. Most shareholders are not putting any sweat into what is being produced. You just love running around and redefining everything you like to Socialism don't you? Apparently to you everything is Socialism, except real Socialism. Socialism IS NOT the only method, and that statement is completely fallacious. Capitalists depend on workers. Workers depend on workers. We all depend on workers. WTF is your point? I see, so sweat is more valuable than financing is it? Well we agree because we already established that you call workers owning the means of production (EVERYONE working their OWN fields with their OWN animals) capitalism and you call authoritarianism (people having little freedom over their labor or fruits of the labor) socialism. Since I have so much disdain for nonstop semantics, i'm just going to start adopting your definitions in discussion with you and add a (TS) indicator for external readers. By these tecshare definitions, we need to move to capitalism(TS) and away from socialism(TS). How exactly do you suggest we transition from the socialist(TS) authoritarian economy we have today to something more capitalist(TS) the OP describes? (everyone was entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on) So now with your arguments totally decimated, you resort to literally speaking for me? This is a really extremely low level of "debate" bordering on the level of some cheap mentalist act. Maybe you should move to Vegas and get a spandex sequin suit. Oh really you disdain semantics? Is that why you constantly just redefine anything you don't agree with or that conflicts with your existing bias? Really, tell us all again what you do for a living please. I want it to be clear where this stunning level of debate comes from. The world is not just a word salad like you have flopping around in your cantaloupe. Not everything is subjective. Lots of things are objective, and your ideology totally ignores the objective to very destructive effect. |
|
|
|
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. I thought you were talking about Obama.
You're right, what was I thinking. It's 2010 and Obama is being investigated for all those times he put the wrong condiment on a burger. I blame FHF for the misleading thread title. Who's Trump? What investigations? |
|
|
|
https://apnews.com/71d38227507640e796d0db0b9256f038Fake charges. I can't believe the right would use a paid actor to accuse an innocent individual. Absolutely disgusting behavior playing faux victims. There's a reason he's not investigation; there's tapes. Rofl. You have serious problems with logic and reading comprehension. "A spokeswoman for the district attorney would not say why prosecutors declined to take the case from Los Angeles police. Documents supporting the decision were not released because the case was referred to the city attorney and was still under investigation. The city attorney’s office will review the case, a spokesman said." The charges aren't fake, they are being referred to another jurisdiction. As your source clearly states it is still under investigation. |
|
|
|
am just trying to understand why some people in society are still skeptical about climate change even though there are scientific proof.
Pretty much anyone arguing against climate change has investments in accelerating change. That's pretty much the only logical conclusion to why people overwhelming deny the actual, scientific, peer reviewed information. Here you are again with another completely retarded fallacious argument that anyone who doesn't accept your conclusions must be the stooge of big oil. You are a stooge of the would be carbon swap market that would result from your moronic plans to effect cycles you have no proof that humans are causing to begin with. Now I win. See how stupid you sound? Bring some empirical data to the table. |
|
|
|
It's just not something a regular person can claim to understand. Nor can we directly experience it's impact.
But they do. Go back through this very thread, you will see dozens of people wailing about how hot it is and that it's climate change, and carbon emissions was obviously the reason.... Oh, wait...that was in the summer.... .....Climate change is too abstract to have an opinion on.
I find that every few years the secular world comes up with an end times prophecy. Amusing, isn't it? The concept of something being too abstract to have an opinion on I'm going to have to mull over. Offhand I believe the abstractness INVALIDATES statements of opinion. Do you have an OPINION on p versus np?I guess to be a bit more accurate, what I'm getting at it's hard for an intellectually curious person not involved in these fields to have a genuinely strong conviction based on their understanding. I tried looking at the data a couple of times. It's so heterogeneous that you'd need to know a lot about the technical details of measurement techniques to even start evaluating it. And many of these things you can't easily look up, and without significant resources you won't get around to play with. I'm sure many of us have an opinion or a gut feeling one way or another and that's fine. With something like P/NP, at least the "insiders" have less of an edge which is mostly access to other smart people thinking about it I guess? And it doesn't arouse your suspicion at all that hard data is so hard to find? |
|
|
|
bitcoin talk never fails to amaze me Lockpicking has always kind of been linked with hacking and technology in general. Lockpicking is surprisingly popular. A lot of people like to learn just for fun or to have a new skill. Some people like to really test their own security systems. Unfortunately there is always going to be the stigma of criminal activity associated with them, I think that is why some prefer to buy these with crypto. |
|
|
|
|
If they manually added the keys to a wallet, they probably spent them to a new wallet, which would compile them all into a single transaction.
|
|
|
|
I think capitalism is the best way to help people, everyone should depend on their own work, their own sweat, if God wanted us to have communism as a model he would've established this in the initial laws he gave to Moses, (everyone was entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on) first laws of humankind.
The irony is you are describing workers owning the means of production....socialism. Capitalism involves many people working one man's land. Socialism is the only mechanism by which everyone could obtain their own land/animals to work. Capitalists depend on the work of their workers. Most shareholders are not putting any sweat into what is being produced. You just love running around and redefining everything you like to Socialism don't you? Apparently to you everything is Socialism, except real Socialism. Socialism IS NOT the only method, and that statement is completely fallacious. Capitalists depend on workers. Workers depend on workers. We all depend on workers. WTF is your point? I see, so sweat is more valuable than financing is it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
