REEE: [It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answer

[mOgliE]

I am sorry that you are so emotionally weak that my words alone offend you so much you can not muster a reply. I am sure this is just not some refractory excuse to cover for the fact that you have no reply, no, it is because of what I DID.

Oh don't worry I'm not offended I just find that too funny to not appreciate it xD

Yeah, what a loon, asking for you to substantiate your ideology which has resulted in millions of lives lost, with some form of material fact. I should know better right? This is Postmodern loony tune land where logic is whatever you say it is at any given moment and everything is subjective and equally unprovable.

Again, you are making a premise. You hold the burden to prove that premise with empirical data. Real simple, day one stuff in pretty much any science, debate, or logic class.

Oh please please stop you gonna kill me 

[TECSHARE]

I am sorry that you are so emotionally weak that my words alone offend you so much you can not muster a reply. I am sure this is just not some refractory excuse to cover for the fact that you have no reply, no, it is because of what I DID.

Oh don't worry I'm not offended I just find that too funny to not appreciate it xD

Yeah, what a loon, asking for you to substantiate your ideology which has resulted in millions of lives lost, with some form of material fact. I should know better right? This is Postmodern loony tune land where logic is whatever you say it is at any given moment and everything is subjective and equally unprovable.

Again, you are making a premise. You hold the burden to prove that premise with empirical data. Real simple, day one stuff in pretty much any science, debate, or logic class.

Oh please please stop you gonna kill me  

What happened to all that ignoring you were gonna do? Oh right, you don't actually mean anything you say, you just use words to make you feel like you won something.

I am glad you find the foundational concepts of logic to be so hilarious.

[mOgliE]

What happened to all that ignoring you were gonna do? Oh right, you don't actually mean anything you say, you just use words to make you feel like you won something.

I am glad you find the foundational  concepts of logic to be so hilarious.

Can't ignore that, man, sorry really that's not charitable of me  

But god  

[TECSHARE]

What happened to all that ignoring you were gonna do? Oh right, you don't actually mean anything you say, you just use words to make you feel like you won something.

I am glad you find the foundational  concepts of logic to be so hilarious.

Can't ignore that, man, sorry really that's not charitable of me  

But god  

So do you plan on supporting your premise, or are you content with jerking off in public over your delusion of correctitude in a sad attempt to "fake it till you make it?"

[mOgliE]

So do you plan on supporting your premise, or are you content with jerking off in public over your delusion of correctitude in a sad attempt to "fake it till you make it?"

Oh no I'm pretty content with my current attitude 

I believe there is everything needed in this thread already. If somebody else doesn't understand where is your mistake... No where is the abyssal gap between reality and your understanding, I'll explain it. But right now there is everything needed in the previous posts.

You never worked in science or made any kind of science studies did you?

[TECSHARE]

So do you plan on supporting your premise, or are you content with jerking off in public over your delusion of correctitude in a sad attempt to "fake it till you make it?"

Oh no I'm pretty content with my current attitude 

I believe there is everything needed in this thread already. If somebody else doesn't understand where is your mistake... No where is the abyssal gap between reality and your understanding, I'll explain it. But right now there is everything needed in the previous posts.

You never worked in science or made any kind of science studies did you?

Why present evidence for your argument about Socialism and Communism when your confidence is clearly proof enough? Also why explain the gap in my logic when you can simply make a bunch of baseless accusations about me and my personal character?

[mOgliE]

Why present evidence for your argument about Socialism and Communism when your confidence is clearly proof enough? Also why explain the gap in my logic when you can simply make a bunch of baseless accusations about me and my personal character?

Ok ok you got a point I'm acting like an asshole here, but I'm quite enjoying it after suffering from your lack of logic and your aggressive attitude. 

How can I explain this to you...

Let's take something important and largely proved today: evolution theory.

How do you think Lamark and Darwin worked on the evolution theory without any knowledge of DNA?

Well they took the work of Carl Linnaeus who devided biological species by specified physical caracteristics but who put them as fixed and definitive because divine, and combine it with Pierre Louis Maupertuis idea that spontaneous degeneration could happen during reproduction and came with the idea that maybe those spontaneous degenerations could be the reason why there are different species. That's the birth of evolution theory.

But notice that when thinking about the first version of evolution theory, Darwin and Lamark have no empirical data proving their premise. Why? Because they combine two different phenomenon into one theory that has never been studied before.

That's exactly what's happening in the thread I created, I'm talking about combining direct democracy (which we know is possible and efficient in involving people into politics such as Switzerland proved) and socialism/communism (which we know has always failed because all previous implementations needed to give all power to one government hence transformed the country in a dictatorship).

And you're asking me emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

If you are done changing the definitions of your premise sufficiently then yes, I am asking for empirical data. Amazing you want people to take your words seriously but it too this long just to get you to clarify your premise? That is not a good sign. It will be next year by the time you manage to provide any empirical data, if it even exists, which I doubt.

But that's not possible! It doesn't exist and has never been done!!!

Following your reasonning, you need to back up all theory with empirical data to be allowed to discuss it. It means you can't discuss about things that have never been experimented, this is not scientific reasonning this is mind limitation.

Ask me how I see this system working (that's what Spendulus asked and I answered), ask me why it won't lead to a dictatorship, ask me how it will be managed in an international environment... But don't ask me empirical data, you can't have empirical data on something that doesn't exist.

That's where I think you are very limited in your reasoning and are not logical.

Cheers

[TECSHARE]

Why present evidence for your argument about Socialism and Communism when your confidence is clearly proof enough? Also why explain the gap in my logic when you can simply make a bunch of baseless accusations about me and my personal character?

Ok ok you got a point I'm acting like an asshole here, but I'm quite enjoying it after suffering from your lack of logic and your aggressive attitude. 

I really couldn't give a shit less how much of "an asshole" you choose to be. However pretending like you are making an argument by using logical fallacies and avoiding actual legitimate debate at all costs is pretty illustrative of your uninformed and childish nature.
When you can make a legitimate and intellectually honest argument, I assure you I am much more amicable. Until that time I have no reasons to afford you any courtesies of personal comfort because you seek obfuscation, not truth.

How can I explain this to you...

Let's take something important and largely proved today: evolution theory.

How do you think Lamark and Darwin worked on the evolution theory without any knowledge of DNA?

Well they took the work of Carl Linnaeus who devided biological species by specified physical caracteristics but who put them as fixed and definitive because divine, and combine it with Pierre Louis Maupertuis idea that spontaneous degeneration could happen during reproduction and came with the idea that maybe those spontaneous degenerations could be the reason why there are different species. That's the birth of evolution theory.

But notice that when thinking about the first version of evolution theory, Darwin and Lamark have no empirical data proving their premise. Why? Because they combine two different phenomenon into one theory that has never been studied before.

That's exactly what's happening in the thread I created, I'm talking about combining direct democracy (which we know is possible and efficient in involving people into politics such as Switzerland proved) and socialism/communism (which we know has always failed because all previous implementations needed to give all power to one government hence transformed the country in a dictatorship).

And you're asking me emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

I am not diverting off into YET ANOTHER endless side topic with you. You will notice however physical characteristics of animals IS EMPIRICAL DATA. Thanks for refuting your own diversion for me though.

I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.

So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism?

If you are done changing the definitions of your premise sufficiently then yes, I am asking for empirical data. Amazing you want people to take your words seriously but it too this long just to get you to clarify your premise? That is not a good sign. It will be next year by the time you manage to provide any empirical data, if it even exists, which I doubt.

But that's not possible! It doesn't exist and has never been done!!!

Following your reasonning, you need to back up all theory with empirical data to be allowed to discuss it. It means you can't discuss about things that have never been experimented, this is not scientific reasonning this is mind limitation.

Ask me how I see this system working (that's what Spendulus asked and I answered), ask me why it won't lead to a dictatorship, ask me how it will be managed in an international environment... But don't ask me empirical data, you can't have empirical data on something that doesn't exist.

That's where I think you are very limited in your reasoning and are not logical.

Cheers

Plenty of things that have never been done are supported with empirical data before they are achieved. In fact practically EVERY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT was studied, and data collected regarding the concept BEFORE it was ever created in reality. You are not just talking about philosophy and subjective ideas, you are talking about changing objective government policy. As a result you don't get to simply use the subjective nature of the premise YOU PUSH as an excuse for not supporting HOW it would be implemented and WHY it would work, using empirical data to support your premise.


PRESENT A PREMISE ABOUT COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM AND SUPPORT IT WITH EMPIRICAL DATA.

Until you do this you have no argument and this is all just an extremely complicated dance you do to do ANYTHING BUT present a clear premise, because then you would have to defend it, and you are not confident you can.

[mOgliE]

Ah well I tried to explain you...

But if you're limited enough to think science and logic can't be done without empirical data... Most scientific questions are debated and imagined at first without empirical data, with just unproved hypothesis (assumptions) and logical reasonning. Please go to any science university to see how classes are done!

Of course empirical data is, most of the time, essential to go forward and declare you managed to prove something.

But to limit yourself to discuss only with empirical data...

Well at least you're sure to never be wrong  

Oh and just a small precision:

I am not diverting off into YET ANOTHER endless side topic with you. You will notice however physical characteristics of animals IS EMPIRICAL DATA. Thanks for refuting your own diversion for me though.

Yeah and it was collected By Darwin and Lamark AFTER they imagined their theory, took them about 10 years of field research. That's what allowed them to go from "an imagined theory" to a damned solid theory accepted by most.

[coins4commies]

He doesn't really want empirical data.  He just wants an endless cycle back to where you are now.  If you give him empirical data, he will say that it is invalid because it doesn't come from a system done to scale and if you don't give him empirical data at all (because this system has never been done at a large scale), then your entire argument is invalid anyway. 

[TECSHARE]

Ah well I tried to explain you...

But if you're limited enough to think science and logic can't be done without empirical data... Most scientific questions are debated and imagined at first without empirical data, with just unproved hypothesis (assumptions) and logical reasonning. Please go to any science university to see how classes are done!

Of course empirical data is, most of the time, essential to go forward and declare you managed to prove something.

But to limit yourself to discuss only with empirical data...

Well at least you're sure to never be wrong  

Oh and just a small precision:

I am not diverting off into YET ANOTHER endless side topic with you. You will notice however physical characteristics of animals IS EMPIRICAL DATA. Thanks for refuting your own diversion for me though.

Yeah and it was collected By Darwin and Lamark AFTER they imagined their theory, took them about 10 years of field research. That's what allowed them to go from "an imagined theory" to a damned solid theory accepted by most.

More Postmodernist relativist mindmush. Instead of admitting empirical data is critical to any science you make up some assbackward argument about how theory is just as important because it comes first, even thought it remains to be a theory until proven with empirical data. Because in your mind "empirical data is not required for logic or science", and this some how makes empirical data less critical to science does it?

Without empirical data you can not quantify anything. Without being able to quantify anything you don't have science, you have theory, philosophy, and beliefs. You seem to want to wrap your beliefs in a layer of science to give it the appearance of credibility. This little dance you are doing to avoid stating a premise and backing it with empirical data is pretty good evidence of this.

[mOgliE]

He doesn't really want empirical data.  He just wants an endless cycle back to where you are now.  If you give him empirical data, he will say that it is invalid because it doesn't come from a system done to scale and if you don't give him empirical data at all (because this system has never been done at a large scale), then your entire argument is invalid anyway. 

Yeah pretty much.

I've seen him refuse empirical data in pretty every subject other were able to provide it (climate change, firearm debate...) simply because he doesn't like it...

More Postmodernist relativist mindmush. Instead of admitting empirical data is critical to any science you make up some assbackward argument about how theory is just as important because it comes first, even thought it remains to be a theory until proven with empirical data. Because in your mind "empirical data is not required for logic or science", and this some how makes empirical data less critical to science does it?

Without empirical data you can not quantify anything. Without being able to quantify anything you don't have science, you have theory, philosophy, and beliefs. You seem to want to wrap your beliefs in a layer of science to give it the appearance of credibility. This little dance you are doing to avoid stating a premise and backing it with empirical data is pretty good evidence of this.

Don't know what to say anymore. Please just to go to a scientific school...

I got an engineer degree and I can tell you IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY
That's all.

How do you think quantum physics was discovered and theorized? That people magically found empirical data about something that was never even thought about? Of course not. They saw a problem and proposed different logical explanation without any kind of proof or data. And AFTERWARDS they test it with experiment and prove it with empirical data...

If what you want to say is that my idea isn't proved you're not only stupid, you basically don't know how to read xD

[Spendulus]

He doesn't really want empirical data.  He just wants an endless cycle back to where you are now.  If you give him empirical data, he will say that it is invalid because it doesn't come from a system done to scale and if you don't give him empirical data at all (because this system has never been done at a large scale), then your entire argument is invalid anyway. 

Yeah pretty much.

I've seen him refuse empirical data in pretty every subject other were able to provide it (climate change, firearm debate...) simply because he doesn't like it...

More Postmodernist relativist mindmush. Instead of admitting empirical data is critical to any science you make up some assbackward argument about how theory is just as important because it comes first, even thought it remains to be a theory until proven with empirical data. Because in your mind "empirical data is not required for logic or science", and this some how makes empirical data less critical to science does it?

Without empirical data you can not quantify anything. Without being able to quantify anything you don't have science, you have theory, philosophy, and beliefs. You seem to want to wrap your beliefs in a layer of science to give it the appearance of credibility. This little dance you are doing to avoid stating a premise and backing it with empirical data is pretty good evidence of this.

Don't know what to say anymore. Please just to go to a scientific school...

I got an engineer degree and I can tell you IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY
That's all.

How do you think quantum physics was discovered and theorized? That people magically found empirical data about something that was never even thought about? Of course not. They saw a problem and proposed different logical explanation without any kind of proof or data. And AFTERWARDS they test it with experiment and prove it with empirical data...

If what you want to say is that my idea isn't proved you're not only stupid, you basically don't know how to read xD

Since there's well over a century of "experimentation" with communist theory, any fool that wanted to argue for communism should have ample empirical data to argue with.

[mOgliE]

Since there's well over a century of "experimentation" with communist theory, any fool that wanted to argue for communism should have ample empirical data to argue with.

Yeah you got all the data you want to discuss communism in a representative government, a revolutionnary movement or a pure and simple dictatorship after a coup and how it all switches to dictatorship rather quickly.

But you have nothing even similar to communism in a direct democracy as far as I know.

By the way you haven't answered to my explanation after your question on how would such system work. Always curious to have the criticism of someone so largely on the opposite side of pretty much everything ^^

[Spendulus]

Since there's well over a century of "experimentation" with communist theory, any fool that wanted to argue for communism should have ample empirical data to argue with.

Yeah you got all the data you want to discuss communism in a representative government, a revolutionnary movement or a pure and simple dictatorship after a coup and how it all switches to dictatorship rather quickly.

But you have nothing even similar to communism in a direct democracy as far as I know.

By the way you haven't answered to my explanation after your question on how would such system work. Always curious to have the criticism of someone so largely on the opposite side of pretty much everything ^^

I think there have been several attempts at direct democracy communism in villages and towns in America, and they failed miserably. There are likely quite a few others I am not aware of.

The way to fix the problem of someone being largely on the opposite side is to fix your views so they are correct. The way to start toward fixing views is to stop being a sniveling little post-deleting-coward in discussion. Obviously you'll have to discuss in this thread, the one in which you cannot delete posts you do not like, if you want to continue this.

[mOgliE]

I think there have been several attempts at direct democracy communism in villages and towns in America, and they failed miserably. There are likely quite a few others I am not aware of.

Never heard of it, would be interesting if you've any name.

The way to fix the problem of someone being largely on the opposite side is to fix your views so they are correct. The way to start toward fixing views is to stop being a sniveling little post-deleting-coward in discussion. Obviously you'll have to discuss in this thread, the one in which you cannot delete posts you do not like, if you want to continue this.

Never deleted anything but TECSHARE posts after his number 15 useless post saying the same thing again and again. I don't want an endless discussion that's all. Isn't it obvious enough in this thread that our exchanges aren't constructive?

TECHSHARE: "You don't have empirical data to back your premise"
Me: "Yeah the thing doesn't has never been implemented it's theoretical discussion"
TECHSHARE: "It's not science or logic if there is no empirical data"
Me: "Most scientific work start without empirical data, that just means I have no proof it's a good thing but I never said I had such proof"
TECHSHARE: "So you have an unclear premise without empirical data it means you're doing religions not science"
Me: "Man you often start thinking without empirical data, data comes after to VALIDATE your theory not always before to build it..."
TECHSHARE: "You don't have empirical data to back your premise"

See how useful it is as a discussion?

Edit: which makes this thread not really interesting by the way... Except for your short question and my answer it's just ping pong between TECSHARE and me...

[Spendulus]

...
Never deleted anything ...

So if not you, who is the profligate, irresponsible and degenerate post-deleter of your thread's content, of which you are the moderator?

All I did was note that there certainly was empirical data. Given the poor levels of education today I certainly do understand that people might not be aware of it. Speaking of which, TECSHARE keeps mentioning "Postmodernist relativist mindmush"
and several other concepts. Anyone who doesn't understand these concepts will remain a useful idiot only...

Just think, one could learn things, then gravitate from useful idiot to true evil, lol...

I think there have been several attempts at direct democracy communism in villages and towns in America, and they failed miserably. There are likely quite a few others I am not aware of.

Never heard of it, would be interesting if you've any name.

I had one in mind, but perhaps it is better to peruse the list? I do not know what exactly you have in mind as "never been tried."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities

[TECSHARE]

Edit: which makes this thread not really interesting by the way... Except for your short question and my answer it's just ping pong between TECSHARE and me...

You are playing ping pong with yourself. I am holding you to the same standard that anyone else who wants to convince people of a point are held to. Just because you rationalize your responsibility to explain your position away doesn't mean I am irrational for repeating myself in this instance. You want the discussion to move forward? State a clear premise and support it with empirical data. ANY empirical data, like the rest of the educated world.