Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live. Horrible true story

[TheCBF]

It's a combination that works, whether looking at enterprise (social or corporate), healthcare (private or state funded) or schools, transport, food production, etc. The observations about Venezuela in this thread are in part correct, but there was an identifiable level of corruption and over reliance on socialist (borderline communist) principles, along with poor leadership, faux concern for the populous, sanctions and other external actions that stressed the system enough so it broke. The internal issues being evident through the ongoing actions of the leadership.

People are naturally community oriented and will always strive to cooperatively support their families, community, city, nation and so on as it's inherently, perhaps even instinctually, recognised as the best thing on the micro and macro scale. If every individual was isolationist, self-focused and disregarded their place in society then society would fall apart overnight. People understand that cooperation and yes, social support and social welfare, in whatever shape it takes, is a necessity and an inherently good thing for society overall.

In a modern world it is right and proper that fundamental needs are safeguarded for the individual and community. Be that shelter, education, healthcare, food, water, security, etc., as without those there is no bedrock on which to build. Where an individual cannot support themselves, permanently or temporarily, social welfare should be available. However, being a citizen, a member of a family, community or organisation comes with responsibilities. Some of that responsibility is in not abusing the support on offer and understanding it is available only for those in dire times. The rest of the time individuals are obligated to safeguard themselves in these terms, to become educated, stay healthy, engage in free markets, creative production, building commerce and industry for example. This ensures that it isn't take take take to a point of collapse.

As with most things it requires a balance and an assumption of personal responsibility, built on effective cooperation.

CBF

[1714965327]

1714965327

[1714965327]

1714965327

[1714965327]

1714965327

[1714965327]

1714965327

[1714965327]

1714965327

[coins4commies]

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

[Spendulus]

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

You really should study up on proper ways to cite literature. It's not to go gung ho in a direction you are already biased on, with one study that seems to support you.

Science doesn't work that way at all.

[coins4commies]

Posts on this website are generally informal and not intended to be taken as an attempt at scientific literature. 

[TECSHARE]

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

"widely accepted truths", often times known as a lot of dumb people in a room reassuring each other. It is a fact that psychology is the least scientific of the accepted sciences, because by their nature they lack empirical requirements such as controls, repeatable results, and direct observation among other things. Your sources had failed methodologies such as being based on surveys. I dismissed your surveys because they are not only a wildly unreliable source of information, but one which is easily manipulable, not just because "psychology is a farce". The point was that even if everything you presented was correct, it would still be of the lowest forms of evidence available. You don't cite anything because you don't have the capability to competently review your sources, and you know that I do. Everything I don't support is not, "deconstructive postmodernism" (its deconstructivist btw), just the vast majority of what you have to offer. Are you insinuating that Holodomor happened because of a drought now? And I am the pseudo-scientist?

[JaredKaragen]

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

"widely accepted truths", often times known as a lot of dumb people in a room reassuring each other. It is a fact that psychology is the least scientific of the accepted sciences, because by their nature they lack empirical requirements such as controls, repeatable results, and direct observation among other things. Your sources had failed methodologies such as being based on surveys. I dismissed your surveys because they are not only a wildly unreliable source of information, but one which is easily manipulable, not just because "psychology is a farce". The point was that even if everything you presented was correct, it would still be of the lowest forms of evidence available. You don't cite anything because you don't have the capability to competently review your sources, and you know that I do. Everything I don't support is not, "deconstructive postmodernism" (its deconstructivist btw), just the vast majority of what you have to offer. Are you insinuating that Holodomor happened because of a drought now? And I am the pseudo-scientist?

TECSHARE is actually extremely on-point.

I really think the subject of this thread should actually read: "Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live in poverty. Horrible true story";  because historically, and presently:  This is the truth when seen from an objective eye analyzing past and present data.  Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

For instance in California;  people actually believe the last "drought" [when it was actually just a water shortage] was caused by "climate change/global warming/etc..."  when in fact California simply ran extremely low on water reserves because they local government decided to flush all stocks of water from pretty much all of the reservoirs in the year and a half prior;  there was very heavy rains in the preceding years, and they assumed it would continue as such.  

These people are driven by the same mentality that the sea level should/will never change;  not being understanding of the fact that elevation is based on sea level, and not the other way around....   As a professional land surveyor;  I can attest to the face that the ground moves;  a LOT more than you would expect.  

Not to mention: that pumping mass amounts of water out of the ground for drinking caused the city of Palo Alto to sink pretty far below sea level, and the water district continually pumps mass amounts of water back into the ground to offset and keep it from sinking further.  Go ahead;  look it up.

But people never wish to factor in aspects that go against their perceived notions when it comes to studying a thing in the first place.   Statistics are only as good as the datum inserted and the parameters formed by the person with an objective for a particular result.

Now im not quoting or linking citations, but at least i'm being extremely clear about what is and isn't; in an extremely easy to verify way.  It is courteous to do such when speaking in such a manner.

[coins4commies]

Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

[TECSHARE]

Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

https://i.redd.it/93kjpbtearg21.jpg

So what is your argument, that because other people call these things Socialist, they must actually be Socialist? Socialists love to call the fruits of Capitalism Socialist, and the rot of Socialism Capitalist. This is why I have no respect for you, you can't manage basic levels of logic and you claim to educate people for a living. You are a fraud.

[coins4commies]

Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

https://i.redd.it/93kjpbtearg21.jpg

So what is your argument, that because other people call these things Socialist, they must actually be Socialist? Socialists love to call the fruits of Capitalism Socialist, and the rot of Socialism Capitalist. This is why I have no respect for you, you can't manage basic levels of logic and you claim to educate people for a living. You are a fraud.

Ask me a question and then answer it yourself. Cool! Live, artisanal strawman crafting! Then ad-hominem attacks based on the weakness of the argument that you just crafted on my behalf.  You don't even need me.  You could literally do this with a tree and it would be exactly the same.

My argument is that I don't care about semantics at all and that you want to make the entire discussion one based on semantics so that the policies cannot be discussed.  If you were to get passed semantics then your go to talking points will all be null and void.  You are that meme.    I'll let you call things whatever you want but I will call you out for inconsistency.   Its either socialism and it works or its not socialism and no one is trying to create socialism.  

I'll just focus on the individual policies and those are the policies I'm advocating.  

[JaredKaragen]

*snip*
Ask me a question and then answer it yourself. Cool! Live, artisanal strawman crafting! Then ad-hominem attacks based on the weakness of the argument that you just crafted on my behalf.  You don't even need me.  You could literally do this with a tree and it would be exactly the same.
.... *snip*

Its called asking a question while giving ones own perspective for congruence and creates less useless back and forth talk.  

Please... drop the attitude... it doesn't help your case.

A simple answer goes a long way.

[TECSHARE]

Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

https://i.redd.it/93kjpbtearg21.jpg

So what is your argument, that because other people call these things Socialist, they must actually be Socialist? Socialists love to call the fruits of Capitalism Socialist, and the rot of Socialism Capitalist. This is why I have no respect for you, you can't manage basic levels of logic and you claim to educate people for a living. You are a fraud.

Ask me a question and then answer it yourself. Cool! Live, artisanal strawman crafting! Then ad-hominem attacks based on the weakness of the argument that you just crafted on my behalf.  You don't even need me.  You could literally do this with a tree and it would be exactly the same.

My argument is that I don't care about semantics at all and that you want to make the entire discussion one based on semantics so that the policies cannot be discussed.  If you were to get passed semantics then your go to talking points will all be null and void.  You are that meme.    I'll let you call things whatever you want but I will call you out for inconsistency.   Its either socialism and it works or its not socialism and no one is trying to create socialism.  

I'll just focus on the individual policies and those are the policies I'm advocating.  

Your total lack of self awareness and ability for projection is amazing. Either that or you are completely disingenuous. This is classic "accuse your opponent of the crimes you yourself are guilty of", is right out of the Nazi propaganda tactics as well as Saul Alinski's Rules For Radicals. Your entire argument was a semantic one with no logical basis, then you accuse me of using semantics as a defense. This may work on people with low levels of awareness and low intelligence such as yourself, but it doesn't work for everybody.

[coins4commies]

People make personal attacks to avoid having to argue with the real points.  Its a sign of someone who lacks relevant points in the actual discussion and you are doing it in almost every post.

I'll keep pushing for workers' rights, universal healthcare, education, and housing without any real concern for what its called.  You can either debate the actual issues or keep looking for a semantic debate on outdated concepts, linking them to 20th century systems of government and sprinkling in personal attacks.