"Democracy" derail from "My new toy" thread...

[aspire1670]

Seth wrote:

Er, yes, even China is succumbing to Capitalism, which merely goes to prove that socialism is a failure.

No, it proves that communism is a failure.

It also disproves your slippery slope arguments, or at least shows that the slide is actually from inefficient fully state-run economies to some form of free enterprise, not the dreaded curse of creeping socialism...

Logic like this will have no effect on him, Jim. He's become so self-contradicting over the years, that I don't think there's any chance of ever hearing anything of logical consistency out of him. And it's been increasing in frequency lately, which is why I pretty much don't debate him any more. It's hard to believe that someone is actually that inconsistent. And while I've spoken out before against the notion that Seth is a troll (despite the fact that he self-proclaims it), it's getting harder and harder to hold that position.

Go fuck yourself, rEv. You're a troll just as much as I am, but you're not nearly as good at it as I am, and your arguments are extremely weak, so you have to resort to ad hom rather than confronting the debate. You've been doing the same thing for years, evading the debate and derailing it into personal invective because you're too fucking stupid to formulate a rational argument.

I'm starting a collection so young Seth can afford an operation to have his armchair removed from his arse. He is in need of spending much more time outside in the real world, and maybe getting laid (I could start a collection to pay for that). His posts have become too dumb to parody to the point where he is oblivious to the fact he's trolling himself. We must save Seth from himself.

[MrJonno]

Any regulation or control of the free market is a form of socialism, which means the very existance of nations is a distortion of the market

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Er, yes, even China is succumbing to Capitalism, which merely goes to prove that socialism is a failure.

No, it proves that communism is a failure.

It also disproves your slippery slope arguments, or at least shows that the slide is actually from inefficient fully state-run economies to some form of free enterprise, not the dreaded curse of creeping socialism...

Logic like this will have no effect on him, Jim. He's become so self-contradicting over the years, that I don't think there's any chance of ever hearing anything of logical consistency out of him. And it's been increasing in frequency lately, which is why I pretty much don't debate him any more. It's hard to believe that someone is actually that inconsistent. And while I've spoken out before against the notion that Seth is a troll (despite the fact that he self-proclaims it), it's getting harder and harder to hold that position.

Go fuck yourself, rEv. You're a troll just as much as I am, but you're not nearly as good at it as I am, and your arguments are extremely weak, so you have to resort to ad hom rather than confronting the debate. You've been doing the same thing for years, evading the debate and derailing it into personal invective because you're too fucking stupid to formulate a rational argument.

I'm starting a collection so young Seth can afford an operation to have his armchair removed from his arse. He is in need of spending much more time outside in the real world, and maybe getting laid (I could start a collection to pay for that). His posts have become too dumb to parody to the point where he is oblivious to the fact he's trolling himself. We must save Seth from himself.

Go fuck yourself, Aspire. You haven't the wit to cogently respond, which is why you engage in personal attacks exclusively.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

Er, yes, even China is succumbing to Capitalism, which merely goes to prove that socialism is a failure.

No, it proves that communism is a failure.

It also disproves your slippery slope arguments, or at least shows that the slide is actually from inefficient fully state-run economies to some form of free enterprise, not the dreaded curse of creeping socialism...

Logic like this will have no effect on him, Jim. He's become so self-contradicting over the years, that I don't think there's any chance of ever hearing anything of logical consistency out of him. And it's been increasing in frequency lately, which is why I pretty much don't debate him any more. It's hard to believe that someone is actually that inconsistent. And while I've spoken out before against the notion that Seth is a troll (despite the fact that he self-proclaims it), it's getting harder and harder to hold that position.

Go fuck yourself, rEv. You're a troll just as much as I am, but you're not nearly as good at it as I am, and your arguments are extremely weak, so you have to resort to ad hom rather than confronting the debate. You've been doing the same thing for years, evading the debate and derailing it into personal invective because you're too fucking stupid to formulate a rational argument.

Admittedly I troll you now, because your views are just too insane to not troll. But that's only a recent phenomenon. I never used to troll you.

[Jason]

as witness that treacherous little shit blair took us into an unwanted, unwinnable war in iraq despite the overwhelming objections of the people.

Errr... the war in Iraq was won, handily.

Errr... then why are you still occupying the country?

[pErvinalia]

Marxism is a political system, in which the means of production are owned by the proletariat,

correct, which states quite explicitly why Marxism is ludicrous. The "proletariat" is not an entity or group that is capable of "owning" the entire means of production of a community or country. That's like saying "everyone in Cobb County owns all the land in Cobb County." Obviously, if you suggest that "everyone" owns the land, then it's the same as nobody owning it. It's meaningless. The proletariat owning the means of production just means that whatever "state" exists is what will own the means of production. And, that means that the means of production is operated and regulated by majority vote or by elected representatives, which means that said political process will be what determines how much grain is grown, how many cows are raised, and how many carrots are grown and how much milk and juice is produced, and how many cars are produced, not based on whether there are customers or demand, but based on politics. That doesn't work.

and run purely for the benefit of that proletariat. Marxism is antagonistic to capitalism, and absorbs private enterprise into state run operations. Marxism is an absolute. You do not get a 'half Marxist' state. However, it is not uncommon for a nation to start out Marxist and devolve into an autocracy.

Socialism as practised by almost all western nations (including the USA) is simply the use of tax money to support those who are in need.

That isn't what socialism is. Marxism is a kind of socialism. It's when the means of production is controlled collectively. Welfare programs are not "socialist," necessarily. Having a government which taxes and spends is not "socialism" per se, even if it is spending on the less fortunate.

I agree with Blind Groper here. It's a bit of a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy both ways (towards both Socialism and Capitalism). If you insist that socialism is only the most purist forms of it, then others get to insist that capitalism is only the most purist forms of it. I hold that strong social democracies are neither more capitalist or more socialist particularly. They are both. Profit motive has been distorted; private property ownership has been distorted. It's certainly not a very good example of capitalism. But it's also not a pure form of socialism. It's both. IMO.

[JimC]

as witness that treacherous little shit blair took us into an unwanted, unwinnable war in iraq despite the overwhelming objections of the people.

Errr... the war in Iraq was won, handily.

Errr... then why are you still occupying the country?

It's certainly not a clear-cut win like previous wars, neither is it a loss, nor an endless running sore like Afghanistan.

It's all fuzzy, these days...

[pErvinalia]

It was a win in the sense that they got rid of Saddam and his henchmen. But they've turned the place into a sectarian civil war zone and a hotbed for terrorism. Well done.

[Jason]

Mission Accomplished!

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. Spectacular effort of turning a reasonably secular nation into an islamic terrorism hotbed. All in the name of allegedly "fighting terror".

[Kristie]

as witness that treacherous little shit blair took us into an unwanted, unwinnable war in iraq despite the overwhelming objections of the people.

Errr... the war in Iraq was won, handily.

Errr... then why are you still occupying the country?

It's certainly not a clear-cut win like previous wars, neither is it a loss, nor an endless running sore like Afghanistan.

It's all fuzzy, these days...

Too much gin?

[pErvinalia]

[Seth]

Yeah. Spectacular effort of turning a reasonably secular nation into an islamic terrorism hotbed. All in the name of allegedly "fighting terror".

You're fucking ignorant if you think that Saddam's regime was "reasonably secular."

[MrJonno]

Yeah. Spectacular effort of turning a reasonably secular nation into an islamic terrorism hotbed. All in the name of allegedly "fighting terror".

You're fucking ignorant if you think that Saddam's regime was "reasonably secular."

Actually extremely unreasonably secular

[Coito ergo sum]

as witness that treacherous little shit blair took us into an unwanted, unwinnable war in iraq despite the overwhelming objections of the people.

Errr... the war in Iraq was won, handily.

Errr... then why are you still occupying the country?

Well, the ability to occupy a country is a sign of a successful war, not an unsuccessful war.

And, we're not occupying their country, unless you consider an Embassy and some consulates, with about 17,000 total personal (mostly non-combat) in a country of 33 million people to be "occupying" the country. And, that was in 2011 -- we have fewer than that there now, and those that are there are there at the pleasure of the Iraqi government.

You said the war was "unwinnable." Ridiculous statement, actually. We so totally dominated Hussein's military in that war as to make it one of the most lopsided victories in history, and among the fastest take-downs of all time. The war was won. There was resistance from foreign insurgents and from Iraqi Baath party sympathizers in Iraq during the occupation phase, but the US won that too, with assistance from other coalition folks.

Unwinnable? There isn't a country in the world capable of doing what the US did in Iraq. That's not even reasonably debatable.