Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 79
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    of course there's no need to do anything like kill them.
    Not a "logical" need, but it certainly seems like a typical government move.
    Whoever is willing to by arms and force remove property, is also very typically more than willing to kill in order to achieve that goal.
    It is at the very least a "necessary" risk.

    ---------- Post added at 08:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It seems the general issue is that you are using what appears to be a self-made definition of "gossip" as opposed to "gossip" as it is defined in the dictionary and generally used by people. Gossip generally means idle chit-chat about others. It does not correspond to any and all claims that are not backed up with sufficient evidence to convince another that they are true.

    So while I offer a few semi-challenges below (not really leaning on the button yet), you should support that the definition of "gossip" that you are using is correct with a valid external source as opposed to relying solely on how you view the word.
    This is a good summary I think, most of your other responses rely on this central contention. So I will address it directly. EXCELLENT on your part for this concise objection.

    https://www.wordnik.com/words/gossip

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    noun Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.
    noun A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts.
    noun Trivial, chatty talk or writing.
    .....
    noun Idle talk, as of one friend or acquaintance to another; especially, confidential or minutely personal remarks about other people; tattle; scandal; trifling or groundless report.
    These are three separate ideas, each not necessary for the idea of "gossip".
    so if you are spreading true intimate ans sensational information on a person.. you are gossiping.
    If you are spreading Rumors(IE unverified information that you heard someone say, which may or may not be true) then you are engaging in gossip.

    A central idea in all of it is the "rumor" and "groundless" nature. It isn't NECESSARY, but in the general sense it should be highly suspected as possible.

    ---
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gossip
    this source supports more of your understanding, as it relies heavily on the concept of "Idle chitchat".

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/gossip
    This source more supports my use. Involving the concept of "rumor".

    https://www.yourdictionary.com/gossip
    This source omits both the idle chitchat, and the rumor aspect and concentrates on the personal information of others as the central concept.

    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...english/gossip
    this kinda has all of them. There is a concept of "talking informally" in some of the uses.
    It's British in nature.. so... there is that.

    http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/gossip
    the broadest of all. Basically if it is about behavior and information of other people, it is gossip.

    ---
    So my use is WELL within the concepts attached to the idea of "gossip". It appears to me that you have object along the lines of it violating the "informal" or "Idle chitchat" concept also typically connected with the word. Which I readily concede it does not fulfill that concept. That however is clearly not a necessary concept for the proper use, it is A version.
    My contention is that just because a newspaper says it, or a thing is said in a public and formal manner, doesn't mean it isn't still gossip in nature. A microphone and a camera and removing the back yard fense, doesn't change the nature of the content of what is being said.

    Consider this official example..
    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...english/gossip
    "Anonymous sources told gossip websites that the relationship is serious."
    Now the point of the sentence is to show that you can call a website a gossip website, and a problem with all the examples in regards to our discussion is that it isn't giving examples of sentences that are themselves gossip. However here we kinda get a hint. So no notice that it is an anonymous source, and that it is unverified information about other people that is the substance of the gossip presumably to be printed by the gossip website.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Yes. Explain how what I described does not qualify as "I heard so and so say that so and so did x"
    Because it ignores the cultural context. IE we learned in history about those events. We saw in documentaries and live footage of those events in general.
    If it were ONLY what your saying.. you are correct. But your objection appeals to the hidden premise that it is reasonable.

    I mean, to make it a correct analogy, suppose a 20 year old Jewish man came to America from Germany and said he had JUST escaped from a Nazi concentration camp and he has the tattoos to prove it.
    How is that different than your example? Isn't it the same form?
    To serve man.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Wrong. Under socialism you don't start with owners and workers and then get rid of the owners. There were never any owners to begin with so there was never any out-group to get rid of.

    Or if you mean that if we transitioned from a Capitalist society to a socialist society, then that would create an out-group that would need to be eliminated. Yes, there could be no more owners but of course there's no need to do anything like kill them. The owners would become workers so as individuals, they would leave the out group and join the in group And once the society is probably socialistic, there would be no out group

    But regardless, this in no way rebuts my previous argument so that argument still stands. To repeat:

    According to the DEFINITION of socialism, there would be no out-group since everyone would belong to the one group as far as the economy goes.
    We currently have workers and owners as defined by socialists. So, any person who identifies as socialist has the end goal of eliminating the owners. Now, whether that means killing them or something else, I never specified. Your offered the suggestion that they could be killed off. And, certainly, we have seen that play out around the world. In any case, all that matters for this OP is that right now, there are workers and owners in the socialist parlance and we both agree that socialists want the owners eliminated, making them an out-group. I can't think of many things more divisive than the attempted elimination of a group or class of people.

    Seeing as that your definition only applies to the goal of socialism, not the transformation and seeing that the current economy of the U.S. is not socialism per your definition, then your definition is insufficient.

    ---------- Post added at 07:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    In theory, yes.

    Believing a group of people need to be eliminated isn't divisive?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure it does. Your own stupid propaganda arm is always referring to people in terms of "makers" and "takers". Atlas Shrugged? Hello?

    1. Support or retract that Ayn Rand or Objectivism is my propaganda arm (whatever the hell that may mean).
    2. So, in Atlas Shrugged how does Ayn Rand propose dealing with the so-called takers?
    3. How many Republicans in Congress are Objectivists? I know of only one. I am guessing most Americans have no idea what it is.
    4. Is Capitalism synonymous with Objectivism?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Pointing out that conflict occurs isn't advocating for that conflict.
    Let's go back to the top of this post where you acknowledged that owners need to be eliminated (in theory). Sounds like more than pointing out a conflict to me.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  4. #43
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. Support or retract that Ayn Rand or Objectivism is my propaganda arm (whatever the hell that may mean).
    Ok, not yours. The conservative propaganda arm. "Makers" and "takers" is commonly used.

    ---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    2. So, in Atlas Shrugged how does Ayn Rand propose dealing with the so-called takers?
    Don't the makers move away? Not sure, only read a few paragraphs in HS and saw those awful movies.

    ---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    3. How many Republicans in Congress are Objectivists? I know of only one. I am guessing most Americans have no idea what it is.
    Does it matter? Do they have to be card carrying members? If they conform or spew and of that BS we can lump them together.

    ---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    4. Is Capitalism synonymous with Objectivism?
    Doesn't it? Does it matter? How are they different?

    ---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Believing a group of people need to be eliminated isn't divisive?
    I suppose. How many tears did you shed for the typesetters?

    ---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Let's go back to the top of this post where you acknowledged that owners need to be eliminated (in theory). Sounds like more than pointing out a conflict to me.
    Yes, socialism suggests a solution whereby owners become obsolete...that job goes away just like any other can.

  5. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We currently have workers and owners as defined by socialists. So, any person who identifies as socialist has the end goal of eliminating the owners. Now, whether that means killing them or something else, I never specified. Your offered the suggestion that they could be killed off. And, certainly, we have seen that play out around the world. In any case, all that matters for this OP is that right now, there are workers and owners in the socialist parlance and we both agree that socialists want the owners eliminated, making them an out-group. I can't think of many things more divisive than the attempted elimination of a group or class of people.

    Seeing as that your definition only applies to the goal of socialism, not the transformation and seeing that the current economy of the U.S. is not socialism per your definition, then your definition is insufficient.
    You were referring to the central construct of socialism ("Capitalist theory does not designate in-groups and out-groups. Socialist theory does and is the central construct of such theory"), not what might happen when a society moves from a different economic system to socialism. You’re basically moving the goalposts now.

    So I take it you concede that in groups and out groups are not a central aspect of socialism itself. In other words, once a socialist economic system is fully implemented, there should be no in groups or out groups. In theory, that is.
    Last edited by mican333; July 23rd, 2019 at 08:58 AM.

  6. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  7. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You were referring to the central construct of socialism ("Capitalist theory does not designate in-groups and out-groups. Socialist theory does and is the central construct of such theory"), not what might happen when a society moves from a different economic system to socialism. You’re basically moving the goalposts now.

    So I take it you concede that in groups and out groups are not a central aspect of socialism itself. In other words, once a socialist economic system is fully implemented, there should be no in groups or out groups. In theory, that is.
    That seems a lot like saying.
    The KKK doesn't have in groups and out groups in theory. Because after all the minorities are killed, then there are only white people and the end goal is actually in effect, then there are no out groups.
    Therefore, the KKK is not divisive.
    To serve man.

  8. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not a "logical" need, but it certainly seems like a typical government move.
    Whoever is willing to by arms and force remove property, is also very typically more than willing to kill in order to achieve that goal.
    It is at the very least a "necessary" risk.
    Going by examples in the US, about the only way things will turn violent is if the person refuses to give up his property and takes an armed stand.

    And while violence is a risk in any large-scale transition where the transition is highly unpopular with some, that's an aspect of human nature and can apply to ANY KIND of transition and therefore this issue says nothing about socialism itself (which is what this portion of the debate is centered around).

    So in short, this is kind of off-topic.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    These are three separate ideas, each not necessary for the idea of "gossip".
    so if you are spreading true intimate ans sensational information on a person.. you are gossiping.
    If you are spreading Rumors(IE unverified information that you heard someone say, which may or may not be true) then you are engaging in gossip.

    Regardless of true or not, the nature of gossip is intimate and sensational information on a person. You can gossip about a divorce that it actually happening and you can gossip about a divorce that you heard from an unverified source is happening.

    And playing around with dictionary definitions to technically wrangle a definition that technically corresponds to your use of the word is really missing the primary issue here. The dictionary is not an objective source of definition as in there is a Definition God who decides what words mean then those are the objective definitions of words. The dictionary observes how people use words and then records it. So words mean what people think they mean and likewise when you use a commonly understood word, you are telling people of the concept they think of when they hear the word.

    People generally disregard gossip because it's idle chatter about other people's drama, not because it's not verified. Even stuff that is verified is still disregarded for being gossip. Taking something that does not qualify as gossip as people define gossip and telling them that it's gossip is misleading them. You are telling them that it is idle chatter because that's what they think gossip is. And if it's not actually idle chatter, then you have mislead them by using that word.

    And now that you are aware of this, to continue to use the word gossip when it does not fit the definition of the word as whoever might read your post is to INTENTIONALLY mislead them. You are aware that you are miscommunicating with your word usage but continue to do it anyway. It would be like me "accurately" calling you a bigot because you are bigoted against pedophiles (because who isn't?). But I am aware that if I directly call you a bigot, people will think that you are bigoted against blacks or jews or in some other way that is not socially acceptable so because I am aware of how the word the word is commonly defined by people, I eon't call you a bigot because I don't want to give someone the wrong impression by using a definition that they don't use. And you are essentially doing the same by not using the definition of "gossip" that you KNOW that everyone else uses.

    If all you mean by "gossip" is "unverified claim", then how about just say "unverified claim" instead of using a word that has A LOT more to it than "unverified claim" that does not correspond to every unverified claim?




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because it ignores the cultural context. IE we learned in history about those events. We saw in documentaries and live footage of those events in general.
    If it were ONLY what your saying.. you are correct.

    But your objection appeals to the hidden premise that it is reasonable.

    I mean, to make it a correct analogy, suppose a 20 year old Jewish man came to America from Germany and said he had JUST escaped from a Nazi concentration camp and he has the tattoos to prove it.
    How is that different than your example? Isn't it the same form?
    Well, just address my analogy.

    And I have yet to see how my scenario does not qualify as "someone telling so and so and that so and so did X". IF there is some cultural context that makes it NOT a case of so and so telling so and so, please tell me because so far I don't see any coherent reason of why it wouldn't be that.

    ---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That seems a lot like saying.
    The KKK doesn't have in groups and out groups in theory. Because after all the minorities are killed, then there are only white people and the end goal is actually in effect, then there are no out groups.
    Therefore, the KKK is not divisive.
    The KKKs theory is that everyone who is not white should be killed so the theory is inherently divisive. There is no way to transition to the kind of world they want without killing people.

    Socialism does not advocate that non-socialists be killed. That's the difference.

    And it’s even theoretically possible to transition to a socialist society without any strife whatsoever. If everyone in the society agreed that socialism is best, then everyone would volunteer to shift society to socialism. So a societal change to socialism does not necessarily have to result in any violence at all.

  9. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You were referring to the central construct of socialism ("Capitalist theory does not designate in-groups and out-groups. Socialist theory does and is the central construct of such theory"), not what might happen when a society moves from a different economic system to socialism. You’re basically moving the goalposts now.

    So I take it you concede that in groups and out groups are not a central aspect of socialism itself. In other words, once a socialist economic system is fully implemented, there should be no in groups or out groups. In theory, that is.

    Socialist theory includes the transition to socialism which is a reason I noted the definition you provided was insufficient.

    ---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Ok, not yours. The conservative propaganda arm. "Makers" and "takers" is commonly used.
    Please support or retract your statement that "makers and takers" is commonly used among the members of the GOP.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Don't the makers move away? Not sure, only read a few paragraphs in HS and saw those awful movies.
    You mean you don't have a clue. An unsupported contention must either be supported or withdrawn.

    ---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Does it matter? Do they have to be card carrying members? If they conform or spew and of that BS we can lump them together.
    Facts matter, yes.

    ---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Doesn't it? Does it matter? How are they different?
    You appear to be using the two interchangeably. You've already admitted you very little idea what Objectivism is. So, how can you claim they are both the same? Either support this claim or retract it.

    ---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I suppose. How many tears did you shed for the typesetters?
    You admit that socialists wish to eliminate an entire group or class of people. Again, this would be divisive. Your question is not relevant.

    ---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Yes, socialism suggests a solution whereby owners become obsolete...that job goes away just like any other can.
    Not just obsolete. They wish to eliminate them. This is different. Nobody sought to eliminate typesetters. Their jobs became obsolete. Not because one group went after them, but because the natural emergence of new technologies emerged. Typesetters were not an out-group.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Socialist theory includes the transition to socialism which is a reason I noted the definition you provided was insufficient.
    Please support this assertion with a link about socialist theory indicating transition. As far as I know socialism does not specify the socialist method of transitioning to socialism and the notion doesn't make much sense to me so I doubt it's part of the theory. So I reject this assertion until you provide support for it. And again, use a link for support.

  11. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Please support this assertion with a link about socialist theory indicating transition. As far as I know socialism does not specify the socialist method of transitioning to socialism and the notion doesn't make much sense to me so I doubt it's part of the theory. So I reject this assertion until you provide support for it. And again, use a link for support.
    "The Communist Manifesto made it clear that the act of bringing the proletariat to power was an act of revolution."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/cli...nin3/ch05.html

    You cannot have socialism without the transition.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  12. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    "The Communist Manifesto made it clear that the act of bringing the proletariat to power was an act of revolution."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/cli...nin3/ch05.html

    You cannot have socialism without the transition.
    Yes you can. If a society is socialist upon its creation, it will not need to transition in order to be socialist.

    And the quote you provided is regarding communism, not socialism. They are not synonymous. They are two different things with separate definitions.
    Last edited by mican333; July 23rd, 2019 at 01:10 PM.

  13. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes you can. If a society is socialist upon its creation, it will not need to transition in order to be socialist.

    And the quote you provided is regarding communism, not socialism. They are not synonymous. They are two different things with separate definitions.
    The ****ing title of the paper is
    The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism


    I will await an actual rebuttal.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The ****ing title of the paper is
    The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism

    I will await an actual rebuttal.
    First off, The title of the paper was not in your post so there’s no reason for you to get snotty about that. Besides that, it doesn’t change the fact that your quote was not about socialism but communism. So I did provide an actual rebuttal.

    And another actual rebuttal I will repeat.


    If s society starts off as socialist, there will never be a need for it to transition to socialism and therefore it is possible for the socialist society to never have to transition to socialism and therefore a transition is not a necessary part of socialism.

    I will await an actual rebuttal to THAT.

  15. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, The title of the paper was not in your post so there’s no reason for you to get snotty about that. Besides that, it doesn’t change the fact that your quote was not about socialism but communism. So I did provide an actual rebuttal.

    And another actual rebuttal I will repeat.


    If s society starts off as socialist, there will never be a need for it to transition to socialism and therefore it is possible for the socialist society to never have to transition to socialism and therefore a transition is not a necessary part of socialism.

    I will await an actual rebuttal to THAT.
    The title was in the link which you asked me to provide. I can only assume one reads links when they ask for them. My bad. Since you didn't read more than the actual quote, I am not sure how you have any idea what the context of the quote may be. So, instead of you merely providing me an uh-uh response. Please support your conclusion that the quote is as you say it is.

    You are asking a question to which Marx would say is impossible. You cannot simply start with socialism since the required conflict between worker and owner is essential. Again dialecticism. Hegel. This is what socialism is. I didn't invent it. I am not trying to even make a qualitative judgement on it. The OP is asking about divisiveness. You cannot really get more divisive than an ideology based on conflict and revolution.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Note:

    Your arguments seem to include the premise that Marxism and Socialism are the same thing. This is not an accepted premise and will need to be supported before it can be accepted that your arguments about Marxism has any relevance to the issue of socialism.

    If you are going to conflate the two, you will need to support that they are essentially the same. Otherwise you are arguing about apples in a debate about oranges.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The title was in the link which you asked me to provide. I can only assume one reads links when they ask for them. My bad.
    I didn't ask for a link to read. I asked for you to support your argument with a linked source.

    It's ALWAYS been the rule here that one's post is to contain everything that they want to forward in their argument and if the link is just so the person can look into the content further if they choose.

    It say that directly in the ODN rules:

    "Other posters should not need to actually click on the link to read your support. The link is primarily for verification purposes and to allow the reader access to further details on the topic - the relevant material you want to use from it should be contained in your post itself."

    But I read a bit of the link for context and it's clearly an article on history so what you provided was informing me of the partial contents of the communist manifesto.

    "The Communist Manifesto made it clear that the act of bringing the proletariat to power was an act of revolution."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/cli...nin3/ch05.html

    That isn't even necessarily a definition of communism. It seems to be referring to a specific communist solution to a problem and advocating proletariat revolution as a response to certain conditions. It doesn't say that even communism requires revolution to exist.

    And besides that, it's not even about socialism. It's about communism. Not socialism. Communism. As far as I can tell, this link is irrelevant to the issue of socialism as a theory.

    So I accept that the article supports what it supports but it says nothing tangible about socialism and therefore is irrelevant to the discussion. If there is some relevance that you have yet to reveal, please provide it. Otherwise the article has no apparently relevance and is ignored for that reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Since you didn't read more than the actual quote, I am not sure how you have any idea what the context of the quote may be. So, instead of you merely providing me an uh-uh response. Please support your conclusion that the quote is as you say it is.
    Well, I did read the link a bit. But even if I didn't, I could still tell you what the quote isn't about. It isn't about socialism nor did ANYTHING that I read in the link gave me the impression that it was about socialism. If anything, it confirmed that the link was about Marxism and nothing else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are asking a question to which Marx would say is impossible. You cannot simply start with socialism since the required conflict between worker and owner is essential.
    For Marxism, perhaps. But then we are discussing socialism.


    And I HAVE supported that in-group and out-groups are not essential for socialism with a linked source. Socialism is:

    "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/socialism

    Logically, if everything is owned by the community as a whole then everyone is both worker and owner at the same time so there would be no division.

    And you are free to make a counter argument but again, please provide a linked quote and make sure it's about SOCIALISM instead of communism (or if you are going to make it about communism support that it's the exact same thing as socialism).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again dialecticism. Hegel. This is what socialism is. I didn't invent it. I am not trying to even make a qualitative judgement on it. The OP is asking about divisiveness. You cannot really get more divisive than an ideology based on conflict and revolution.
    When you support that socialism is an ideology based on conflict and revolution, then we can discuss the ramifications of that. So far it appears that you are taking criticisms of communism and applying them to socialism as if they are the same thing. I could be wrong about that but regardless, you will need to support that assertion about socialism before it can be considered a valid position.
    Last edited by mican333; July 23rd, 2019 at 04:13 PM.

  17. #55
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Please support or retract your statement that "makers and takers" is commonly used among the members of the GOP.
    I never said that. But ok, "Paul Ryan: 60 Percent Of Americans Are ‘Takers,’ Not ‘Makers’".

    ---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You mean you don't have a clue. An unsupported contention must either be supported or withdrawn.
    I didn't make a contention. You asked a question about a book.

    ---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Facts matter, yes.
    I'm going to tentatively agree with this. Lumping all conservatives in with objectivists is wrong the same as lumping all socialists in with communists.

    ---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You appear to be using the two interchangeably. You've already admitted you very little idea what Objectivism is. So, how can you claim they are both the same? Either support this claim or retract it.
    Where they share elements they share. Where they don't they don't. I asked how they differ and if you don't want to tell me that's ok we can handle it when it comes up.

    ---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You admit that socialists wish to eliminate an entire group or class of people. Again, this would be divisive. Your question is not relevant.
    No more divisive than eliminating the third shift at the underwear factory, the typsetters, telephone operators, replacing the arc welders with robots or the bag boys with self checkouts yet where is your indignation for them? My question was spot on relevant. The question is whether democrats are more divisive and is yours to support.

    ---------- Post added at 11:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not just obsolete. They wish to eliminate them. This is different.
    How so?

    ---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Nobody sought to eliminate typesetters. Their jobs became obsolete.
    And you're saying that whoever was paying them didn't want them gone?

    ---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not because one group went after them, but because the natural emergence of new technologies emerged.
    That's a nice way of saying it. If you were a welder on an auto assembly line and the robots were arriving you'd feel like someone was after you. What's the difference with owners? Why are they in your protected class? (BTW this happens all the time, CEOs are given the boot by their boards, companies are taken over by others, Wal-Mart shows up and puts Main Street business owners out of business...looks like your system is divisive on all levels)

  18. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Note:

    Your arguments seem to include the premise that Marxism and Socialism are the same thing. This is not an accepted premise and will need to be supported before it can be accepted that your arguments about Marxism has any relevance to the issue of socialism.

    If you are going to conflate the two, you will need to support that they are essentially the same. Otherwise you are arguing about apples in a debate about oranges.

    While there are flavors of Marxism, variations on Marx's explanation, there is no theory on socialism which varies greatly from the main point I am making here. Namely, the transition to socialism is always based on the idea of oppressed and oppressors.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't ask for a link to read. I asked for you to support your argument with a linked source.

    It's ALWAYS been the rule here that one's post is to contain everything that they want to forward in their argument and if the link is just so the person can look into the content further if they choose.

    It say that directly in the ODN rules:

    "Other posters should not need to actually click on the link to read your support. The link is primarily for verification purposes and to allow the reader access to further details on the topic - the relevant material you want to use from it should be contained in your post itself."

    But I read a bit of the link for context and it's clearly an article on history so what you provided was informing me of the partial contents of the communist manifesto.

    "The Communist Manifesto made it clear that the act of bringing the proletariat to power was an act of revolution."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/cli...nin3/ch05.html

    That isn't even necessarily a definition of communism. It seems to be referring to a specific communist solution to a problem and advocating proletariat revolution as a response to certain conditions. It doesn't say that even communism requires revolution to exist.

    And besides that, it's not even about socialism. It's about communism. Not socialism. Communism. As far as I can tell, this link is irrelevant to the issue of socialism as a theory.

    So I accept that the article supports what it supports but it says nothing tangible about socialism and therefore is irrelevant to the discussion. If there is some relevance that you have yet to reveal, please provide it. Otherwise the article has no apparently relevance and is ignored for that reason.

    The article is about the transition to socialism. The Communist Manifesto describes this transition as Marx believed socialism was a necessary condition to achieve Communism. It is the transition from capitalism to socialism being discussed by the author. It is entirely relevant.

    And I wasn't expecting you to read the article, but if you are making a bold claim, such as that the article had nothing to do with socialism and the title is "The transition to socialism" then I can only wonder how you arrived at your conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I did read the link a bit. But even if I didn't, I could still tell you what the quote isn't about. It isn't about socialism nor did ANYTHING that I read in the link gave me the impression that it was about socialism. If anything, it confirmed that the link was about Marxism and nothing else.

    Wrong. But thanks for your opinion. Marxism is all about achieving socialism. Socialism is always based on some sort of dialectic ideology.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    For Marxism, perhaps. But then we are discussing socialism.

    We are discussing the political and social basis of socialism. How do we get from capitalism to socialism? Your theory that socialism just appears is delusional. What is the basis for wanting to achieve socialism? There must be some motivation for it, yes?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I HAVE supported that in-group and out-groups are not essential for socialism with a linked source. Socialism is:

    "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/socialism

    Logically, if everything is owned by the community as a whole then everyone is both worker and owner at the same time so there would be no division.

    And you are free to make a counter argument but again, please provide a linked quote and make sure it's about SOCIALISM instead of communism (or if you are going to make it about communism support that it's the exact same thing as socialism).

    You're free to keep quoting that definition. But, I've already demonstrated it is insufficient. Does your definition provide how or why socialism should occur? Can you point out a socialist nation which occurred naturally (i.e. not via a revolution)?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When you support that socialism is an ideology based on conflict and revolution, then we can discuss the ramifications of that. So far it appears that you are taking criticisms of communism and applying them to socialism as if they are the same thing. I could be wrong about that but regardless, you will need to support that assertion about socialism before it can be considered a valid position.
    However, I am not. Offer me a flavor of socialism which isn't based on dialecticism. I don't know of one. Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism... Yes, socialism is always a stepping stone for Communism, but even if you do not wish to extend it out, you still have to get from Capitalism to socialism. And, the process for doing that is always demonizing some group or class who are blamed for being oppressors. That is your justification for demanding that they give up their property and liberty. So, until your definition tells me how and why, then it is clearly not sufficient for this debate.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    While there are flavors of Marxism, variations on Marx's explanation, there is no theory on socialism which varies greatly from the main point I am making here. Namely, the transition to socialism is always based on the idea of oppressed and oppressors.
    But then you have not supported that socialism requires a transition in order to qualify as socialism so it's not been established that transition is even relevant.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And I wasn't expecting you to read the article, but if you are making a bold claim, such as that the article had nothing to do with socialism and the title is "The transition to socialism" then I can only wonder how you arrived at your conclusion.
    But then I didn't make the claim that the article had nothing to do with socialism, so this is an irrelevant comment to the debate at hand.

    What i am saying is that as far as I can tell, nowhere in the article was socialism defined. If a write a story about a cat, it doesn't mean that I've provided a definition of "cat" in my story or that we can conclude what it or is not a cat just because it's the subject of my story.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Wrong. But thanks for your opinion. Marxism is all about achieving socialism. Socialism is always based on some sort of dialectic ideology.
    Okay. And when you have something that supports that socialism is inherently divisive, let me know.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We are discussing the political and social basis of socialism. How do we get from capitalism to socialism? Your theory that socialism just appears is delusional.
    When you support that assertion, I'll respond to it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What is the basis for wanting to achieve socialism? There must be some motivation for it, yes?
    If you want to raise these issues, you can answer your own questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You're free to keep quoting that definition. But, I've already demonstrated it is insufficient. Does your definition provide how or why socialism should occur?
    Does it need to in order to be "sufficient?. I don't think it does but if you are going to argue that it needs to, please support that assertion.

    By the logic you seem to be offering, if one were to claim that decapitations were a part of socialism and the provided definition says nothing about decapitations, the definition would also be "insufficient" in that debate to determine whether decapitations are a part of socialism.

    The default is if no one supports that "it" is part of the definition of socialism, then it cannot be considered part of definition. So it's not supported that transition or decapitations are, by definition, a part of the theory of socialism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Can you point out a socialist nation which occurred naturally (i.e. not via a revolution)?
    I don't know if I can (I'd need to do some research if I were to attempt to answer that question). But since doing so in no way addresses the issue of whether THEORETICALLY a socialist nation can start from scratch, trying to find that answer would be a waste of time. Even if I can't find a historical example, it does't mean that it's not theoretically possible.


    But if we look at it theoretically, I can provide a hypothetical scenario where a socialist society arises without transition. Hypothetically there's an area of land where no one lives. A group of people arrive and decide to form a community. They all agree that a socialist economic system would be best so they set up a socialist society. So there you go - a socialist society can arise without transitioning from a different society. This fits the ONLY definition of socialism provided in this debate and there is nothing forwarded in this debate that supports that this cannot happen of if it did, it would not technically qualify as a socialist society.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, I am not. Offer me a flavor of socialism which isn't based on dialecticism. I don't know of one. Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism... Yes, socialism is always a stepping stone for Communism, but even if you do not wish to extend it out, you still have to get from Capitalism to socialism. And, the process for doing that is always demonizing some group or class who are blamed for being oppressors. That is your justification for demanding that they give up their property and liberty. So, until your definition tells me how and why, then it is clearly not sufficient for this debate.
    When you support that socialism, in theory, requires a transition from a different economic system is when I will concern myself with the ramifications of transitioning to socialism.

    At this point I am only looking at what has been provided for the definition of socialism in this debate which has no mention of transition and therefore I reject the premise that transition is a part of socialism.
    Last edited by mican333; August 5th, 2019 at 06:25 AM.

  20. #58
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,724
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Cowboy, in post 43 you made the following statement: "Ok, not yours. The conservative propaganda arm. "Makers" and "takers" is commonly used."

    You were challenged to support that claim. In response, you only offered a link of one person using that terminology. That does not support any possible reading of your claim. Unless you can offer evidence to support this claim, this line of reasoning will be redlined as unsupported in thread.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then you have not supported that socialism requires a transition in order to qualify as socialism so it's not been established that transition is even relevant.





    But then I didn't make the claim that the article had nothing to do with socialism, so this is an irrelevant comment to the debate at hand.

    What i am saying is that as far as I can tell, nowhere in the article was socialism defined. If a write a story about a cat, it doesn't mean that I've provided a definition of "cat" in my story or that we can conclude what it or is not a cat just because it's the subject of my story.




    Okay. And when you have something that supports that socialism is inherently divisive, let me know.





    When you support that assertion, I'll respond to it.





    If you want to raise these issues, you can answer your own questions.




    Does it need to in order to be "sufficient?. I don't think it does but if you are going to argue that it needs to, please support that assertion.

    By the logic you seem to be offering, if one were to claim that decapitations were a part of socialism and the provided definition says nothing about decapitations, the definition would also be "insufficient" in that debate to determine whether decapitations are a part of socialism.

    The default is if no one supports that "it" is part of the definition of socialism, then it cannot be considered part of definition. So it's not supported that transition or decapitations are, by definition, a part of the theory of socialism.




    I don't know if I can (I'd need to do some research if I were to attempt to answer that question). But since doing so in no way addresses the issue of whether THEORETICALLY a socialist nation can start from scratch, trying to find that answer would be a waste of time. Even if I can't find a historical example, it does't mean that it's not theoretically possible.


    But if we look at it theoretically, I can provide a hypothetical scenario where a socialist society arises without transition. Hypothetically there's an area of land where no one lives. A group of people arrive and decide to form a community. They all agree that a socialist economic system would be best so they set up a socialist society. So there you go - a socialist society can arise without transitioning from a different society. This fits the ONLY definition of socialism provided in this debate and there is nothing forwarded in this debate that supports that this cannot happen of if it did, it would not technically qualify as a socialist society.




    When you support that socialism, in theory, requires a transition from a different economic system is when I will concern myself with the ramifications of transitioning to socialism.

    At this point I am only looking at what has been provided for the definition of socialism in this debate which has no mention of transition and therefore I reject the premise that transition is a part of socialism.
    So, I finally have a few minutes to respond...

    First, what is your argument/rebuttal here? That because your definition of socialism does not include ideology, then socialism may exist without any sort of underlying ideology at all? Are, are you insisting that Democrats are proposing socialism without any sort of ideological viewpoint? In terms of whether socialism must include a transition, considering that we are currently a capitalist nation, any change to our economy would require some sort of transition. To argue that socialism could just occur in nature is interesting, but not especially relevant. Is a utopian socialism possible? I dunno. However, our modern socio-political concept of socialism is handed down from Marx in the form of scientific socialism which is, more or less, the sort of ideological foundation that Democrats are proliferating. Whether we want to call it neo-Marxism or Democratic Socialism, it all has the same foundation, namely that capitalism results in the oppression of some group or groups of people and the only way to fix this is to replace capitalism with socialism. This is a fundamentally Marxist argument whether you believe socialism can exist outside of such beliefs or not. Social justice is an example of an argument made by progressive Democrats to justify socialism. What is social justice? It is a claim that certain groups are oppressed due to the current social structure. It is a claim of structural oppression which is a Marxist claim. So, when I claim Democrats are currently more divisive, it is based on their use of the Marxist dialectical argument. Again, in groups v out groups. Dangerous stuff.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  22. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats are More Divisive

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, I finally have a few minutes to respond...

    First, what is your argument/rebuttal here? That because your definition of socialism does not include ideology, then socialism may exist without any sort of underlying ideology at all?
    I would say that socialism can occur with a wide variety of underlying ideologies so there is no one underlying ideology of socialism. There certainly was not one mentioned in the definition I provided. If you want to argue that there is a central underlying ideology to socialism, you will need to support it with a link to a definition of socialism.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Are, are you insisting that Democrats are proposing socialism without any sort of ideological viewpoint?
    Nope. My argument is that socialism is not inherently divisive nor requires there to be out-groups. The definition I provided, which is the ONLY definition that has been provided in our debate, doesn't indicate that out groups must exist. It seems to indicate that everyone is on the same level, in fact. Here it is again.

    "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In terms of whether socialism must include a transition, considering that we are currently a capitalist nation, any change to our economy would require some sort of transition.
    Which has no relevance to whether socialism itself requires a transition.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    To argue that socialism could just occur in nature is interesting, but not especially relevant. Is a utopian socialism possible? I dunno.
    Of course it is possible. Except for that which is impossible, anything is possible. So unless you can support that the hypothetical scenario I forwarded is impossible, it MUST be considered possible. Since you refrained from addressing it directly in favor of a general statement, I will re-paste it.

    Hypothetically there's an area of land where no one lives. A group of people arrive and decide to form a community. They all agree that a socialist economic system would be best so they set up a socialist society. So there you go - a socialist society can arise without transitioning from a different society. This fits the ONLY definition of socialism provided in this debate and there is nothing forwarded in this debate that supports that this cannot happen of if it did, it would not technically qualify as a socialist society.

    So I have supported that it's possible for a socialist society to arise without transitioning from a different society.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, our modern socio-political concept of socialism is handed down from Marx in the form of scientific socialism which is, more or less, the sort of ideological foundation that Democrats are proliferating. Whether we want to call it neo-Marxism or Democratic Socialism, it all has the same foundation, namely that capitalism results in the oppression of some group or groups of people and the only way to fix this is to replace capitalism with socialism. This is a fundamentally Marxist argument whether you believe socialism can exist outside of such beliefs or not. Social justice is an example of an argument made by progressive Democrats to justify socialism. What is social justice? It is a claim that certain groups are oppressed due to the current social structure. It is a claim of structural oppression which is a Marxist claim. So, when I claim Democrats are currently more divisive, it is based on their use of the Marxist dialectical argument. Again, in groups v out groups. Dangerous stuff.
    First off, you are moving the goal post. The argument I was addressing is that the THEORY of socialism requires out-groups. I have supported that this is not so. If you want to accept this and move on to another point, fine. In fact, I'll operate on the notion that you have conceded this particular point and have moved on from whether socialism is inherently divisive to whether Democrats are more divisive.

    If you don't continue to argue about the theory of socialism, I will consider this point conceded.

    So moving on.

    First off, don't bother throwing the word "Marxist" around. When someone attacks Democrats or Socialists from a right-wing perspective using the word "Marxist" I don't trust their understanding of Marxism well enough to make a solid argument with it.

    And the goal of social justice is not inherently wrong, especially when it's needed. I mean freeing the slaves during the civil war was social justice. Granting women the right to vote is social justice. Legalizing gay marriage is social justice. And yes, in all instances there WERE groups that were oppressed on some level and granting them social justice was clearly the right reaction to a real problem. And there is no proposal from Bernie etc. to move the US to an entirely socialist system. They are proposing Universal Health Care, which practically every Western Nation already has. So are they all Marxist regimes? If they aren't, then how is the US moving towards being more like them "Marxist"? Again, I do not trust you or really any right-winger to accurately use the word "marxism" in debate. If you want to criticize Universal Health Care or any particular proposal that Bernie etc. is forwarding, then tell me exactly what you find worrisome about it (like what bad thing do you think will happen). Vaguely referring to Marxism is a non-starter. If they are bad, you should be able to describe actual harm that should occur.

    And beyond that "More divisive" is a relative term. The argument is not that Democrats are divisive but that they are more divisive than Republicans and such an argument is completely unsupportable. I mean I can argue that Republicans are more divisive and point to a bunch of Trump's speeches and connect the El Paso shooting to his speeches and pull out some other examples and then you can point to whatever you think might make your case regarding the Democrats but how on Earth are we going to judge who provided "more" than the other person? The number of things you and I can point to is virtually endless and then how do we score each event for how divisive it is? And whose to judge to determine that one of us did a better job than the other?

    Really, I was here to point out that socialism, in theory, is not divisive and has no out-groups. That, I believe, I have done. Trying to argue which side is more divisive and possibly win a debate on the matter is a fool's errand.
    Last edited by mican333; August 8th, 2019 at 09:02 PM.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Democrats HR 1 (2019)
    By CowboyX in forum Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 24th, 2019, 08:41 AM
  2. Yay Democrats!
    By CowboyX in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 13th, 2018, 09:35 PM
  3. Who are the Democrats?
    By LagerHead in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 18th, 2011, 12:14 PM
  4. Democrats Take The Senate!
    By Yuruusan in forum Politics
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: November 16th, 2006, 05:45 PM
  5. Cats are democrats
    By tinkerbell in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 15th, 2005, 02:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •