Latest post of the previous page:
capital!Dave B wrote: Tried "Mein Kampf" but it was too much of a struggle.
Latest post of the previous page:
capital!Dave B wrote: Tried "Mein Kampf" but it was too much of a struggle.
Nein! That was Marx!animist wrote:capital!Dave B wrote: Tried "Mein Kampf" but it was too much of a struggle.
#1. There is no similarity at all between socialism and homosexuality in this regard; to imply that there is IMO is merely a cheap debating trick. Do I spy Godwin on the horizon?ASHEd wrote:I am about as comfortable around people talking about a "cure" on socialist tendencies as I am for someone talking about a "cure" on homosexuality. I know one is innate and one isn't. But that doesn't matter, the word "cure" implies it is wrong and that you are diseased with it.
Sorry, but that is quite simply ridiculous. The choice is not (and never has been) "socialism or lose the NHS". That is merely the scare-mongering of tired old leftist bigots who have lost the plot (and/or their integrity).Oh, and personally, I like the NHS - if you are in the UK and don't like socialism, I hope you are on private healthcare
But you seem to be asserting that socialism is indeed greater in faults than free market, you do this by bringing up examples where it wasn't always used correctly. Socialism is merely political-economic (just like communism, its practical application have "stifted" its scale in people's minds, but you must not shift the word to a new meaning, you must use another word to describe - humans have been lazy.). Before Hitler became the totalitarian mass-murderer we know today, when he promised all he did, Prora, cars, those excersise and leisure activities (only some of which he delivered in the end, having another motive and such), the people lapped it up.Tetenterre wrote:#1. There is no similarity at all between socialism and homosexuality in this regard; to imply that there is IMO is merely a cheap debating trick. Do I spy Godwin on the horizon?ASHEd wrote:I am about as comfortable around people talking about a "cure" on socialist tendencies as I am for someone talking about a "cure" on homosexuality. I know one is innate and one isn't. But that doesn't matter, the word "cure" implies it is wrong and that you are diseased with it.
#2. I used the word "cure" in the sense that Dave explained on the previous page.
#3. What do you call a political system that doesn't work in practice if not "wrong"? If I adhered to a wrong notion, I would be (and have been in the past) grateful if someone cured me of that tendency.
Sorry, but that is quite simply ridiculous. The choice is not (and never has been) "socialism or lose the NHS". That is merely the scare-mongering of tired old leftist bigots who have lost the plot (and/or their integrity).Oh, and personally, I like the NHS - if you are in the UK and don't like socialism, I hope you are on private healthcare
Please note that I have neither asserted either that free-market capitalism is faultless, nor that one should not act with a social conscience. I do assert that socialism, where it has been put into practice, has ultimately failed and has been rejected by the populations that it has been imposed upon.
#1. No, I have not made that assertion. Please do not attribute things to me that I did not say.ASHEd wrote:But you seem to be asserting that socialism is indeed greater in faults than free market, you do this by bringing up examples where it wasn't always used correctly.
#1. Lots of things are "merely political-economic"; socialism is not in any sense unique in this regard.Socialism is merely political-economic (just like communism, its practical application have "stifted" its scale in people's minds, but you must not shift the word to a new meaning, you must use another word to describe - humans have been lazy.).
There has been an NHS in England since the middle of 1948; at no time has England been in any sense a "socialist ideal" at any time during this period.Ok, if not in a socialist ideal, where would you find the NHS?
#1. I have not called you any names (but you seem to be OK about calling me "arrogant" ).Does its workings belong to that of the free-market system that isn't influenced by socialist ideals? Are they compatible? Tell me if they are. You do realise there is no shame in either explaining they are compatible or incompatible. Please explain. I will be happy to learn. Why don't you explain, instead of name-calling?
Yes, you did draw that distinction. However, that didn't prevent you from conflating them in order to pretend that I meant something other than I did by my use of the word "cure".Oh, and by the way, I even drew up that homosexuality and socialism are of course different things. One is innate and one is an ideal based on sharing (thinking about it, could that have evolutionary merit?
Then it's a rather curious approach to introduce it in a forum where a debate is taking place, don't you think?In that aspect I wasn't particularly looking for a debate.
Again you are putting words into my mouth. The programmers of this forum software have thoughtfully provided a mechanism by which you can accurately quote; why not use that instead of making up quotes and then attributing them to me?And it was quite "case closed, I'm right, I'm know all the answers" especially for a Humanist. To assert such arrogance and lack of understanding was shocking.
I thought, from what you had written, that you were opposed to name-calling?Both are simply close-minded.
Yet again you choose to misrepresent what I wrote. What I have actually written was (with added emphasis) is "...but socialism, in practice, seems to do a far better job of not working than most of the others" and "there's very little that is not substantially preferable to socialism". None of that either makes or implies the assertion that you attribute to me. I also note that you have chosen to disregard what I wrote about the free market: "I am somewhat suspicious of the concept of absolutely free markets". Oh well.So I don't see your point of socialism being the worst out of all,
I haven't a clue what that means.but you not taking a knife at all saying someone should cure someone of their Capitalist tendencies,
Not name-calling again, are we? Oh dear....its rather arrogant.
#1. There is no "both". You appear to be erecting yet another false dichotomy. There are a lot more than two political choices!It's almost as if you are the unwilling to consider both sides.
top marx, TTTetenterre wrote:Nein! That was Marx!animist wrote:capital!Dave B wrote: Tried "Mein Kampf" but it was too much of a struggle.
Marx ist kaputt, ja?animist wrote:top marx, TTTT wrote:
Nein! That was Marx!
I am trying to remember who said something like, "I can do you a two hour talk this afternoon but I need a week's notice for a ten minute one.". . . oh dear, the problems of writing something short and meaningful . . .