-->
@prefix
As I said many times, the topic is "socialist STATES" not socialism as a micro ideal.
explain exactly how the two are incompatible in your mind
definition of "fascism"
Posts
Total:
357
-->
@3RU7AL
#176
History supports me in every real world case. The events that take place in your imagination are of no consequence.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@3RU7AL
On #177
You said before that public schools are socialism.
So according to you every state is a socialist state.
If that is your OPINION, and you cannot provide SUPPORTING CITATIONS, then what was all this about?
Are you just an apologist for socialism?
Do you see socialism everywhere?
Is an Uber socialist?
Does having just on mailman make an entire nation a socialist state?
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@3RU7AL
On#178
As with #168
Your comment is not worthy of a reply.
I wonder where you were educated, and what level you achieved.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
On #180
I said .."No. They are SUPPORTED opinions. You have your opinions, yet you fail to support them."
please be slightly more specific
You opine that the earth is flat.
Without supporting documentation, you are left with an opinion.
Someone once said..."Opinions are like baby diapers. Every little baby has one, and it is often often full."
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@3RU7AL
On #181
As I said many times, the topic is "socialist STATES" not socialism as a micro ideal.
explain exactly how the two are incompatible in your mind
Already answered, but here goes....
Having just one public library does not make a nation a socialist state.
etc,etc,etc.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@prefix
History supports me in every real world case. The events that take place in your imagination are of no consequence.
which specific examples do you imagine support the claim that "socialism is a necessary precursor to fascism" ?
-->
@prefix
You said before that public schools are socialism.
so NOW you agree to my definition of socialism ?
-->
@prefix
I said .."No. They are SUPPORTED opinions. You have your opinions, yet you fail to support them."
supported by what ?
-->
@3RU7AL
#187
Demonstrate any real world example where a fascist states was not preceded by a socialist state.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@3RU7AL
#188
You said before that public schools are socialism.
so NOW you agree to my definition of socialism ?
NO NO NO!.
Stating what you said does not imply agreement. It is simply re-stating an argument you put forth that was proven false.
How do you function?
Do you see a socialist cloud in the sky?
"living is easy with eyes closed....misunderstanding all you see" ( Lennon ...but not Lenin ).
Where did you study?
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@3RU7AL
#189
I said .."No. They are SUPPORTED opinions. You have your opinions, yet you fail to support them."
supported by what ?
Before I respond, I need to know where you studied. Then I can tailor my answer to your level.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@prefix
Having just one public library does not make a nation a socialist state.
at what point does a state become "a socialist state" in your personal opinion ?
simply stating what does NOT qualify as "a socialist state"
doesn't get us any closer to an agreement
let me help you out
(IFF) A SOCIALIST STATE = WHAT PREFIX SAYS IT IS (AND) IF A FASCIST STATE = WHAT PREFIX SAYS IT IS (THEN) SOCIALIST STATE = NECESSARY PRECURSOR TO FASCIST STATE
now, all i'm trying to do
is figure out how you fit these pieces together with your personally preferred definitions
i'm not saying "this claim is false"
i'm simply trying to figure out exactly what this means to you
-->
@prefix
Before I respond, I need to know where you studied. Then I can tailor my answer to your level.
ah, the classic ad hominem attack
nobody gives a fuck where i studied
and even if i told you i had some amazing credentials
there is absolutely no way of proving any of this to you without doxxing myself
this is called an epistemological limit
i don't give a shit who you are or what amazing credentials you think you have or claim to have
i only care about the logic of your arguments
-->
@prefix
Stating what you said does not imply agreement.
using my definition in an argument is the definition of agreement
the only thing we need to figure out
is your definition of "socialist state" and your definition of "fascist state" and exactly how the one is a "necessary precursor" to the other
the only thing we need to figure out
is your definition of "socialist state" and your definition of "fascist state" and exactly how the one is a "necessary precursor" to the other
-->
@3RU7AL
#193
What is your "personally preferred definition" of a socialist state? Include sourced citations.
NB your use of the term "personally preferred".
In reality what you "personally prefer" matters little when you are conversing with someone other than your self.
You seem to think that you are "the measure of all things".
Well shock to you. You are not.
You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@3RU7AL
#194 is not worthy of a reply.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@prefix
Demonstrate any real world example where a fascist states was not preceded by a socialist state.
The Weimar Republic was a federal republic and a representative democracy, not a socialist state.
Government
- under presidential rule by decree (1930–1933)
Italy was a constitutional monarchy before Mussolini came to power, not a socialist state.
In 1922, Benito Mussolini became prime minister of Italy, ushering in an era of National Fascist Party government known as "Fascist Italy". Totalitarian rule was enforced, crushing all political opposition while promoting economic modernization, traditional values, and territorial expansion.
-->
@3RU7AL
#195
using my definition in an argument is the definition of agreement
WOW!
In review it is clear that I stated you FALSE OPINION, and then refuted it.
It's like when Fred says something and then Barney refutes it......there has been NO AGREEMENT.
I hope that is understandable to you.
It probably won't be, and this HS will go on.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@prefix
You seem to think that you are "the measure of all things".
you've got this reversed
YOU are "the measure of all things"
YOU are
i'm trying to understand your claim
IN YOUR OWN TERMS
ON YOUR OWN TERMS
-->
@prefix
In review it is clear that I stated you FALSE OPINION, and then refuted it.
you can certainly DISAGREE with an opinion
but you cannot "refute" an opinion
-->
@3RU7AL
On #198
The Weimar Republic was a federal republic and a representative democracy, not a socialist state.
So, using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE, there was not a single library in Weimar.
So, using your definition, there was not a single mailman in Weimar.
So, using your definition, there was not a single public school in Weimar.
I hope that is understandable to you.
It probably won't be, and this HS will go on.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
-->
@prefix
The Weimar Republic was a federal republic and a representative democracy, not a socialist state.So, using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE, there was not a single library in Weimar.So, using your definition, there was not a single mailman in Weimar.So, using your definition, there was not a single public school in Weimar.I hope that is understandable to you.It probably won't be, and this HS will go on.I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
this is fantastic, i love how you are now adopting my definitions
now let's follow your logic here
you're now suggesting that any government service that operates for the benefit of all citizens automatically qualifies that government as a "socialist state"
and if you stick with this logic, then yes, every fascist state that was "precursored" by any form of government that fits the above definition, would seem to support your case
so, in other words
and to recap
if you agree to your twisted version of "my definition" of "socialist state" -
THEN YOUR CLAIM THAT "SOCIALISM IS A NECESSARY PRECURSOR TO FASCISM" = TRUE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i mean, i thought we were in agreement earlier when you said, "Not all socialist countries morph into fascism, but some do."
but now we're REALLLY REALLLY REALLLY in agreement
right ?
do you agree ?
do we agree on this - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11100-definition-of-fascism?page=6&post_number=161
and do we agree on this - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11100-definition-of-fascism?page=5&post_number=128
-->
@3RU7AL
you're now suggesting that any government service that operates for the benefit of all citizens automatically qualifies that government as a "socialist state"
Me personally, I have a fascism to freedom index.
Totalitarian control would be like at a 100 on the fascism and freedom scale, also the left right scale it would be left.
The far right or bottom of the fascism scale which is measured by state interventions would be anarchy.
As far as mainstream candidates are co corned that makes Ron Paul extremely right wing and Bernie sanders extreme left wing .
-->
@WyIted
As far as mainstream candidates are co corned that makes Ron Paul extremely right wing and Bernie sanders extreme left wing .
-->
@WyIted
bernie is closer to the center than you might think
-->
@3RU7AL
With Bernie I can kind of agree, but I am referring to normal discourse in American society.
He is right of Kim Jung Un and Putin.
-->
@WyIted
putin is very clearly right of center
-->
@3RU7AL
He seems like a statist and we are using the following definition of right and left
0% statist - complete anarchy
25% statist libertarian
50% statist republican
65% statist democdat
100% statist- totalitarianism
With 100% being on the left and zero percent being on the right.
According to this definition of right/left which should be the working definition, are you closer to Hitler the statist or Ron Paul the anti statist?