Total posts: 542
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
244....
I said ........"False opinion..."Gerald Ford was never President, because he was never elected to that post." ( as an example )
This is an example of an opinion that someone might have but it does not withstand examination.
Here is a syllogism....
Presidents are elected
Ford was not elected
Therefore Ford was never President.
False opinion based on false assumptions.
Here is another one
"Socialism is not a government. It is a form of ownership" ( 3ru7AL stated this without source)
Compare that to ......"socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite." ( https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/government-type/). [ Emphasis Mine ] FULLY SOURCED.
Now tell me 3RU7AL what we need to go over yet again ad infinitum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You said earlier that the CIA did not define "socialist state"
The CIA does define "socialist State"....but you will not find that EXACT term used, so YOU must use your reasoning power (?) to extrapolate. ( good luck to all who read what 3ru7al comes back with. )
"socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite." ( https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/government-type/). [ Emphasis Mine ]
On 240
I already answered you question. It was proved by real world examples. All this in the previous 240+ comments. See if you can find it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#241
Maybe it isn't false opinion; but it is, in this thread, a meaningless and stupid opinion.
See if you can figure out why.
"An opinion may be supported by facts and principles, in which case it becomes an argument.
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they agree on the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another, by analyzing the supporting arguments. ( per.....
Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments., Damer, T. Edward (2008).).
False opinion..."Gerald Ford was never President, because he was never elected to that post."
Then remain unconvinced, but think deeply about why you are unconvinced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#234
Much of the "25 point plan" contained socialist ideas.
how much of this do you think was simply false promisesand which specifically "socialist" policies were actually implemented ?
Check the source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
There are many serious arguments both "pro life" and "pro choice".
Areas of concern would include: will the mother survive the delivery, is the pregnancy the result of a crime such as rape or incest, is there evidence of a serious birth defect, is the mother capable of raising a child, and so on.
Abortion may not be the best solution for some situations as opposed to adoption etc.
It is a complex issue. Some make it a "women's rights "issue. Some say it is an individual's decision.
There may not be any complete legal solution for some time to come.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Trump suffers from cognitive decline; the democratic candidate does not
Trump is a "candidate"; Harris is not.
Check back in August.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
That's quite a leap from voting on debate-art.........all the way to Project 2025.
All I can say is "Wow!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Do you have identification?
Expand.
I do not understand your question.
Created:
Posted in:
I vote NAY.
Free speech is necessary in a debate.
Users have the ability to report "abuses", and moderators can make value judgments in that regard.
Users can appeal, and perhaps a "user panel" could be set up to adjudicate a particular post.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
I followed the link that was given before. I will try the new one.
Created:
I vote NAY.
Free speech is necessary in a debate.
Users have the ability to report "abuses", and moderators can make value judgments in that regard.
Users can appeal, and perhaps a "user panel" could be set up to adjudicate a particular post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#228
You stated
According to the general theory of relativity, the Sun does orbit the Earth. And the Earth orbits the Sun. And they both orbit together around a place in between. And both the Sun and the Earth are orbiting the Moon.
In making judgments and calculations about real world conditions, there are certain factors so minor that they can be taken as zero.
From the source you cited....
"Of course, that is a very ponderous approach, and although the equations will work, in principle, they will be very awkward and tricky. So scientists never use them.
Why do we use a system in which the Sun is at rest (or in uniform motion)? Because then the equations are simple, intuitive, and (relatively) easy to solve. That is often the trick in physics: find a coordinate system in which the equations of motion are so simple that you can guess the right answer."
Why do we use a system in which the Sun is at rest (or in uniform motion)? Because then the equations are simple, intuitive, and (relatively) easy to solve. That is often the trick in physics: find a coordinate system in which the equations of motion are so simple that you can guess the right answer."
Quid est proximum vadum laicorum
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#227
Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934
I had previously cited dates of 1938 or 1938 , while Britannica...moved the date to 1934. The question is when did the NSDAP become "NAZI" 1934, 1938, 1939?
Also from Britannica...
"Nazi Party, political party of the mass movement known as National Socialism. Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, the party came to power in Germany in 1933 "
Much of the "25 point plan" contained socialist ideas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#226 is vacuous. No point made by you. A dodge. No reply needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#225
Apparently I will need to state the obvious.
CASE ONE
A socialist state might remain a socialist state.
OR it might morph into communism ( Per K.Marx )
OR it might morph into fascism ( Per G. Gentile)
Not ALL socialist states remain socialist.
Not ALL socialist states morph into communism.
Not ALL socialist states morph into fascism .
CASE TWO
At a county fair......and only within the imaginary confines of this imaginary situation.
If some people who ate hot dogs developed food poisoning, the Public Health department could name the hot dog as a precursor to food poisoning.
If people who did not eat hot dogs, but ate something else and did not get sick, the Public Health department could name the hot dog as a necessary precursor to food poisoning.
CASE THREE
In all three real world examples....
All fascist states were previous socialist states.
Political scientists might say socialism is a precursor to fascism.
Since ALL fascist states previous socialist states, socialism would be deemed a necessary precursor to fascism.
Express you agreement to each or show counter examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#220
The NSDAP, or National Socialist German Workers' Party, a far-right political party in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. Despite the name, it was not a socialist party but promoted nationalist and fascist ideologies.
Provide a source for this statement.
i get it now
I doubt that you "get" much at all.
if someone calls themselves a "socialist party" then they qualify in your mind to be a "socialist state" regardless of their policies
Then tell me HOW DO YOU DEFINE THE TERM "SOCIALIST STATE"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#219
ok, clearly you've decided to abandon any attempt to define "socialist state"
Yet another false opinion.
I was clearly awaiting YOUR definition. The ones you offered were refuted. Still awaiting a final and concise def.
Also all of #219 was a "dodge" on your part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#218
do you have some examples of "true" opinions
The earth orbits around the Sun.
do you have some examples of "false" opinions
The Sun orbits around the Earth
and while we're on the topic, which opinion do you believe i hold that is "false" ?
It's hard to tell as you have not articulated any of them very well, but in #203 you opined that I agreed with your definition, even though I clearly stated that I did not.
using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE
using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE
using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
General notes
The Weimar was a republic until 1933. From 1933 until 1938 ( or 1939 as some historians note ) Germany was governed by the NSDAP socialist party.
In 1938 ( or late 1938 ) it morphed into fascism.
In Italy .."In the 1900s and 1910s, the PSI [ Italian Workers Party ]achieved significant electoral success, becoming Italy's first party in 1919" ( "Partito socialista italiano in 'Dizionario di Storia'". Treccani (in Italian). Retrieved 1 February 2023.).
Mussolini was a member of the PSI and later founded the fascist movement .
"Socialism in Argentina started in the 1890s. Peron then created a ""peculiar brand of socialism" that heavily incorporated elements of nationalism and Christian social teaching. Main sources of inspiration for Perón and his polices were the Italian fascism of Mussolini" ( wikipedia "Peronism"}
See "There’s No Denying the Socialist Roots of Fascism" ( Foundation for Economic Education ..SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2021).
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.
" So that;s all sorted then" ( Wilfred Hamilton, Dean of Criminology at Cambridge as played by Douglas Reith on the BBC).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #203
I CLEARLY STATED that I did NOT AGREE WITH YOUR DEFINITION!!!!!!
Read again what I said, and what you cut and pasted......
"So, using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE, there was not a single library in Weimar."
Did you see where I SAID .."using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE,"
using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE
using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE
using your definition, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE
You then stated
this is fantastic, i love how you are now adopting my definitions
Reading comprehension much?
"WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE " clearly refutes your false opinion that I agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
on #201
you can certainly DISAGREE with an opinionbut you cannot "refute" an opinion
This is an example of egocentric thinking
Merriam defines "refute" thus.....
"1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
There exists in the universe opinions some of which are false; some are true.
An egotist, who is the measure of all things unto himself" would believe that an opinion cannot be refuted.
What then of someone who holds many many false opinions?
Can they ever find the truth?
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#200
You are displaying an egocentric attitude in a public forum.
You can have your own opinions which may have merit to you, but in a public forum we seek the truth.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#194 is not worthy of a reply.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #175
ok, so NOW you decide to agree to my definition of socialism ?
The topic is not "socialism". It is SOCIALIST STATE".
from #172
As I said many times, the topic is "socialist STATES" not socialism as a micro ideal.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #169
your citations are SECOND HAND OPINIONS
No. They are SUPPORTED opinions. You have your opinions, yet you fail to support them.
You could opine that the world is flat. I could opine that it is not.
You give no supporting sources. I give DOCUMENTATION from numerous disciples.
Which carries greater weight?
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #168
Your comment is not worthy of reply.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #167
that socialism is not a form of governmentsocialism is a system of ownership
As I said many times, the topic is "socialist STATES" not socialism as a micro ideal.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #166
I said ...."My position stands. It is that socialism is a necessary precursor to fascism."
wrong againfascism does not require socialism
Perhaps if you understood the word "precursor" you would see.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #165
so having an explicit commitment to socialism in your constitution does NOT make you a socialist state ?
NO!. You even said that socialism is a system of ownership. You did not say it was an article in a constitution.
To use your language ....Just because some random guy in some random state puts some random words in a random document, it does not make that a socialist state.
I thought you were finished, but you keep pitching, I'll keep hitting home runs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #161
I stated "Not all socialist countries morph into fascism, but some do.'
we agree - end of debate
This was not a debate. Better to end it now.
Created:
Posted in:
On #148
SOCIALISM IS NOT TOTALITARIANISM
That was never said. However they do share some features.
(IFF) SOCIALISM AND TOTALITARIANISM AND FASCISM ALL HAVE THE SAME DEFINITION (THEN) SOCIALISM = FASCISM
That was never said. I never said socialism = totalitarianism.
You then say basically that if you want to know what a socialist is, then ask a socialist. I answer that most socialists do not know what socialism is. The proof can be found by reviewing this forum.
THE NUMBER ONE LESSON OF EPISTEMOLOGY IS THAT KNOWLEDGE HAS HARD LIMITSHUME'S GUILLOTINENEVER CONFLATE FACT WITH OPINION
That is why I use citations, and ask YOU to do the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #147
YOUR LINK LISTS GREENLAND AND ICELAND AND MEXICO AND BRAZIL AS "SOCIALIST"
It does not. Here is what my cite says.... they "have constitutions that state that they are based on socialism, even if they do not rigidly follow the economic or political systems associated with socialism," ( https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/socialist-countries)
AND YOUR PREMISE, BASED ON YOUR QUOTES FROM "RICH-MAN" CLAIM THAT SOCIALISM DEMANDS 100% STATE OWNERSHIP AND THEREFORE LEADS INEVITABLY TO AND OR IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM TOTALITARIANISM AND FASCISM
The author is saying the socialism tends toward "100% STATE OWNERSHIP".
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GREENLAND AND ICELAND AND MEXICO AND BRAZIL ARE 100% STATE OWNED AND THEREFORE TOTALITARIAN FASCIST GOVERNMENTS ?
Already answered above. You seem to think that my position is that socialism = totalitarianism et al. That is not my position
OR, DO YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT SOCIALIST STATES ?
Answered above,
OR, WOULD YOU PERHAPS LIKE TO REFRAME YOUR POSITION ?
My position stands. It is that socialism is a necessary precursor to fascism.
Perhaps you would like to re frame YOUR position, or better yet, perhaps you would like to clearly state YOUR position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
on #146
"that basic definition encompasses a wide range of real-world variations on socialism""In practice, socialist countries can run the gamut from impressively progressive to staunchly conservative"
My citation was a broad definition. You statement above does not change it. Of course there is "a wide range of real-world variations on socialism" Not all socialist countries morph into fascism, but some do.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT "IMPRESSIVELY PROGRESSIVE" IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FASCISM
Actually it is you who does not understand "precursor"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #145
Later,the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector
It was already shown that only SOME items were privatize, usually for convenience.
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was noexception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors.
And there it is. Hitler's fascism was preceded by the socialism of Weimar.
Also, from YOUR link it stated "Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was notideologically driven." (http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
On #142
Definitions arent proven. They are either agreed upon or arent. You cannot prove a definition.
"Axiom, Postulate and definition are self-evident & do not need any proof." ( Verantu)
or
" The reason that a definition can't be proven is that it isn't a mathematical statement. ( Mathematics Stack Exchange)
Are you questioning the definition?
If so, give another more proper definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #137
i emphasized the portion of YOUR OWN DEFINITIONthat clearlyCONTRADICTS YOUR PREMISE
Support your assertion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On #136
Kindly show me where you found the statement that
greenland and iceland and mexico and brazil all qualify as "100% state owned" ?
Created: