Enslave the Poor Options

[FORSAKENR320]

I like Impala. I always enjoy a good argument.

agreed. he's just the martyr of my entertainment

[impala454]

notice how impala has ignored spivey's post completely, where as he NORMALLY breaks te post down and tries to attack each little part.......

what can I say, sometimes I actually work while at work

edit: and it still amazes me after I flat out said, no I do not think socialism = communism, you guys (including spivey) seem to keep thinking that's what I said. I even knew you guys would take what I said that way, which is why I put that disclaimer in there!

[Dogmeat]

LOLERCOPTER

Slutterous Bingbong-Dingdongs Jessica .... SLUTTEROUS BINGBONG-DINGDONGS!!!!!

[The Fanatic]

newsflash: Communism is a form of socialism. and before you come back with it (and I know you would) no, I did not just say socialism = communism. note the difference.

Now it is time for logic

If these statements are assumed true:



A square is a type of rectangle
All squares are rectangles

Baptist are a form of Christianity
The Baptist church is Christian


Are not these statements also true:
Communism is one form of socialism
Communism is socialism


While at the same time one could not say that:
All rectangles are squares
Christianity is the baptist church
Socialism is communism

That is because classification is only part of a larger collaboration. One part alone does not equal the whole.


Being a form type or subset of another classification, ideology, religion etc. assumes containment within that larger framework which equates into an identical relationship.

Given this information Chuck, could you please explain exactly what you meant by your statement that i referenced above.

This post has been edited by The Fanatic: Mar 3 2008, 05:58 PM

[Dogmeat]

Now it is time for logic

If these statements are assumed true:
A square is a type of rectangle
All squares are rectangles

Baptist are a form of Christianity
The Baptist church is Christian
Are not these statements also true:
Communism is one form of socialism
Communism is socialism
While at the same time one could not say that:
All rectangles are squares
Christianity is the baptist church
Socialism is communism

That is because classification is only part of a larger collaboration. One part alone does not equal the whole.
Being a form type or subset of another classification, ideology, religion etc. assumes containment within that larger framework which equates into an identical relationship.

Given this information Chuck, could you please explain exactly what you meant by your statement that i referenced above.

You can get as technical as you want with it. You're proposing a feel-good measure. There are reasons generalizations and stereotypes exist. In theory, technically, you're correct, however in application, communism and socialism are one in the same as far as the general population is concerned. Socialism is going to lead to full-blown communism. Communism is full-blown socialism. One perhaps, is a more extreme version of the other.

[The Fanatic]

And? That is exactly the problem with American society today. People were dooped by the interests of rich men throughout the 20th century into believing the socialist programs would lead to a soviet style economic, political and socially restricted climate. And that was naturally very un American Yet, as i pointed out in my earlier post Russia evolved in a different approach because of their history. Americans are born out of the British system which values pragmatism, basic liberties and freedoms, along with a strong capitalist underbelly. When America declared it's independence in 1776 not only was it capitalist/mercantilist but America would soon start a massive industrialization along with the rest of western Europe. This would in turn lead to the formation of the middle class. However, Europe applied many more socialized programs and initiatives which led to a better standard of: living, literacy, education, distribution of wealth, etc. America on the other hand after World War II decided to spend revenues on military expansion and world administration instead. Russia on the other hand, had inherited most of it's governing style and social history from the original Slavic peoples (who were a mixture of vikings and other indoeuropean language groups) their Mongol conquerers in the 13th/14th century and the Tsars. This rule was essentially brutal, reactionary, imperialist, militaristic, etc. Russian history is filled with secret police, conspiracy, genocide, corruption, etc. The communist party of the 20th century simply continued this old policy by replacing the tsars with the a political organization/cartel which grew rich off the backs of serbs now known as the "proletariat". Communism is synonymous with political institutions springing up in third world countries whom based most of their ideology off of Marx and Engles. God forbid that socialism ever lead to the true utopian ideal of communism that Marx set forth in is Manifesto and Das Kapital along with other works. But to say that Social programs would lead to the gulag, social restriction, and totalitarian political structures is just foolish.

[Dogmeat]

And? That is exactly the problem with American society today. People were dooped by the interests of rich men throughout the 20th century into believing the socialist programs would lead to a soviet style economic, political and socially restricted climate. And that was naturally very un American Yet, as i pointed out in my earlier post Russia evolved in a different approach because of their history. Americans are born out of the British system which values pragmatism, basic liberties and freedoms, along with a strong capitalist underbelly. When America declared it's independence in 1776 not only was it capitalist/mercantilist but America would soon start a massive industrialization along with the rest of western Europe. This would in turn lead to the formation of the middle class. However, Europe applied many more socialized programs and initiatives which led to a better standard of: living, literacy, education, distribution of wealth, etc. America on the other hand after World War II decided to spend revenues on military expansion and world administration instead. Russia on the other hand, had inherited most of it's governing style and social history from the original Slavic peoples (who were a mixture of vikings and other indoeuropean language groups) their Mongol conquerers in the 13th/14th century and the Tsars. This rule was essentially brutal, reactionary, imperialist, militaristic, etc. Russian history is filled with secret police, conspiracy, genocide, corruption, etc. The communist party of the 20th century simply continued this old policy by replacing the tsars with the a political organization/cartel which grew rich off the backs of serbs now known as the "proletariat". Communism is synonymous with political institutions springing up in third world countries whom based most of their ideology off of Marx and Engles. God forbid that socialism ever lead to the true utopian ideal of communism that Marx set forth in is Manifesto and Das Kapital along with other works. But to say that Social programs would lead to the gulag, social restriction, and totalitarian political structures is just foolish.

Europe does _NOT_, and has _NOT_ ever had a better standard of living than the US has had/does have during the industrial revolution.

That is an entirley subjective statement and is pure opinion moreso than anything else.

I would HARDLEY call what the "middle class" in Europe is a good standard of living ...

My beef with socialism is that it caters to those who are already in power MUCH MORESO than the current system of capitalism does.

In the system we have today, you're ALLOWED to be successful should you find a way to be this way.

Socialism, you aren't. The more successful you are, the more heavily you're penalized for it because, god forbid, you make someone else mad who doesn't have as much material wealth as you.

This is my problem with socialism. If you can't figure out how to make a living in the capitalist system, you're most likley too lazy, and for this I feel no sympathy towards people.

If you can't figure it out, it's not my problem, and I shouldn't have to be penalized for your inadequacies just so you can "feel good".

[FORSAKENR320]

dirty hippy commies....

[pebkac]

So what exactly are you guys even arguing about at this point?

[Psykopath]

So what exactly are you guys even arguing about at this point?

I don't know, but at least NPR is active again...


...sadly. heh

[Dogmeat]

I don't know, but at least NPR is active again...
...sadly. heh

Don't worry this will get even more amusing and fun soon

[Psykopath]

Don't worry this will get even more amusing and fun soon

But I hate arguing on the intarweb. *throws an e-tantrum!*

[impala454]

Now it is time for logic

If these statements are assumed true:
A square is a type of rectangle
All squares are rectangles

Baptist are a form of Christianity
The Baptist church is Christian
Are not these statements also true:
Communism is one form of socialism
Communism is socialism
While at the same time one could not say that:
All rectangles are squares
Christianity is the baptist church
Socialism is communism

That is because classification is only part of a larger collaboration. One part alone does not equal the whole.
Being a form type or subset of another classification, ideology, religion etc. assumes containment within that larger framework which equates into an identical relationship.

Given this information Chuck, could you please explain exactly what you meant by your statement that i referenced above.

My name is Chuck and I approve of this message. I am still completely baffled as to what you think you're arguing with me. Both the post you made and the post you quoted from me are saying the exact same thing. The only thing I'd suggest is perhaps reading what I said allowed or something. Hell I dunno what else to say at this point. I guess reply to the thread once you clear the cobwebs and the attic light comes on .

[chook]

Now it is time for logic

If these statements are assumed true:
A square is a type of rectangle
All squares are rectangles

Baptist are a form of Christianity
The Baptist church is Christian
Are not these statements also true:
Communism is one form of socialism
Communism is socialism
While at the same time one could not say that:
All rectangles are squares
Christianity is the baptist church
Socialism is communism

The problem with this connotation is that the spectrum of the issues changed. Rectangle implies a type, but the second statement about squares would be true if stated
"All squares are a type of rectangles"

As for the second statement, to stay level in context with the first statement, the second should read
"The Baptist church is Christianity"

and as a Catholic I disagree (although it is known that some Baptist and Thetans say otherwise)

Therefore to hold true, the third would have to either say

"Communism is socialistic"
or
Communism is a form of socialism"

and all these statements are one way implicit

[The Fanatic]

The problem with this connotation is that the spectrum of the issues changed. Rectangle implies a type, but the second statement about squares would be true if stated
"All squares are a type of rectangles"

As for the second statement, to stay level in context with the first statement, the second should read
"The Baptist church is Christianity"

and as a Catholic I disagree (although it is known that some Baptist and Thetans say otherwise)

Therefore to hold true, the third would have to either say

"Communism is socialistic"
or
Communism is a form of socialism"

and all these statements are one way implicit

All squares are rectangles so I don't see the problem


Saying the baptist church is Christianity is a true statement. The statement does not exclude other churches nor does it imply that the baptist church is the only Christian church (at least my interpretation of the statement)