|
Hugo...doing it again. (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
"Karl"? You see that's where you fall flat on your arse in this and any argument concerning socialism. |
defensive huh?
some of the terms you consistently use remind me of something i once read. whatever.
what, we're not to speak in metaphors under socialism? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'm no expert on crime...There could be any number of cultural reasons for the difference besides public spending. You seem to think everything in the universe can be traced back to a government program...interesting philosophy you have there man.
As far as poverty goes..."Poor" people in America would probably be considered middle to upper-middle class in some of your beloved socialist utopias...lol There is no fatter group on the planet than poor Americans;). I believe the US census did a study a few years back, and found the average "poor" family in America owns their own home, along with at least 2 cars, all necessary utilities/appliances, and several TVs with cable. And nearly 50% of those "poor" households had a computer with internet access as well..
I think the European definition of poor is somewhat different. |
I'm taking about levels of poverty. It's the same standard of judging the world over.
And everyone knows health foods are more expensive than MaccyD's!
Oh and I notice you seem to think indicators of "poor" can be traced back solely to material possessions - interesting philosophy you have there man! |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | | Oh and I notice you seem to think indicators of "poor" can be traced back solely to material possessions - interesting philosophy you have there man! |
pulled out the dictionary just for you smiley..
poor (pʊr) pronunciation
adj., poor·er, poor·est.
1. Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
defensive huh?
some of the terms you consistently use remind me of something i once read. whatever.
what, we're not to speak in metaphors under socialism? |
Nothing defensive whatsoever! But the fact you want to refer to me as "Karl" suggests you're basic your critique of socialist polices on communism (or more specifically, the way in which it has been implemented through history, rather than on the theory itself), which in turn suggests you have no understanding of my economical beliefs whatsoever and your arguments don't stand up as you are arguing against something I am not lending my support to, in order to argue against my points - bizarre |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
pulled out the dictionary just for you smiley..
poor (pʊr) pronunciation
adj., poor·er, poor·est.
1. Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions. |
Did you notice the word "and" in that definition?
And did you even notice that that is the definition of "poor" and not "poverty" that I am referring to?
'Poor' is one indicator of 'poverty' amongst other things |
|
|
| LazFX |
Jesus was the first socialist..... nice man...crucified...
:) carry on..... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
Jesus was the first socialist..... nice man...crucified...
:) carry on..... |
Ironically I agree! If you look at the messages in the Bible, they very closely resebmle socialism - yet for some reason the god squad in America seem to be extreme right wing capitalists! Maybe they should actually read the Bible sometime! |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Ironically I agree! If you look at the messages in the Bible, they very closely resebmle socialism - yet for some reason the god squad in America seem to be extreme right wing capitalists! Maybe they should actually read the Bible sometime! |
true.... and I am sure this could be a whole new thread, but also the man did state, Render unto Ceasar that is Ceasar's and unto god that is god's... so there is your whole separation of church and state....taxs and so forth... I don't think its capitalism's fault; divisions in the dogma, have allowed the man's message to get misconstrued and that started way before this nation was even formed...and every one knows just where cluster fock started up at... Mr European Union... ha ha ;)
so your "god squad" comment is kind off... ;)
i am just saying ya..... ;) but..... lol |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Well Jesus fed 5,000 people with a fish and a loaf of bread - if he wasn't a socialist he'd have eaten it all himself!!
:D |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well Jesus fed 5,000 people with a fish and a loaf of bread - if he wasn't a socialist he'd have eaten it all himself!!
:D |
it was all done with mirrors and fancy wire work...
and and it was Five loaves--and two fish; you heathen!! ha ha ha :D |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You're all falling for the same trap as you did earlier on in the thread - equating economic systems for dictatorship - it simply does not work like that. |
No Georgie, that is not what is being argued. You're creating a straw man here. The argument is that dictatorships generally can be associated with poor economic conditions, but not the other way around. If it were math, I believe you would be violating the transitive property.
For example, my argument might be: All Brits are socialists, Georgie is a Brit, therefore Georgie is a socialist.
Your argument would be like: Georgie is a socialist, therefore Georgie is British. While that may be true, the logic is flawed. While it may be true that you are British.
Similarly, the argument I have been making (and I believe others have been making) is that Dictatorships (or socialism if you prefer that argument, though I'm not trying to equate the two) do not foster strong economies. Venezuela is a dictatorship (or again, feel free to use socialism if you prefer), therefore Venezuela's economy sucks and will continue to suck.
The argument you seem to believe we are making is that: Venezuela's economy sucks, therefore it is indicative that a dictator is in charge. This is a ludicrous and structurally flawed position.
To reiterate: Current poor economic conditions in Venezuela are reflective and resultant of poor leadership by a dictator. However, a nation with a struggling economy does not directly imply that there must be a dictator in charge.
Please tell me you understand the difference.
Lastly, can you just name a few economies that have flourished under dictatorial rule? France under Napoleon perhaps? I guarantee you the weight of the evidence lends itself much more heavily to the argument I'm posing. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
The argument you seem to believe we are making is that: Venezuela's economy sucks, therefore it is indicative that a dictator is in charge. This is a ludicrous and structurally flawed position.
|
Erm no I am arguing exactly the opposite of that - that poor economies do not equal dictatorship. The very fact that you bring the economic performance into the equation of a debate on whether or not Venezuela is a dictatorship suggested to me that you were using it as an indicator of dictatorship - I was pointing out this is an incorrect assumption. However, you now seem to be saying that poor economic performance is not an indicator of dictatorship, so what exactly is the point of bringing it up in the first place?
You make the statement that Venezuela is a dictatorship, and therefore because of that it has a poor economy. But if you're not arguing that the poor economic performance of Venezuela is an indicator of dictatorship then mentioning it is irrelevant.
You've made the statement Venezuela is a dictatorship - you need to back that up with evidence (and as we now both agree, economic performance is not evidence) |
|
|
|
|
