Topic: Your country on Democrats ... Your country on Republicans
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q started this discussion 14 years ago #24,378
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #377,383
inb4 boring arguments
Action Bastard !.B6gr6sszw joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 51 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,384
Actually, it's pretty much exactly the same. Two different vehicles for the same agenda, my friend.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,388
yawn
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,391
@377,384 (Action Bastard !.B6gr6sszw)
yeahh dude their all the same fukkin corporate puppets i only vote for libertarians cause they wanna make weed legal lol
yeahh dude their all the same fukkin corporate puppets i only vote for libertarians cause they wanna make weed legal lol
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,392
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,395
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #377,396
@377,392 (F)
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
I was obviously making fun of libertarians, you dummkopfs.
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
I was obviously making fun of libertarians, you dummkopfs.
Action Bastard !.B6gr6sszw replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #377,399
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #377,403
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #377,404
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #377,406
Murika, lololololol
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #377,412
Say what you want, but business has never been better for Exploitative Farms, Inc.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,496
Where does Democrat town get their ore and chemicals from? Where do they put their non-recyclable waste? Where do they buy liquor and tobacco? Where do they go to church? Where do they watch girls get naked?
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 24 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,508
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Where does Democrat town get their ore and chemicals from?
recycling
> Where do they put their non-recyclable waste?
china. they'll recycle anything.
> Where do they buy liquor and tobacco?
anywhere. isn't it republicans who who want to ban that shit?
> Where do they go to church?
i'm sure there's an iPad app somewhere for that
> Where do they watch girls get naked?
it's a liberal town, go outside, i'm sure there's a nude bike ride somewhere.
> Where does Democrat town get their ore and chemicals from?
recycling
> Where do they put their non-recyclable waste?
china. they'll recycle anything.
> Where do they buy liquor and tobacco?
anywhere. isn't it republicans who who want to ban that shit?
> Where do they go to church?
i'm sure there's an iPad app somewhere for that
> Where do they watch girls get naked?
it's a liberal town, go outside, i'm sure there's a nude bike ride somewhere.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,510
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
He's referring to the picture, not irl. Actually the strip clubs would be clean and well maintained on the Democratic side. Hell, we would probably have government run brothels. Men from the Republican side would sneak in like refugees, to use these services. lol
He's referring to the picture, not irl. Actually the strip clubs would be clean and well maintained on the Democratic side. Hell, we would probably have government run brothels. Men from the Republican side would sneak in like refugees, to use these services. lol
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 48 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,522
I'll keep my guns, tobacco, liquor, gambling, strip clubs, cheap energy, cheap food, and fast-growing industrial economy, thanks.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,524
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,525
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,526
The cartoonist has obviously never driven on any roads in Massachusetts The most Democratic state in the US has shitty potholes everywhere.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,528
@previous (N)
places in the north tend to be democratic, and tend to have a freeze-thaw cycle that you don't get.
places in the north tend to be democratic, and tend to have a freeze-thaw cycle that you don't get.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,536
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,541
@377,508 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
thanks for proving your intelligence
@377,510 (K)
> He's referring to the picture, not irl.
Obviously.
Why doesn't North Korea look like Democrat Town?
thanks for proving your intelligence
@377,510 (K)
> He's referring to the picture, not irl.
Obviously.
Why doesn't North Korea look like Democrat Town?
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,553
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Because Korea's government is a totalitarian personality cult. Where they call themselves communists,but many are starving.
Because Korea's government is a totalitarian personality cult. Where they call themselves communists,but many are starving.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,563
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,583
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,589
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,591
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 26 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,596
@377,524 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
And I'd like to live in Republican land but get rid of all the churches and still have abortion clinics and libraries. There are good sides to both.
And I'd like to live in Republican land but get rid of all the churches and still have abortion clinics and libraries. There are good sides to both.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,668
@377,591 (B)
Please enlighten me. What is wrong with their philosophy? Why has it caused such outcomes?
Please enlighten me. What is wrong with their philosophy? Why has it caused such outcomes?
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,681
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,683
Do they have guards keeping out the blacks in Democrat town?
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,686
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,688
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
theoretically valid is useless if in practice it's an utter failure.
useless in terms of any application of it.
theoretically valid is useless if in practice it's an utter failure.
useless in terms of any application of it.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,693
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
No lol. If it's theoretically valid it will work in real life. The problem is that socialism (and many other popular theories) are not valid, and so do not work in real life.
Economic calculation under socialism is impossible. There is no rational way of allocating resources. This is a fundamental theoretical flaw, and explains why it fails in real life.
No lol. If it's theoretically valid it will work in real life. The problem is that socialism (and many other popular theories) are not valid, and so do not work in real life.
Economic calculation under socialism is impossible. There is no rational way of allocating resources. This is a fundamental theoretical flaw, and explains why it fails in real life.
Anonymous O replied with this 14 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,773
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,777
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,781
@377,693 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Implying North Korea has actually attempted to implement socialism beyond a really shitty half-assed effort done in order to convince the locals that the lies the local press churn out is truth
> Implying North Korea has actually attempted to implement socialism beyond a really shitty half-assed effort done in order to convince the locals that the lies the local press churn out is truth
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 19 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,995
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 43 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,997
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,025
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Well since the aim is apparently to merely make the Kim family rich beyond belief at the expense of their entire country, it is working as they want. But as for the people, I doubt they wish to have no food or to be subjected to the pervading cult of personality or the fear of being sent to torture camps should they dissent.
Well since the aim is apparently to merely make the Kim family rich beyond belief at the expense of their entire country, it is working as they want. But as for the people, I doubt they wish to have no food or to be subjected to the pervading cult of personality or the fear of being sent to torture camps should they dissent.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,034
@previous (B)
> Well since the aim is apparently to merely make the Kim family rich beyond belief at the expense of their entire country, it is working as they want.
One cannot ascertain the objectives from the outcomes.
> But as for the people, I doubt they wish to have no food or to be subjected to the pervading cult of personality or the fear of being sent to torture camps should they dissent.
You seem to get that often with Socialism.
> Well since the aim is apparently to merely make the Kim family rich beyond belief at the expense of their entire country, it is working as they want.
One cannot ascertain the objectives from the outcomes.
> But as for the people, I doubt they wish to have no food or to be subjected to the pervading cult of personality or the fear of being sent to torture camps should they dissent.
You seem to get that often with Socialism.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,041
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Please tell me countries that use socialism, that aren't plutocratic dictatorships with a hold upon their country with an iron fist, that have torture camps and a pervading cult of personality.
Please tell me countries that use socialism, that aren't plutocratic dictatorships with a hold upon their country with an iron fist, that have torture camps and a pervading cult of personality.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,143
@previous (B)
Please tell me countries that use socialism, that aren't plutocratic dictatorships with a hold upon their country with an iron fist.
Please tell me countries that use socialism, that aren't plutocratic dictatorships with a hold upon their country with an iron fist.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,281
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
United Kingdom
France
India
Portugal
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Bangladesh
Sweden
Now please answer my question instead of trying to deflect.
United Kingdom
France
India
Portugal
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Bangladesh
Sweden
Now please answer my question instead of trying to deflect.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,320
@previous (B)Do you watch Fox news? It's one thing to call policies socialistic, but to claim that the UK is a socialist state is too laughable to seriously reply to.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,324
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,332
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,358
@378,320 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
NHS isn't socialist? Welfare state isn't socialist? Devolution isn't socialist? I noticed you cannot answer the question I gave you.
NHS isn't socialist? Welfare state isn't socialist? Devolution isn't socialist? I noticed you cannot answer the question I gave you.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,359
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,412
@378,358 (B)
> It's one thing to call policies socialistic, but to claim that the UK is a socialist state is too laughable to seriously reply to.
> It's one thing to call policies socialistic, but to claim that the UK is a socialist state is too laughable to seriously reply to.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,483
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
I find it interesting that I asked you a question you don't want to give the answer to (because you know it will prove you're full of shit) and then when I gave into good nature and answered your goalpost-moving question you tried to change the nature of the argument to something unrelated to the previous discussion, in the hopes that I will forget about having asked you a question.
I'm not talking to you more until you answer my question.
I find it interesting that I asked you a question you don't want to give the answer to (because you know it will prove you're full of shit) and then when I gave into good nature and answered your goalpost-moving question you tried to change the nature of the argument to something unrelated to the previous discussion, in the hopes that I will forget about having asked you a question.
I'm not talking to you more until you answer my question.
Anonymous O replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,501
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,554
@378,483 (B)
> I find it interesting that I asked you a question you don't want to give the answer to (because you know it will prove you're full of shit)
I really don't know any socialist states that weren't run by dictators.
> and then when I gave into good nature and answered your goalpost-moving question you tried to change the nature of the argument to something unrelated to the previous discussion, in the hopes that I will forget about having asked you a question.
Say this when it happens. I have no idea what you are talking about now, with no cites, quotes, &c.
> I'm not talking to you more until you answer my question.
Which was?
> I find it interesting that I asked you a question you don't want to give the answer to (because you know it will prove you're full of shit)
I really don't know any socialist states that weren't run by dictators.
> and then when I gave into good nature and answered your goalpost-moving question you tried to change the nature of the argument to something unrelated to the previous discussion, in the hopes that I will forget about having asked you a question.
Say this when it happens. I have no idea what you are talking about now, with no cites, quotes, &c.
> I'm not talking to you more until you answer my question.
Which was?
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,557
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Hurr durr I am mountainman if I pretend I don't notice things exist I can get away with no answering them
Scroll up, asshole.
> Hurr durr I am mountainman if I pretend I don't notice things exist I can get away with no answering them
Scroll up, asshole.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,575
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,586
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Hurr durr I am mountainman if I pretend I don't notice things exist I can get away with no answering them
Scroll up, asshole.
> Hurr durr I am mountainman if I pretend I don't notice things exist I can get away with no answering them
Scroll up, asshole.
Anonymous O replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,591
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,612
@378,586 (B)
This is such a bad troll. You have to make it seem like a person could actually respond that way. No one would be so autistic as to not simply cite their references.
This is such a bad troll. You have to make it seem like a person could actually respond that way. No one would be so autistic as to not simply cite their references.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 15 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,690
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Yes, hurr durr I'm autistic. This thread is not long and if you can't be bothered to go over past correspondence to see what someone is referring to then you're just a little bitch faggot. The world would be a better place if dingos ate you.
Yes, hurr durr I'm autistic. This thread is not long and if you can't be bothered to go over past correspondence to see what someone is referring to then you're just a little bitch faggot. The world would be a better place if dingos ate you.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,729
@previous (B)
I was bothered, but I have no idea what you are talking about now, with no cites, quotes, &c.
I was bothered, but I have no idea what you are talking about now, with no cites, quotes, &c.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,733
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,739
@previous (B)
I don't know of any socialist countries that aren't run by a dictator. I have already answered this.
I don't know of any socialist countries that aren't run by a dictator. I have already answered this.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 55 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,746
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,750
@previous (B)
> It's one thing to call policies socialistic, but to claim that the UK is a socialist state is too laughable to seriously reply to.
yawn
> It's one thing to call policies socialistic, but to claim that the UK is a socialist state is too laughable to seriously reply to.
yawn
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,752
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,753
@378,750 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> I can't refute him so I'll just say it's absurd and dodge the issue from now on
compelling statism
> I can't refute him so I'll just say it's absurd and dodge the issue from now on
compelling statism
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 45 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,755
@378,752 (doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ)
He did not argue his points, he merely asserted them. A quality argument is not necessary to refute an assertion, especially one as immediately false as this one.
@previous (F)
Got some reputable sources that claim that the UK is a socialist state?
He did not argue his points, he merely asserted them. A quality argument is not necessary to refute an assertion, especially one as immediately false as this one.
@previous (F)
Got some reputable sources that claim that the UK is a socialist state?
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,756
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Why is it absurd to say that the UK is a socialist state, especially since you already conceded (@378,412 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)) it has enacted some socialist policies?
Why is it absurd to say that the UK is a socialist state, especially since you already conceded (@378,412 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)) it has enacted some socialist policies?
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,793
@378,750 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
There is more than the UK in that list you stupid retard. Also if a country has socialist policies then it's socialist even if it doesn't say it is.
There is more than the UK in that list you stupid retard. Also if a country has socialist policies then it's socialist even if it doesn't say it is.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,804
@378,756 (F)
@previous (B)
A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy. It is restricted to this meaning, because otherwise every political system would be a form of socialism, as they all require nationalization of some economic good (even if only defense & law).
@previous (B)
A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy. It is restricted to this meaning, because otherwise every political system would be a form of socialism, as they all require nationalization of some economic good (even if only defense & law).
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 47 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,810
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Oh ho ho! Look at the libertarian pederast spouting bullshit again!
Oh ho ho! Look at the libertarian pederast spouting bullshit again!
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,811
@378,804 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
So a government that nationalizes 90% of the country's industry is just as "not socialist" as a government that restricts itself to law enforcement, roads, and courts? Sounds kind of stupid, bud.
So a government that nationalizes 90% of the country's industry is just as "not socialist" as a government that restricts itself to law enforcement, roads, and courts? Sounds kind of stupid, bud.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,816
@378,810 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
> pederast
Are you illiterate?
@previous (F)
No, what a ridiculous and unjustifiable assertion.
> So a person with a BMI of 29 is just as "not obese" as a person starving to death in Africa? Sounds kind of stupid, bud.
> pederast
Are you illiterate?
@previous (F)
No, what a ridiculous and unjustifiable assertion.
> So a person with a BMI of 29 is just as "not obese" as a person starving to death in Africa? Sounds kind of stupid, bud.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,817
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
How is it ridiculous or unjustifiable? You said "A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy." So if a state hasn't completely nationalized the economy, then it is not a socialist state. Since a state that has nationalized only 90% and a state that nationalizes significantly less than 90% both are not completely nationalized, they are both "not socialist" in the same sense.
This is like reasoning 101 dude.
> So a person with a BMI of 29 is just as "not obese" as a starving to death in Africa? Sounds kind of stupid, bud.
Yes that's exactly my point. If you defined "obesity" in the same way you defined "socialist", you'd get an unacceptable conclusion. Thanks for finishing the reductio I started.
How is it ridiculous or unjustifiable? You said "A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy." So if a state hasn't completely nationalized the economy, then it is not a socialist state. Since a state that has nationalized only 90% and a state that nationalizes significantly less than 90% both are not completely nationalized, they are both "not socialist" in the same sense.
This is like reasoning 101 dude.
> So a person with a BMI of 29 is just as "not obese" as a starving to death in Africa? Sounds kind of stupid, bud.
Yes that's exactly my point. If you defined "obesity" in the same way you defined "socialist", you'd get an unacceptable conclusion. Thanks for finishing the reductio I started.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,820
@previous (F)
> How is it ridiculous or unjustifiable? You said "A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy." So if a state hasn't completely nationalized the economy, then it is not a socialist state. Since a state that has nationalized only 90% and a state that nationalizes significantly less than 90% both are not completely nationalized, they are both "not socialist" in the same sense.
>
> This is like reasoning 101 dude.
They are both not socialist, but to say that their proximity to socialism is equal is ridiculous and unjustified by the argument.
> How is it ridiculous or unjustifiable? You said "A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy." So if a state hasn't completely nationalized the economy, then it is not a socialist state. Since a state that has nationalized only 90% and a state that nationalizes significantly less than 90% both are not completely nationalized, they are both "not socialist" in the same sense.
>
> This is like reasoning 101 dude.
They are both not socialist, but to say that their proximity to socialism is equal is ridiculous and unjustified by the argument.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 47 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,821
@378,817 (F)
Neither of them are obese, though, yet one is much closer to obesity. This is a refutation of your argument.
Neither of them are obese, though, yet one is much closer to obesity. This is a refutation of your argument.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,823
@378,820 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
So is it laughable to call the UK socialist or not? I'm confused because I don't quite know where you stand anymore.
So is it laughable to call the UK socialist or not? I'm confused because I don't quite know where you stand anymore.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,824
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,826
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Ok I'll break this down as simply as I can and cite everything to clear up any confusion.
You said that calling the UK socialist was laughable, though you conceded it enacted some socialistic policies. @378,412 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
When that assertion was questioned @378,756, (F) you responded by saying that the UK was not socialist because "A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy." @378,804 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
If that is your definition of "a socialist country", then I agree, by that definition, the UK is not a socialist country, and to assert that would be laughable.
I find that the definition is problematic for reasons I stated, namely that "Since a state that has nationalized only 90% and a state that nationalizes significantly less than 90% both are not completely nationalized, they are both "not socialist" in the same sense." @378,817 (F)
You correctly point out that such a definition leads to an absurd conclusion with your obesity example, @378,817 (F) thus agreeing with my implied conclusion that "a socialist state" is not a binary definition; it is rather a matter of degrees. Some states are more socialistic and some states are less socialistic, but since we have abandoned your original definition, you can no longer rationally say that "calling the UK a socialist state is laughable" (unless you have some other, unstated reason for doing so).
I'm not making some grand philosophical point about what the proper role of government (if any) is, I'm just pointing out that your definition of a socialist state as originally stated is in need of revision, for reasons that you and I both agree on.
Ok I'll break this down as simply as I can and cite everything to clear up any confusion.
You said that calling the UK socialist was laughable, though you conceded it enacted some socialistic policies. @378,412 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
When that assertion was questioned @378,756, (F) you responded by saying that the UK was not socialist because "A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy." @378,804 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
If that is your definition of "a socialist country", then I agree, by that definition, the UK is not a socialist country, and to assert that would be laughable.
I find that the definition is problematic for reasons I stated, namely that "Since a state that has nationalized only 90% and a state that nationalizes significantly less than 90% both are not completely nationalized, they are both "not socialist" in the same sense." @378,817 (F)
You correctly point out that such a definition leads to an absurd conclusion with your obesity example, @378,817 (F) thus agreeing with my implied conclusion that "a socialist state" is not a binary definition; it is rather a matter of degrees. Some states are more socialistic and some states are less socialistic, but since we have abandoned your original definition, you can no longer rationally say that "calling the UK a socialist state is laughable" (unless you have some other, unstated reason for doing so).
I'm not making some grand philosophical point about what the proper role of government (if any) is, I'm just pointing out that your definition of a socialist state as originally stated is in need of revision, for reasons that you and I both agree on.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 12 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,936
@previous (F)
> unless you have some other, unstated reason for doing so
I was in an argument with him, and I was winning, and because he is terrible at debates and indeed at life itself he can never willingly agree with a person he is arguing with for any reason so he desperately wants to change what we were talking about. This is why he keeps talking about the UK like it's the only country I said.
> unless you have some other, unstated reason for doing so
I was in an argument with him, and I was winning, and because he is terrible at debates and indeed at life itself he can never willingly agree with a person he is arguing with for any reason so he desperately wants to change what we were talking about. This is why he keeps talking about the UK like it's the only country I said.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,978
@378,826 (F)
> Ok I'll break this down as simply as I can and cite everything to clear up any confusion.
> You said that calling the UK socialist was laughable, though you conceded it enacted some socialistic policies. @378,412 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Hardly a concession. I brought it up, and maintain a distinction between the two concepts.
> When that assertion was questioned @378,756, (F) you responded by saying that the UK was not socialist because "A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy." @378,804 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
I should hardly think this is up for debate.
> If that is your definition of "a socialist country", then I agree, by that definition, the UK is not a socialist country, and to assert that would be laughable.
That is the definition of socialism, yes.
> I find that the definition is problematic for reasons I stated, namely that "Since a state that has nationalized only 90% and a state that nationalizes significantly less than 90% both are not completely nationalized, they are both "not socialist" in the same sense." @378,817 (F)
So I gave an example which pointed out the flaw of your reasoning. It is mainly based upon the qualifier "same sense", which is an obscure and ill-defined term, but would seem to mean "to the same degree". Both are, definitively, not socialist. But to say they both not socialist in the same degree, is a conclusion unwarranted by the argument thus far advanced, and contrary to common sense.
> You correctly point out that such a definition leads to an absurd conclusion with your obesity example,
No, the definition is fine. Your non sequitor logic is the problem. I attempted to give an example of a state with clearly defined conditions - obesity. Obesity is defined as "having a BMI of 30 or greater". Anything less than 30 is not obese, whether 29 or 16. Yet one would not argue that such individuals would be not obese in the same degree.
> @378,817 (F) thus agreeing with my implied conclusion that "a socialist state" is not a binary definition; it is rather a matter of degrees.
It was explicitly crafted to counter this confusion.
> Some states are more socialistic and some states are less socialistic, but since we have abandoned your original definition, you can no longer rationally say that "calling the UK a socialist state is laughable" (unless you have some other, unstated reason for doing so).
The original definition was never abandoned.
> I'm not making some grand philosophical point about what the proper role of government (if any) is, I'm just pointing out that your definition of a socialist state as originally stated is in need of revision, for reasons that you and I both agree on.
See above.
> Ok I'll break this down as simply as I can and cite everything to clear up any confusion.
> You said that calling the UK socialist was laughable, though you conceded it enacted some socialistic policies. @378,412 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Hardly a concession. I brought it up, and maintain a distinction between the two concepts.
> When that assertion was questioned @378,756, (F) you responded by saying that the UK was not socialist because "A socialist state is one that has completely nationalized the economy." @378,804 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
I should hardly think this is up for debate.
> If that is your definition of "a socialist country", then I agree, by that definition, the UK is not a socialist country, and to assert that would be laughable.
That is the definition of socialism, yes.
> I find that the definition is problematic for reasons I stated, namely that "Since a state that has nationalized only 90% and a state that nationalizes significantly less than 90% both are not completely nationalized, they are both "not socialist" in the same sense." @378,817 (F)
So I gave an example which pointed out the flaw of your reasoning. It is mainly based upon the qualifier "same sense", which is an obscure and ill-defined term, but would seem to mean "to the same degree". Both are, definitively, not socialist. But to say they both not socialist in the same degree, is a conclusion unwarranted by the argument thus far advanced, and contrary to common sense.
> You correctly point out that such a definition leads to an absurd conclusion with your obesity example,
No, the definition is fine. Your non sequitor logic is the problem. I attempted to give an example of a state with clearly defined conditions - obesity. Obesity is defined as "having a BMI of 30 or greater". Anything less than 30 is not obese, whether 29 or 16. Yet one would not argue that such individuals would be not obese in the same degree.
> @378,817 (F) thus agreeing with my implied conclusion that "a socialist state" is not a binary definition; it is rather a matter of degrees.
It was explicitly crafted to counter this confusion.
> Some states are more socialistic and some states are less socialistic, but since we have abandoned your original definition, you can no longer rationally say that "calling the UK a socialist state is laughable" (unless you have some other, unstated reason for doing so).
The original definition was never abandoned.
> I'm not making some grand philosophical point about what the proper role of government (if any) is, I'm just pointing out that your definition of a socialist state as originally stated is in need of revision, for reasons that you and I both agree on.
See above.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,979
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 32 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,988
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
If I wasn't winning, you wouldn't have desperately tried to avoid sticking to the point. You wouldn't debate, therefore you lost the debate. That's just how it works.
If I wasn't winning, you wouldn't have desperately tried to avoid sticking to the point. You wouldn't debate, therefore you lost the debate. That's just how it works.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 14 years ago, 36 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,992
that is how debate works, ron paul.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #379,066
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #379,067
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
You can term it "argumentative post" if you like, since it was a post with an argument, but no that's not quite correct. It's more like "You resorted to cheap tricks to avoid addressing my argument, so you lose".
You can term it "argumentative post" if you like, since it was a post with an argument, but no that's not quite correct. It's more like "You resorted to cheap tricks to avoid addressing my argument, so you lose".
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #379,070
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #379,071
@379,067 (B)
Demonstrate this; don't just assert it. I get the feeling you think logic is a cheap trick.
Demonstrate this; don't just assert it. I get the feeling you think logic is a cheap trick.
niggers replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #379,073
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #379,075
@379,071 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
You can win if you like. I found love, Mountainman! I don't want to argue with you about this anymore! I'm so happy today!
You can win if you like. I found love, Mountainman! I don't want to argue with you about this anymore! I'm so happy today!
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #379,078
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #379,081
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
She's so beautiful and clever I'm actually speechless. I don't even care about whatever shit we were doing anymore! I just want to dance and sing! The world is perfect!
She's so beautiful and clever I'm actually speechless. I don't even care about whatever shit we were doing anymore! I just want to dance and sing! The world is perfect!