CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The last crazy person who killed a bunch of people, took the gun from his mother.
Your gun restriction laws are a complete joke! All they do is make it harder for law abiding citizens.
Lets go down your Big Government control path and now restrict mentally ill from going in bars to have a drink because they could get drunk and go kill people with their car. Do you want back ground checks in bars before you can bet a drink?
Lets get the Big Brother Government watching every person's next move to make sure they don't do something bad.
Why am I wasting my time responding to a gun control nutcase is the real question.
Airports are a public form of transportation where one psycho could kill hundreds of people with a bomb, and therefore it makes sense having metal detectors, etc.
Do you want background checks at bars in airports before giving alcohol? I don't and neither do you.
If it's about saving lives, we could save many thousands more lives by background checks in bars before giving drinks? Do you want to save those lives or enjoy your freedom to drink without background checks or being registered as a drinker?
Why are you not concerned about a psycho who could drink with no background checks and kill many with a truck?
Law abiding citizens like our freedoms to buy guns without being registered, etc. etc.
Yes, every person is a possible psycho so what we must do is ask why there are more psychos today (who kill mass numbers of people with no connection) then 60 years ago.
I agree with that rationale. You can't spend your life being afraid to leave your home. I was on vacation in NYC on the day of the attacks, yet I plan to go back there.However, some people who have a background of mental illness are still able to buy a gun, and that is not acceptable. This shows that people don't care as long as they get money. Democrats don't want to completely reform gun laws, they just want to make sure there are no loopholes so psychos can't get them.
You truly live in some dream world if you do not think the final goal from the Left is taking our guns as they have in socialist nations, dictatorship nations, and others.
Are you truly that naive? Do you actually think they just want to prevent crazies from getting guns (even though that's impossible)? The one mentally ill person simply took his mother's gun.
They would not get elected if they showed their true colors. They do what they ALWAYS DO.....deceive, distort, outright lie to make you believe the garbage you have swallowed.
Remember when Democrts only wanted fisrt trimester abortions? Now they support no restriction abortions for any reason up to birth.
Remember when they only wanted civic unions? When the courts were filled with liberals they forced Gay marriage on every State.
Remember when they said tax payers would never pay for abortions. Then they forced everyone to pay for medicaid abortions.
You are truly a fool if you believe their lies. THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS AS EVEN SOME LIBERALS HAVE ADMITTED.
Remember when I told you a million times before that whatever a court does applies
to all states equally?
And by the way, there were the same amount of liberals on the court that there are today. Same ideologies, etc.
Just because democrats support something doesn't mean it has to happen!! I'm a Democrat, and I support abortion, but that doesn't mean that my family chose to have one.
Garbage, you say? GARBAGE???
Remember when Republicans supported the First Amendment, but then told the "NFL fools" that they weren't allowed to practice their freedom of expression?
I have many other examples of Conservative failures that I could share, but I'm pretty sure you get the point.
Republicans were not saying these America hating idiots taking a knee did not have a right to do so. We said their employers have a right to fire them and should have.
I give facts and you give rhetoric....IGNORE! I've got much better things to be doing.
"Birds of a feather flock together." Why wouldn't Trump want to protect those like him?? He's giving billionaires the chance to form their own laws to protect and increase their fortunes. He's giving sexual predators legitimacy (they think). He's giving our country's enemies the feeling we and our allies are drifting apart. He's "drained the swamp, dredged it deeper, and refilled it with far larger and more dangerous "critters". He's "tweeted" U.S. closer to nuclear war. He's legitimized white nationalism, calling them as "nice as people on the OTHER side" (paraphrasing). HE rages against radical Islamists who kill Americans, wants to keep them out of the country, while he keeps arming the radical NUTS of America because the 2nd gives them the RIGHT! HE is acting more like a "King" than Obama EVER did. HE....is about as NUTS as they come .... "Birds of a feather ......!"
I'm glad you separated "libs" and "Hollywood elites". We should include those "Washington elites" also. Trumps Cabinet is TOTALLY elite, as is his pussy-grabbing self ... that "self" that has had 5000+ lawsuits against himself .. many of which are "molestation" lawsuits! Conservatives who live in glass houses .......etc.! (HE was also a long time friend of the Hollywood flasher who is the star of non-fake-news at the moment ... "Birds of a feather......." ;-)
Trumps Cabinet is TOTALLY elite, as is his pussy-grabbing self
The left celebrates this alleged behavior. It's why they love Bill Clinton, have nothing to say about liberal elites doing worse right this moment, and even celebrated Trump prior to the Presidency. If you see a female protestor baring her breasts in public, she's a lib. If you see a woman dressed as a vagina while holding her child's hand, she's a lib. If you see Weinstein raping women in mass... you see the left act like they "didn't even know", despite there being video of them making fun of this very behavior in the past. The point? You don't care what Trump did or didn't grab. You care that he isn't wearing the donkey patch.
If you see Weinstein raping women in mass... you see the left act like they "didn't even know"
Just wtf? Let me get this straight. You are saying it's OK for Trump to sexually assault women because the left claims it didn't know about Weinstein?? Well, if the right claims it knew about Weinstein then why didn't they do anything to stop him?
Just wtf? Let me get this straight. You are saying it's OK for Trump to sexually assault women
He says he didn't do it, and his "victims" magically disappeared once Hillary lost the election. And...the Clintons are well known for character assasinations on anyone who opposes them. Bill Clinton did do worse, admitted he did it, and the left just looked the other way. Why? He was a part of the tribe. With the left it's not who you are, it's what you are. If I claimed to be a leftist tomorrow, you'd gladly get on your knees and do my bidding.
Well, if the right claims it knew about Weinstein then why didn't they do anything to stop him?
1)The right didn't claim to know. Newsflash Quantum, right wingers aren't exactly flooding liberal Hollywood.
2)Liberals, with video proof galore, did claim to know, did make fun of his acts, and never said a damn word. Why? Liberals don't give a flying shit who touches who or who touches what. They only care about what tribe you belong to.
3)If Trump admitted to wrong doing or was proven to have done anything, I'd condemn it, but that's not the case. I'm not a liberal. I need admittance or proof to condemn someone on an issue such as this. I'm not a liberal Pharisee hypocrite "morality" zealot.
4)For a liberal to get mad about sexual "morality" is a laugh.
Sadly, they are actually "nicer". The KKK, as vile as they are, gets a permit and marches once a year in what is usually a nonviolent event. ANTIFA on the other hand keeps coming out all the time, keeps being violent, keeps arming themselves with weapons, keeps being destructive, keeps targeting minorities that aren't leftists, keeps burning the flag, keeps flying Communist flags, and keeps looting...
MOST of it whizzed over my head, because MOST of it was "fake news".
WHO is allowing destructive people to keep arming themselves? WHO keeps targeting minorities (like "gays", like transgenders, like "Mexican rapists", like those on Social Security or Medicare, like those who come from Muslim countries JUST BECAUSE they come from Muslim countries). I don't KNOW any minorities that aren't leftist ... by majority.
I don't know any American leftists that burn the American flag that aren't in that "minority" that has been led to believe in the conservative view that the American "government is the problem, not the solution"! MY, MY, doesn't that sound like communism?? Like "flying the communist flag" ... or at least doing what the flyers of that flag LOVE! (Talk about whizzing over your head!!)!
Just WHO is it that wont say a word against that communist leader who would like U.S. to collapse? I'll give you a hint ... He's NOT a leftist liberal! (At least, not anymore!)!
WHO is allowing destructive people to keep arming themselves?
That'd be leftists and RINO's who decided to pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, which is why we have ISIS today. Also, leftist cities keep killing each other with guns. The right on the other hand rarely kills anyone. Disarming innocent people knowing criminals and terrorists would still have guns, makes you a bad person. Any questions?
like those who come from Muslim countries JUST BECAUSE they come from Muslim countries
Not actually. We don't mind Muslims from peaceful areas. We don't want anyone, Muslim or otherwise, from terroristic states or unvettable areas that ISIS plans to infiltrate pretending to be "refugees". It's common sense.
MY, doesn't that sound like communism?? Like "flying the communist flag"
Yes, leftists and ANTIFA love Communism. Why is anyone's guess. It enslaves its people, has major human rights violations, and censors news, every time.
You mean the guy who thinks you should respect the flag, has companies marching back to the U.S., has the economy and markets at record levels, wants you to get a tax break, and is a rabid Capitalist? Yes, it's been awful...and resembles Communism...in no way, shape or form...
And even better still, Trump was saying the exact same things for decades, and the left celebrated him and praised him. (You can youtube "Trump 1980s" and watch it all. He was saying fake news and dishonest media 30 years ago and the left agreed with him, and even thought it was funny.) And? Now that rabid Hollywood leftists are being caught up in pedophilia and misogyny and rape scandals, the left has? Nerry a peep. The point? You're a drama queen, inconsistent, can't hold people to the same measure due to identity politics, and a flaming hypocrite.
A side note. Communist Marxists are leftists. ANTIFA, who waves the Communist flag, is leftist. (Pats you on the head, slowly turns around, and quickly walks away...)
FUCK their permit!! They're NAZI motherfuckers!! I'm sure they got a permit to gas the Jews, too.. Anybody who attacks NAZI motherfuckers is doing Gods work.
Anybody who attacks NAZI motherfuckers is doing Gods work.
1)You don't believe in God.
2)Most of their victims aren't Nazis or KKK members. That happened on one occasion when they purposefully attended a Klan march to start violence. Many of their victims have been blacks, Jews, women, gays and the elderly. I watched video on youtube of them dragging an elderly woman through the grass. The fact that that doesn't disturb you is well....disturbing.
Most of their victims aren't Nazis or KKK members.
Stop making up complete bullshit and stop using deceitful, inaccurate language. Firstly, you do not have the relevant information to conclude who most of Antifa's "victims" are. Secondly, you are deliberately loading your language to create the false impression that Antifa is an organisation whose purpose is to seek out "victims" rather than an organisation whose purpose is to combat exactly the sort of fascist language you are using.
Hey genius. The KKK could call themselves "happiness spreaders". It wouldn't make it true. Dragging elderly people through parks isn't anti Nazi. It's pro evil.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.. I don't CARE who ANTIFA is, or what they do.. As long as they attack Nazi motherfuckers, they're my friends..
The Russians were our SWORN enemy, but BOTH of us HATED the Nazi's, and that's WHY they were our friends for a while.. This dynamic is NO different than that..
What blows me away, is that you appear to LOVE those Nazi motherfuckers..
Is that right? So if a Nazi group killed the KKK, your friend would be Nazis. That's fucked up. If pedophiles from an anti left hate group killed Nazis, you'd be their friend? You're a sick bastard con. I'd just call them all evil andnot be friends with any of them.
What blows me away, is that you appear to LOVE those Nazi motherfuckers
No. Actually I've condemned them on all of your posts and then called you out for not codemning ANTIFA. You love a group who acts like Nazis simply because of identity politics. The fact that they use fascist techniques doesn't make you flinch. Why? They have the donkey patch. I don't "go be friends" with Naziism simply because they oppose Communist and Stalin-esque ANTIFA. They're both evil. It's sad that you can't make the same conclusion.
Oh, I get it.. These Nazi motherfuckers are a much nicer version of those other Nazi motherfuckers... If they could get control, you think they won't murder again??????? DUDE!!!!
I don't know why a fine American human being, such as yourself would support ANYTHING these motherfuckers want to do.. If you are ANY kind of patriot, you'd HATE Nazis too..
I don’t suppose hammer and sickle flags at Antifa marches gets him as steamed (though it may make some international students feel unsafe). Animosity for Stalin and Mao never rises to Hitler’s level. Interesting.
Strangely enough, Mao and Stalin, both Communists, killed vast millions more people than Hitler, which should be very eye awakening, yet the left never flinches. They go back to zombie mode and chant "Hitler" over and over in a monotone voice...
Strangely enough, Mao and Stalin, both Communists, killed vast millions more people than Hitler
You're wrong. Stalin killed 8-9 million and Mao killed about 45 million. Hitler started a war which killed 70 million.
The current status of historical research, which has revised much higher estimates from the Cold War era, is that Stalin more or less deliberately caused the deaths of about 8–9 million people.
2)Hitler didn't give the command to kill 70 million people, and many of the deaths were the Allies killing the Axis Powers. Remember when I told you false equivalencies aren't your friend? You know why? Because it makes you look like a fucking retard.
3)Mao and Stalin's kills weren't from battle. They killed their own people.
4)The list of Atheist, Communist dictators who mass killed their own people stems well beyond Mao and Stalin.
5)Seeing Hitler's comments on Christianity at the height of his power and his strange infatuation with Darwinism and survival of the fittest, topped with his addiction to a plethera of drugs, it's pretty obvious that he was an atheist who used religion to obtain power in a predominantly Christian nation.
I don’t suppose hammer and sickle flags at Antifa marches gets him
Hello A:
You're right.. Flags don't get me upset.. Murdering motherfuckers do..
If Maoists started marching in the streets, I'd PUNCH 'em too.. But, they aren't marching.. Nazi motherfuckers are.. If Stalinsts marched, I'd PUNCH 'em too.. But, the Stalinists aren't marching.. Nazi motherfuckers are..
Looks like you too LOVE these Nazi motherfuckers too.. Who knew?
If Maoists started marching in the streets, I'd PUNCH 'em too.. But, they aren't marching
Antifa hold the same ideological views as Mao. It's why they wave his flag. You wouldn't punch Maoists. You'd let them rape your grandaughter if given the chance. In the name of tollerance and social engineering of course...
Do you know what the Maoists and the Stalinists had in common? They were Communists. Communists are marching in the street. And they are punching people.
@Amarel. You are very confused and misinformed. Please see my current thread/debate in order to get yourself a bit more informed before misusing language and making gratuitous claims:
It's amusing when wrong people are smug about it .
Yes, it is.
Try to coherently explain your position on the topic inside the framework of the historical context for which the ideas formed and progressed that led to a Stalinist society (have you ever read Animal Farm?). What are the fundamental principles of Stalinism? What are the fundamental principles of Communism? Do they comport with one another?
X , What are the differences between Stalinism and communism ?
Here's a generally accepted definition of Stalinism .........
. Stalinist policies and ideas, as developed in the Soviet Union, included rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, a centralized state, collectivization of agriculture, cult of personality,and subordination of the interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—deemed by Stalinism to be the leading vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.
@Dermot. In a separate thread with FactMachine I discussed at some length the point I am driving at here. There is a serious problem with the abuse of common language where definitions to terms become so infinitely malleable as to be consistent with criteria that are in zero-sum conflict with the original/intended definition of a term (e.i. as though one can claim a circle is a square and vice versa and have that be logically consistent. This is partially explored in George Orwell's Animal Farm with the "Principles of Animalism"). This literally never happens in Mathematics, Physics, and many other areas of Science. NEVER. Particularly Math because the "rules of the game" are all internally constructed thus the need for extremely precise definitions is of the utmost importance. As soon as you drift to the Social Sciences, terminology becomes a lot more vague, and then when your in Humanities it is often egregious, and in popular culture/popular conception it is just mind-numbingly stupid (it can start to get mind-numbly stupid in areas of the Humanities as well). In my view, we pay such a tremendously high price for allowing people not to understand basic/fundamental ideas from the "hard sciences" such as precision of language/terminology and are way to kind about this even in regards to many other academic disciplines.
Now, the Term Paper I copied and pasted as a large part of my OP in that thread was graded/reviewed by my Professor who got his PhD in Modern African History from the University of Cambridge and he was not very sympathetic to "Marxism" at all. However, I received a high A on the essay because of academic code of conduct. That is, a scholar cannot deny the known/established facts of history in good standing even if they are biased against it, particularly when sourced accurately (because then they would have to contend with the other authors/academics being cited which could cause problems for them). I pulled my punches on the paper (because Professors are human and cutting into their sacrosanct beliefs/authority to much (even when they are demonstrably wrong) can pose quite a potential issue for you as the student) but it was enough and he conceded the entirety of the main argument. He often talked loosely in class about "Communism" and "Marxism" bordering on obfuscation which is why I chose that topic. Side note, I liked this Professor a lot overall but this was an area where we butted heads a bit as this is what typically happens when trespassing on taboo.
X , yes I understand academic rigour and preciseness when it comes to using language and terms associated with language ; I used to lecture on fine arts so I know how language and its abuses can lead to misunderstanding
Having said all that though, when we talk of Communism as in the way Marx visualised it how does Stalinism differ from the Marxist model ?
Communism in the way Marx visualized it is captured here:
"There was a vision, called “communism,” which was held by Kropotkin and other anarchist-communists in the 19th and early 20th century. Marx and Engels shared essentially the same goal. In the stateless, classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs."
Now, to say that statelessness is compatible with the extreme centralization of a state operates under totalitarian rule of a dictator (benevolent or malevolent) is a patent absurdity to anyone who has a basic understanding of the English language.
the theory of socialism in one country
This is one of quite a few of Stalin's propaganda terms that should be viewed through the same critical lens that we would if Kim jong-un was making claims.
There tends to be large confusion amongst people who have not read Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Anarchist primary source literature and get their information from second-hand sources (this is where a lot of the confusion comes in generally) that "Nationalization" is equivalent with "Socialism", which is not at all true (communism doesn't even postulate the existence of a state). We can get more into this if you have questions/arguments against that if you like.
Furthermore, it is typically a staple of Communism to abolish the Monetary System (which obviously did not happen in the USSR).
These are a few observations about the fundamental incompatibility of Stalinism and Communism. To get my views more in depth on this topic, see the thread "Replying to mathfan by creating a debate..." by FactMachine.
Mathfan will pretend to be interested in the nuts and bolts of communism, but he more beholden to confirmation bias than most. I have posted the following, but he is unlikely to respond:
"Communist means are justified by their supposed ends. The theorized peaceful condition of an achieved Communist society cannot be achieved until the way is paved. It is necessarily paved by violence as humans do not behave in a manner conducive to Communism. They must be forced.
If you see true Communism as an evolutionary process leading to utopic anarchy rather than a revolutionary one leading to despotism, you will find your contentions undermined by Marx himself.
Marx states clearly in his manifesto that the proletariat will “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state” and that “in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads”.
It is Marx who puts forth the call that this sh’t needs to end now stating that “the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.” Marx said Communists “openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”.
Marx’s later work is often cited as the technical framework underlying his manifesto, rather than any refutation of it."
I just noticed that he claims the abolition of money as a difference as well, failing to acknowledge that the USSR certainly tried. I would cite the abolition of money as just one more of the fundamental flaws in the theory. But it doesn't matter, because he can never come around to acknowledging all the facts of the matter.
I posted this to you in case it is useful for you. In dealing with him it hasn't been for me.
Thanks for that . I have read exstensively over the years about communism and am fairly familiar with Marxist theory .
Marx himself in his letters talks about the proletariat siezing the means of production as used by the oppressors this has to be done by force , he also mentions violent revolution .
Regards the abolition of money Marx said " wage labour and capital are two sides of the same coin" and called for the abolition of the wage system .
I would be interested to hear how far marxists think Stalin deviated from " true " Marxism and how ?
Marx envisioned a universal classless , wageless and moneyless society which is most amusing considering his fondness for very fine wines and cigars .
Regarding a classless society Marx and Engels detested blacks and other groups of non whites and viewed such as inferior beings .
I take it the debate has not been exactly fruitful for you
Marx himself in his letters talks about the proletariat siezing the means of production as used by the oppressors this has to be done by force , he also mentions violent revolution .
Dermot, read this.
Lenin's theory is often considered to be a logical development of Marx's in the sense of adding practise to Marx's theory. Yet Marx's own theory was closely tied to practise. Marx, in contrast to Lenin, saw communism as arising from a highly developed capitalism; his theory envisaged a working class that would be able to take on capitalism world-wide or face further defeats.
Lenin's analysis proceeds from the assumption that a minority working class in Russia (and soon thereafter the Soviet Union) would be able to inspire workers and peasants in other countries to seize state power - and not abolish the state as in Marx's analysis and political thought - and gradually, by power of persuasion and violence, bring the other - often hostile - classes round to joining the struggle for communism.
I would be interested to hear how far marxists think Stalin deviated from " true " Marxism and how ?
That is a fantastically interesting question because I personally believe Stalin was the polar opposite of a Marxist. He was an opportunistic fascist who used the Bolshevik revolution for his own political ends. Where Marx wanted to dissolve the state Stalin expanded it.
@Nomenclature. Marx, in contrast to Lenin, saw communism as arising from a highly developed capitalism
Exactly. That was the whole thrust of Marx's argument in his theory of Historical Materialism (@Amarel, how could you possibly have missed that if you claimed to have read the primary sources??)
Exactly. That was the whole thrust of Marx's argument in his theory of Historical Materialism (@Amarel, how could you possibly have missed that if you claimed to have read the primary sources??)
Thanks Math. In my experience, capitalists and/or neo-fascists have constructed an art out of purposefully ignoring the reformist nature of Lenin's theories.
Yes but I don't at all want to lump everyone into that category because there are many self-described Socialists and Communists who are very confused, victims of the propaganda campaign as well. That is inevitably what happens when you get your information nearly entirely from secondary sources rather than primary sources.
Yes but I don't at all want to lump everyone into that category because there are many self-described Socialists and Communists who are very confused, victims of the propaganda campaign as well.
Sure brother. I probably wasn't clear enough there. By "capitalists and/or neo-fascists" I specifically meant those who create and disseminate right wing propaganda for ideological reasons. I consider posters like Amarel to be in that category because he isn't trying to get at the facts. He's trying to spin a narrative.
I consider posters like Amarel to be in that category because he isn't trying to get at the facts. He's trying to spin a narrative.
Agreed. In fact, I view Amarel as essentially an archetype of the real world, physical manifestation of the character "Squealer" from George Orwell's Animal Farm
Thanks for that reply and I shall go into it in far more detail when I get more time I'm exhibiting in Irelands biggest art exhibition for the next few days so time is very limited .
The subject interests me greatly and I hope debate can proceed with good will on all sides .
Dermot:I would be interested to hear how far marxists think Stalin deviated from " true " Marxism and how ?
Nomenclature:That is a fantastically interesting question because I personally believe Stalin was the polar opposite of a Marxist. He was an opportunistic fascist who used the Bolshevik revolution for his own political ends. Where Marx wanted to dissolve the state Stalin expanded it.
Right. And its not just a "personal belief", they are polar opposites and that is what happened (it is not even considered academically controversial that Stalin deviated from the Leninists, and that the Leninists were a supplemental outgrowth of original Marxist thought; that is why I brought that bit about my term paper and Professor up to begin with, to illustrate this point). For example, its like calling a society with a massive, centralized, totalitarian state, with quasi-Legalist practices an Anarchist society. Wtf would that even mean?
I triple majored in Physics/Math/History at Uni. until I was half-way in I dropped Physics because the workload was too much and something had to give between Math and Physics for my Undergrad (while still being in good standing to pursue either in Grad school). This fuzzy, vague, ill-defined, nebulous language and its applications were infuriating to me in the History major because it is clearly inferior to the system that has been provided by Science/Mathematics. I can't even stress enough how unrecognizable this kind of talk would be in a Math/Science (Physics) course. In a Science/Math class, if you spot a flaw in the teachers work while they are lecturing, you can raise your hand, point it out, and if your right they will correct it on-the-spot in real time and say "thank you for that". There is no ambiguity, the definitions are so clear, it leaves no room for obfuscation by design (although pseudo-scientists, New Agey Deepak Chopra types try to run away with it). In history courses, you have to be prepared to "go to war" with the professor/peers (and I have many times) even about the most basic topics (e.g. definitions and applications) and the main weapon in your arsenal (the one that reliably works) is Primary sources. There are certain areas that have to be conceded by all parties when viewing Primary Sources, although there is still so much ambiguity relative to Maths that it is very difficult/rare to truly "pin someone down" inside the framework of the Humanities. That's how you get absolute bullsh't like their being 63 genders and no Biological basis for Sex coming out of the Humanities and Gender Studies departments with near impunity (as if "anything goes") as well as issues just like this one we are "debating" now (as well as the international law debate particularly with how it pertains to the US). Furthermore, while people in the "hard sciences" do tend to be intellectually arrogant, this is the reason (Physics is real whether or not you concede that it is; they aren't just making bullsh't up).
The only reason why this is even a topic still is for the same reason that Bible Scholarship/Koran Scholarship, ect. is so f'cked up and the public perception of the "truth value" of the Bible is so egregious. The scholars who believe in the Bible are making non-issues into issues out of their own dogmatic fanaticism. But, when push-comes-to-shove, the religious Bible believing scholars are forced to concede that there is either tenuous to non-existent evidence for much of what is in the Bible and although it has some truths, there is much more that is "made-up".
I take it the debate has not been exactly fruitful for you
Not at all. Conversation breaks down with him when I present direct challenges. It’s similar to arguing against FactMachine, though this iteration doesn’t curse as much.
When I present this sort of thing to Nom he usually calls me a Jew and runs away. Though recently he grudgingly admitted that Marx advocated violence.
It's a great pity as the subject itself is interesting and worth debating . Recently I've attempted to keep asking certain individuals one particular question at a time until I get a satisfactory answer , I think in future that's the way I will proceed with certain types .
The name calling I receive a lot of it also , most of it lacks imagination and totally lacking in humour another pity as I like a good laugh
I’m aware of the old, worn out “communism has never been tried” argument. It’s a position that argues for people to continue trying the worst socio-economic system ever theorized. The negative results vary, but in the long run they are inevitably negative.
I’m aware of the old, worn out “communism has never been tried” argument.
Calling the argument names detracts nothing from its accuracy. Marx specifically warned that using violence to implement Communism would bring about another form of dictatorship. Lenin ignored him. Since your entire barrage of negative Zionist propaganda against Communism revolves around the violence and tyranny which has been associated with it, then just shrugging your shoulders and calling it a "tired argument" is dishonest because this one simple fact torpedoes your entire narrative.
I have provided multiple quotes from Marx calling for violence and you have provided 0 quotes from Marx specifically warning against the use of violence.
That was one of our many exchanges where you gave up and left rather than continue to loose.
You are a liar and a neo-Nazi hypocrite. You support the most violent regime in the history of planet Earth and are trying to smear attack a European academic for writing social theories in a university. Fuck off.
If you want substantive replies then write substantive posts. Spending your days regurgitating 1930s anti-Communist Nazi propaganda is not substantive.
I suppose I can just go back are re-quote Marx calling for violence. And you can continue to fail to quote him specifically warning against it. Does that sound like a winning proposition to you?
I suppose I can just go back are re-quote Marx calling for violence.
I believe that the last time we had this conversation I quoted Mahatma Gandhi calling for violence. Marx understood the fact that you are trying to pretend doesn't exist. Tyrants do not give their power to you willingly. Violence has been involved in just about every regime change in the recorded history of the planet. And it isn't that you are unaware of this. It's simply that you are a disingenuous Jewish fascist who is uninterested in genuine debate. You just want to post neo-fascist propaganda all day.
Lol! That was a funny attempt and a failure satisfying to see. You misconstrued a passivists call for courage as a call for violence.
You quoted "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence". This is no call to violence stupid.
Tyrants do not give their power to you willingly
Yes, and people do not give over their property willingly. And people do not work solely for the benefit of others willingly.
The labor theory of value is false. Marx must rule out the existence of any kind of human nature because his theory so strongly contradicts it. Marx's entire failed theory relies on people willingly doing things that they would never do and so, they must be made to do them.
I am thoroughly interested in genuine debate. The problem is that whenever you come up against facts and reason you scream that I must be lying....and Jewish for some reason.
You quoted "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence".
Which is a direct advocation of violence in precisely the same circumstances that Marx advocated it in. Why don't you just do everybody a favour and shut up?
Yes, and people do not give over their property willingly
But our property is being hoarded by tyrants like you. Are you under the impression that Marx wrote the theory of Communism because he intended the proletariat (i.e. working class) to rob themselves of their own property?
Everything you say is fucking ridiculous. You're an idiot, Amarel.
But our property is being hoarded by tyrants like you
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that gets thrown around by Marxists who seek to justify the violence advocated by Marx. I am glad you have finally come around to admitting this advocation.
So now Marx DOES advocate violence? Nomenclature you slimy dishonest little groin bag. And Gandhi? nigga please, he was a fucking pedophile and a racist and he was probably funded by the brits to trick the indians into bending over and getting fucked in their brown butt holes. Watching Nomenclature and Amarel debate is like watching a pile of dog shit argue with a fresh owl pellet over who's prettier.
You quoted "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence
Oh goody. So the right should pull out the guns and use violence to stop the left. Ya know, because Marx thought the ends justified the means...
Be careful what you wish for Quantum. The right might steal your playbook, and you won't have a leg to stand on. They would have simply done what you advocated for only against you.
I haven't said Nazis are wonderful. I said calling someone a Nazi does not justify you also punching that person. Especially if everyone you don't like you call a Nazi.
Nahh... I don't call people Nazis.. In fact, I only call people names when they call me names first.. Oh, I call racists racist, but when they talk about bongos and belubas, it's clear they're racists, and I'm NOT politically correct.. And, I wouldn't punch someone because I THOUGHT they were a Nazi.. I'd punch 'em if they're wearing swastikas..
Oh dear , so if one calls a beluba a beluba that's racist ? 😂😂
You're very poorly educated let me help you belubas are a member of a tribe in the Congo so to call someone by their proud tribal name is racist ? ??????????🙀
Do you know what else we have in common with Maoists and Stalinists?? We never had a WAR with them.. On the other hand, we DID have a war with those Nazi motherfuckers..
But, the Stalinists aren't marching.. Nazi motherfuckers are
They march once a year with a permit, and have less people than the Oklahoma Sooner marching band. Are they ass clowns? Yes. Quit being a drama queen. My god.
Animosity for Stalin and Mao never rises to Hitler’s level.
I agree with you, but I think you're being typically disingenuous because Zionists like yourself are largely to blame for it. You have forced the Holocaust down people's throats for such a long time that some people believe it was the only genocide of the 20th century. Everybody has heard about the Holocaust, but hardly anybody has heard about the Holodomor. Your great Zionist guilt trip is responsible for that.
I agree with you, but I think you're being typically disingenuous because Zionists like yourself are largely to blame for it.
Remember when you asked me to show your Jewish hatred by pointing out where you trashed "zionists"? Well here ya are doing exactly what I said, being a Jew hating Hitler Youth. You'd better hide that swastika tattoo or Excon might rip off your nut sack.
The Russians were our SWORN enemy, but BOTH of us HATED the Nazi's, and that's WHY they were our friends for a while
So ANTIFA is your "sworn enemy", but both of you hated the Nazis, so you'll be their friend for a while. Brilliant. Let me guess, philosophy and ethics isn't your strong point...
I don't CARE who ANTIFA is, or what they do.. As long as they attack Nazi motherfuckers
So if someone attacks Nazis, then does a rape train on your closest female acquaintence, you won't care. Good to know. Maybe they'll drag her through the street tied to their bumper. I mean you don't care how vile their acts are. Hell, go punch a Nazi and then molest some kids, kill some blacks, and rape some elderly women. Con will praise you as a god. Why? Because you attacked one of the 300 Nazis in America.
Anybody who attacks NAZI motherfuckers is doing Gods work.
The problem with that statement is that anybody can say it about any group.
Nazis: Anybody who attacks Jewish motherfuckers is doing God's work.
ISIS: Anybody who attacks Homosexual motherfuckers (fatherfuckers?) is doing God's work.
Israelis: Anybody who attacks Palestinian motherfuckers is doing God's work.
Palestinians: Anybody who attacks Israeli motherfuckers is doing God's work.
Hillary voters: Anybody who attacks Trump-voting motherfuckers is doing God's work.
Black People: Anybody who attacks White motherfuckers is doing God's work.
Black People in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, or St. Louis: Anybody who attacks Black motherfuckers is doing God's work.
Societies' problems with living in peace and harmony are always caused by the people who are saying these sorts of things, and by those acting on them, NOT by the people they are saying it about.
Yeah.. Anybody can spew meaningless words.. I'm NOT the orangeman in chief, however.. Mine words HAVE meaning.. That is, of course, if you remember WW II.
"When you run out of rational argument you produce the Nazi card."
Would you like a link to Hitler's views about race so you can double check?
Yes. He hated Jews and called them Zionist imperialists, just like you. He hated black conservatives, just like you. He hated America and opposed it, just like you. He hated Churchill's views, just like you.
"When you run out of rational argument you produce the Nazi card."
Would you like a link to Hitler's views about race so you can double check?
Yes. He hated Jews and called them Zionist imperialists, just like you. He hated black conservatives, just like you. He hated America and opposed it, just like you. He hated Churchill's views, just like you.
And? At the end of the day, a predominantly Christian Conservative American military had to join the fight for him to be defeated. Any questions?
and called them Zionist imperialists, just like you
Zionism is not a race either. Neither is Zionism the same thing as Judaism. Zionism is a far right political ideology which mimics Nazism in everything except who the master race is.
Do you literally ever stop lying bronto? Show me where I have ever accused the entire Jewish population of being Zionist imperialists. You know full well that I have never done any such thing. You are a liar bronto. Every single word which leaves your slimy little mouth is untrue.
Hiding behind yet another one of your not so well disguised alternative avatars.
One of your many irrational obsessions is with Nazis.
I repeat, because your barren mind is incapable of presenting any coherent or logical argument you erupt into slobbering about Hitler-Nazism- gas chambers and other misplaced nonsense.
I wouldn't say that too loud, or people will say that you are Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Hillary Clinton. Ya know .... for the feather flocking...
I agree with you. I've been armed since I was 15 years old. I intend to stay that way. (Trump was 5 yrs old then, and had likely NOT ripped anyone off ... YET). Still, I feel "stupid Americans" should not have that right! We SHOULD "wake up" and DO something about it , and that THING is VOTE! Those that are whining watch FAUX News, those that are crying have lost far more! I am only "complaining" about the FACT that conservatives INSIST that a NUT has as much right to buy a gun as a SANE person! "Wake up, stupid Americans", keep guns in the hands of "reasonable", well trained and not batshit crazy Americans! REVISE the 2nd to reflect the 21st century, to PROTECT, not endanger, Americans ... as it WAS INTENDED to do!
Doesn't Chinaman sound like a Chinese or Russian internet plant?? He ALWAYS says what THEY would WANT said. Divide and conquer!
Try saying that to the Navy Seal who is now a woman! SHE can still kick your ASS! SHE could show you what SHE can do with conservative NUTS! :-)
Even the vast majority of officers were against this King Donald decree! By the way, taxpayers paid $$$$ for the training and care of these "heroes" that Trump Dumped!
Try saying that to the Navy Seal who is now a woman! SHE can still kick your ASS! SHE could show you what SHE can do with conservative NUTS! :-)
Even the vast majority of officers were against this King Donald decree! By the way, taxpayers paid $$$$ for the training and care of these "heroes" that Trump
Didn't know you were a vet in a wheelchair. Why are YOU coming after service people who have proven themselves to be worthy of wearing the uniform? All I said was he/she served with honor and YOU shouldn't be "rooting" to dishonor her (or them). I would be surprised if some of THEM were not in wheelchairs ... or died for THEIR country! I don't care what they have between their legs, or whether they feel they have to change it! THEY are American service people, and it is costing MORE to replace them (because some idiot refuses to believe the medical organizations of our country). than it was costing to take care of certain VETS after they leave! (Or whenever they need it!) YOU should respect THOSE vets like you are being respected.
Why are YOU coming after service people who have proven themselves to be worthy of wearing the uniform
Nobody's coming after anyone. It's just an exercise in logic. If "nuts" can't have guns, does being gender confused constitute "nuts"? And if not, then the "nuts can't have guns" argument becomes a rather subjective concept.
I think the military shouldn't be asking sexual orientation questions. I only use the concept to rebuttal the leftist concept of "nuts". I'm not sure what that means to a leftist.
For start, a potential transgender has to be aware of their own gender in order to make any effort to change it. Hence, they cannot be confused about it. Wanting to change gender is not a mental illness. If someone isn't happy being either a boy or a girl then just who are you to say this makes them crazy?
If someone isn't happy being either a boy or a girl then just who are you to say this makes them crazy
I'm not anybody to care what sex they want to be.
So if a man in panties can join the military and carry a machine gun or the police and carry an assault weapon, why can't a man in normal underwear arm himself with a basic firearm to defend himself with again?
I reckon he made that law just so that people like his nutty self could have more guns than friends. In fact you can make the words MAD NUT out of his name.
Crimes and mass shootings aren't the same thing genius. And we rarely have mass shootings, but we do have a lot of crime. Interestingly, per statistics, your attempt is? Simply disarming minorities.*
Trump rescinded the bill that put people on social security on the national gun registry for things such as mental illness or not handling their own finances. Grandmas went to jail for having grandpas old rifle in the closet. It would have had 0 effect on the Vegas shooter or any other mentally ill person not on social security.
It would have had 0 effect on the Vegas shooter or any other mentally ill person not on social security.
Hello A:
True.. But, it might stop the NEXT raving maniac from buying a gun..
Look.. I dunno WHAT'LL stop our mass shooting problem other than to round up the guns... I'm WILLING to listen to less drastic solutions, but you won't even consider those.. So, why not go for the whole ball of wax??
But, it might stop the NEXT raving maniac from buying a gun..
Haulting migration from the Middle East might keep suicide bombings from happening in theWest. Are you ready to throw the baby out with the bath water...
You haven’t presented any solutions other than a ball of wax. The bill that Trump rescinded has parts of it that should have been rescinded. I’m not arguing that the useful or fair parts should have gone too. But even those useful parts of the rescinded bill were unrelated to the shooter in question. I think it may even be unrelated to every situation we have ever had.
You haven’t presented any solutions other than a ball of wax.
Hello again, A:
Nahhh... People like me have proposing gun control over and over again.. In fact, I think you and I went into great detail over the gun show loophole.. In response to it all, you say it wouldn't have prevent the last shooter..
And, that may be true.. So, does that mean we should do NOTHING??? Are you saying that we simply CANNOT protect Americans??? I think you are.
So, does that mean we should do NOTHING??? Are you saying that we simply CANNOT protect Americans??? I think you are.
This is what really makes me recoil in horror. It's like their arguments basically boil down to: people still die without guns therefore guns are good.
Nahhh... People like me have proposing gun control over and over again
Some of it is reasonable and some of it is reactionary. But YOU haven’t suggested anything other than a ball of wax.
Are you saying that we simply CANNOT protect Americans??? I think you are.
I hope you don’t mean to imply that murder can be eliminated. I think my State has fairly reasonable regulations, and even room for more. All while maintaining lawful citizens’ Right to defend themselves with a firearm. Taking guns from old women who wish to will their rifle to their kid is not useful.
What police can do is limited to their abilities as human beings. 911 takes some time. It’s not the kind of time a would-be rape victim in the park has. So are you saying that, other than calling 911, that woman can do nothing to protect herself? I think you are.
Hey the mentally ill Atheist can buy a can from anyone and guess what it can be from a private seller. Will a law stop that ? Explain your position you big government idiot !
