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.
I feel that in communism people cannot always express themself reach their potential (in expressing themselves). Whereas in capitalism, that is not the case.
I hope this was meant as a rhetorical question. Through all of my studies and enlightenment another Red Scare would be the worst thing possible for our current situation. The Vietnam War was one of the most disputed wars through history. Inter-personally, I will always led more to the better interest of the people. Anyone who believes communism is the way to go, just look at night map of Korea, then decide. With all of that being said I'm sure most people would prefer Freedom over anything else.
theirs no such thing as unjustly or unfairly rich you work hard you become rich you invest wisely you become rich you have a good idea you become rich but don't wine and complain because no one is handing you the keys to a free mansion welcome to the real world its time to put on your big boy pants go out get a job and make something of your self your big boys and girls now stop expecting other people to take care of you because work is too hard who gives a shit, work hard get rich or sit on your ass all day and cry like a little bitch because you don't get your way and stay poor the choice is yours
2/ A kid is born in Compton or Brooklyn. He had no choice. He lives in a shack with his sick mother. Therefore, at 10 he is forced to take illegal jobs in order to feed his family. Supposing that he was never caught stealing money or food at some 7 Eleven, he reached 17 with an passable record. He has gone to a shit public school his society refuses to pay for. He drops out because he found a job as a dealer. The jobs gets him money. Allows him to feed his family but not to pay proper care for his mother. A few years later she dies. One of his siblings die in a drug battle, he caught himself into. He needs more help and gets his sisters to start working. One gets pregnant at 17 , the other runs away. That baby is going to be born in a world with no hope to ever succeed because he is going to have to help his mother and uncle and if we are lucky father. He is going to have to eventually forget school.
Now, are you going to say that all of these series of events happen because they are LAZY? Do you think they chose to live a life like this? The only thing they did wrong was to be born on the wrong side of the track. No one can just work hard and succeed. To succeed you need the basic necessities: that is food, a home, education and a good health.
you work hard you become rich
I am pretty sure most of the lower class men in the United States work just as hard or maybe even harder than any middle class or higher class men. They remain poor.
Most of the kids in the upper class were given a private school and an ivy league. They did not have to anything. All they had to do was "sit on their ass all day" and study.
How dare you insult the poor class? Here you are, preaching that, oh, "they're too stupid to get out of that situation", or, "they don't know any better."
How dare you? Why must you demean the poorer people of the U.S.A. with your discouraging and degrading words? They can do whatever they'd like to do. Think about all of the wonderful people who've came out of these horrific situations (crack moms and dads, projects, drugs, etc.). If they can do it, why can't the other people? Because at the end of the day, one chooses to pull the trigger of a weapon, one chooses to impregnate a girl or get pregnant with kids they know they can't support, time and time again.
No one can just work hard and succeed
Tell that to the millions of people that have made the conscious choice to work hard and succeed, despite immense hardships.
It's time to stop treating the poor like babies who can't think for themselves and that need elitist, condescending people like yourself.
I am not insulting the poor class at all. I saying how things truly are.
Here you are, preaching that, oh, "they're too stupid to get out of that situation", or, "they don't know any better."
you might want to really read my argument before misquoting me.
They can do whatever they'd like to do.
They chose to live this life?
Think about all of the wonderful people who've came out of these horrific situations (crack moms and dads, projects, drugs, etc.).
These people are rare. Those people are not wonderful. They are incredible. I respect them a lot more than I respect the successful upper class people.
If they can do it, why can't the other people? Because at the end of the day, one chooses to pull the trigger of a weapon, one chooses to impregnate a girl or get pregnant with kids they know they can't support, time and time again.
My goodness... You think it is easy.
Yes, they chose to pull the trigger. Yes, they chose to rob a store. Yes, they chose to sell drugs. These people before they can concentrate on school have to survive.
Yes, those hundreds of young girls chose to have sex without protection. Oh but right, they knew better, right? Indeed, they definitely attended school regularly, especially sex Ed.
Yes, there are some lucky people who escape this vicious circle. How far is the child of a woman with no money going to go? That child chose to help his mother and siblings by bring some money so that he can just eat. By doing that, his time and energy is towards his job not school. If he is lucky and gets a job that brings a fair amount, he could maybe give his younger siblings an opportunity to have an eduction.
You obviously don’t realize that in these situations these people have to choose between education and survival. Indeed, school risks their chances of survival. I believe it is preposterous that these kids who have done nothing wrong have to chose between education and survival and education is the real key to survival! Education is the gateway to freedom.
Tell that to the millions of people that have made the conscious choice to work hard and succeed, despite immense hardships.
Most of these people have in common: a decent education or sufficiently supportive parents or guardian (financially) or both. The successful people had help. They had a sufficient amount of MONEY. Something that the lower class people do not have.
It's time to stop treating the poor like babies who can't think for themselves and that need elitist, condescending people like yourself
How am I elitist? I am saying the lower class men have a lower advantage than the middle class and upper class people have. It is like a race. The upper class and lower class start at the same start. But the upper class men have an unfair head start. So, the lower class men have to run incredibly fast in order to catch up with the upper class. It isn’t because the lower class is stupid or even lazy. The person born in the upper class has more opportunities than the kid born in the lower class. That is a fact. You know what the upper class kid has? Money. Money gives these kids a head start.
The point is not choosing whether you want to be rich or work hard to be rich, or whatever you are trying to say. Obviously this shows the economy is no where as good as it could be. The government could be so much better, and the economy can rise, so the people can enjoy their lives.........
Or maybe the communists are lazy fucks.....either way..... FREEDOM!
communism is unethical because the government assumes the role of care giver taking earned money from some and distributing out as needed free men should make their own living with out a parental government commanding undue respect telling what they consume how they dress or what they can watch
don't bite the hand that feeds you
a house for every family and enough food ...hey Communism thats slavery hey they fed the slaves but that shit wadnt to fun
the reasion i named this debate freedom v.s communism is because i see a lot of debates called communism v.s capitalism to me that means freedom (capitalism) v.s communism because capitalist society's tent to be free, democratic, and pluralistic.
where as communist country's are always oppressive and totalitarian
all the attempted communists ocietys have been opresive but thats cuz of dictators whereas a marxist society is probably freer than capatalism. because dictators misuse the word communism does not means its like that.
Shouldn't you own your own means of production and subsistence?
why should you have to trade with someone else to survive, and if you didn't have to, how is that being less free?
Is a government really democratic when who in order to be elected you have to raise large sums of cash from the rich, resulting in there really being two elections: the first is with the rich and the few feasible political parties decided who to sponsor, the second who among these, more or less pretty similar Candidates does the public want.
As for pluralism, you are certainly aware of how mass production produce identical things for consumption; Consider the modern housing addition. Consumerism reduces variety.
These types of debates are typically the result of mistaking propaganda as legitimate. Communism, as defined by those who call them selfs communists and wrote it's theoretical works know communism is stateless, classless, society with advance means of production. It isn't the ussr, china, cuba, etc; at best, and this is disputed amongst the left, those countries are one form or another of socialism.
If you think about it, with total freedom, people can do whatever they want and not be penalized. With communism, there is one person who can do whatever they want without getting in trouble. A perfect mix of both would be perfect.
The problem with all systems of government and economic rule is the human element. Any idea that sounds great on paper I assure you humans will find a way to fuck it up. Keeping that in mind, communism, which relies on being perfect to not be totalitarian, will never work. Capitalism is a bent system from the start, but I think in practice (not in theory) capitalist countries have offered up a better array of freedoms. And even if capitalism was always noticeably shittier than communism, I would still choose the one with more freedom because, as I said before, humans are involved with both, which makes them both shit, and if I have to live in shit I at least want to be able to choose what I do with myself.
These aren't communistic ideas. Communism is 'communal', it means that the people are the ones who control their country, not an aristocracy and not a dictator.
Voice is inherent. The government doesn't own everything, the people do.
The only reason you believe these things about it are McCarthyism, and invalid and all too old tradition of hating everything "unAmerican".
All of the people on the other side are a bunch of Asian control freaks, the people have the right to make their own decisions not the gawt daym government
Are you serious, people? Why, when we are allowed the many freedoms we have today, would you want to be told (so to speak) when to eat, sleep, and work? This is ridiculous, our founding fathers' would be pissed. Case closed.
I am only adding a second comment so Freedom wins. I do think that it is funny though that "freedom" is capitalized and "communisam" is not only spelled wrong but left in (what I think should be proper) improper grammar.
Communism in theory is a good idea the problem is human nature only the rarest people on the planet are completely selfless. Joe busybody who works on boots and works with 98% efficiency does not want to be on the same level as Bill laze who only works with 50% efficiency. Our biggest gift and curse is our high intelligence. You want a perfect goverment? Fine, find a way to create a goverment that factors in human nature and can use it to not only help ourselves but the people around us.
Communism is the belief that the gifted should be cut down and the weak should be given support because they are weak. It is the belief that the government should be nurtured more than the people, that everyone should be enslaved to a single dictator, and the embodiment of the belief that a group should be dealt with solely concerning the many and never glancing at the strengths of the few.
Freedom is the belief that those who can do simply aught to get up and do, that the weak are capable of becoming strong, and that the strong's talents should be honed and brought to fruition. It is the belief that the common man is capable of thinking for himself, deciding for himself. Freedom is the truth that those who work hard will be great, not the belief that those who are great aught to fend for themselves.
Communism is created by a dictator to free himself and enslave the people. Freedom is created by the people, so the people can use their own thoughts to decide government. All those in favor of being told what to do, what to think and what to feel, why dont you get on a boat to a communist country and give your rights away to a dictator you've never met. As for me, I'll be voicing my opinions in a place where I actually can.
Sometimes, when I'm walking through the ghetto, I come across a bum pissing on the wall. Momentarily, I'm disgusted by it, but then I look around. This place is filthy and everyone pisses here. The bum obviously doesn't give a shit. He doesn't own the wall he's pissing on. And, if it starts to smell too bad, he simply moves along to another wall. I've been been on the bus all morning. And the espresso from StarBuck's is starting to catch up with me. I look around for a bathroom, but there isn't one. Then, I think "fuck it, I don't own this wall either. I may as well piss on it." And so, I piss on it.
Later, I come across some teenagers painting on the town water toward. "Mayor Ewing is a hore," they write. And I stop in my tracks. I can't let this go on. I call the teenagers over to me. "Listen," I tell them. "The word 'whore' has a silent 'w' on the front of it. It's spelled w.h.o.r.e. Now get back up there and fix that shit. I can't have anyone thinking the kids of our town are ignorant." But you see what I did? I took a little ownership in the kids (not so much in the water tower). And Mayor Ewing is a whore.
By the time, I get to my house in 'burbs, I'm watching the sidewalks like a hawk.
It's time to go have a talk with the neighbor who doesn't mow is lawn. The house that sits across from me that's been vacant is driving down the property values. See, I own this place and I give a shit what goes on here. Now, if the government were to suddenly own everything (and I got this place by way of vouchure as their assessment of my needs) and I'd probably go back to ghetto mentality. Fuck it, piss against the wall. I don't a shit.
Communism is not without freedom. The difference between it and pure freedom though is that communism is a utopian governmental ideal, so obviously it's better (On paper).
Now, what I think you meant to make this debate about is Freedom vs. Totalitarianism. In which case, freedom is better. But you need to remember, communism =/= totalitarianism. The Soviet Union was not communist just because American propaganda during the Cold War said it was.
Precisely, that is what communism strives to be; but with that "utopia" comes an entire array of restrictive policies imposed upon the civilians:
- The government sees that sugar filled drinks are giving people diabetes, so they ban them.
- The government strives for equality so harshly that a neurosurgeon that worked his/her ass off to achieve greatness must now be equivalent to a bum (they will end up getting payed about the same).
Oh, but hey, now that bum is equal with everyone else; he doesn't have to sit on the side of the street anymore. He can now sit in his shitty one bedroom apartment that the government gave him. And guess who his room mate is? The neurosurgeon.
- The government sees that sugar filled drinks are giving people diabetes, so they ban them.
This restriction doesn't harm anyone. It could be annoying for those who enjoy luxuries like that, but so what? There are healthy luxuries to enjoy, therefore, no damage is being done to civilians.
- The government strives for equality so harshly that a neurosurgeon that worked his/her ass off to achieve greatness must now be equivalent to a bum (they will end up getting payed about the same).
This is not a goal of communism. It does not treat everyone the same, it treats everyone as they deserve. So no, under communism, a bum and a surgeon would not make the same money. The bum would make vastly little in comparison because he didn't educate himself hard for 8 or more years and build a career. The difference in work value between a bum and a surgeon is obvious, so they will be paid not equally, but fairly for their work value. Not too much, not too little.
They will always be paid enough to be able to survive.
by the way you just described capitalism good day sir or should i say comrade?...NAH because I'm a capitalist there for i believe in fair wages not you commies
by the way you just described capitalism good day sir or should i say comrade?...NAH because I'm a capitalist there for i believe in fair wages not you commies
No, I did not just describe capitalism. When I said 'paid', I don't mean with money, I mean with resources. Corporations do not exist in communism because corporations are unnecessary perpetrators of human greed. If corporations do not exist and the government just gives us the products we need, there is no need for a paper measurement of value. There needs to be a measurement, but the measurement itself has no reason to exist physically as a trade resource. So in communism, all that would happen when you work is that the government would just ask for something you want out of a list of things your work value you worth and they just give it to you. Because you earned it. Though they won't give you something that inadvertently hurts another person, but that's a given in a utopian society.
I thought this was about communism vs. freedom, not communism vs. capitalism... and also, capitalism has no guarantee for fair wages because it's unregulated by government. Capitalism is also a utopian ideal because it requires that corporations be utterly fair in every way and provide for the public not for the purpose of gaining power, but for the purpose of serving products for the good of everyone.
But once again, no society is capitalist because humans are not morally advanced enough to have a greedless corporation. Nobody starts a business to service a community anymore. They start a business to make money.
So just like communism, no society has ever been truly capitalist.
Both communism and capitalism are good utopian ideals, but I simply just prefer communism because I trust governmental self-correction more then I trust human's ability to abstain from greed. Thus, I think communism is a more realistic utopian ideal then capitalism.
It is a direct assault on my freedom of choice, and I suppose that's the point of the debate. Personally, I'll take freedom of choice over restrictions (and any consequent bonuses, though I cant see any) any day; any government that concerns itself with what I do and don't do with my own body can fuck all (it's one of the reasons I do so many illegal substances =D ). If utopia has to come about through the middle man of any government, I can already tell you it's not going to be utopia.
There isn't really any argument I need to make against you. The freedom to harm yourself isn't worth anything. If you think it is, you're just an idiot. And judging by the fact that you admittedly just said that you'd prefer to have the freedom to be stupid then to be protected from your own stupidity, I think your actual intelligence speaks for itself.
Though I have to ask you: what's the incentive to be so eager to kill yourself? Has culture really convinced you that somehow living in freedom, no matter how short because of your own idiocy, is preferable to living a much longer life, protected from actions that accomplish nothing but damaging you? Or what? Because it's fun being hedonistic even if it shortens your life by 20 years and does nothing but get you a damaging chemical high? Which, by the way, can be accomplished through other means that don't involve being and idiot.
Because other then those ridiculous reasons, I see no reason you, or anyone, could be convinced to reason so incredibly stupidly.
I take it you're against suicide, assisted or otherwise?
Part of my qualm is that a lot of harmful substances really aren't that harmful if taken and done in moderation. Soda, the example here, is bad if you drink a six pack a day or what have you but if I wanna have a soda once in a blue moon it's not particularly harmful (I think our government has bigger fish to fry) and I should be allowed to. For this particular example, I don't often enjoy a soda but sometimes a particular beverage is especially satisfying to drink with a certain meal, and soda finds it's way onto my table. And I savor it. You would have that revoked. A government that mandates 'healthy' behavior isn't protective, it's oppressive.
But let's say that they are. What are they protecting me for? Why is an extra 20 years of my existence so god damn beneficial to the government? What's the overall purpose of my existence? I don't know for sure and I have yet to be provided with a substantial and satisfying answer, so I've decided to strive to enjoy my life, possibly ending it early in the process, yes, but if I can look back on everything and say it was a good life does that not mean something?
Life ends, and when it does it's hardly pleasant, regardless of your life choices. Keeping that in mind I decided to stop worrying about prolonging it as long as I possibly can and instead live my life to the fullest while I can, and that includes dabbling in illegal substances, fun aside, for the sheer experience of having done so. You said, "Which, by the way, can be accomplished through other means that don't involve being and idiot." And I know! I've been there! But what's awesome is I've also been there on drugs, which is double the fantastic experience that someone who abstains will ever have the chance to have. That's what I mean by living life to it's fullest; not being afraid to branch out and try things for fear of ending up dead, even though you'll end up dead regardless.
You speak of accomplishments and purpose and such, but can you provide a higher meaning to my life than pleasure and enjoyment? For that matter, can you show that anything we accomplish here on Earth means jack shit? You condemn hedonism but can you offer up a more valid life goal? This body is a vessel, a toy, a fast car that I refuse to keep in the garage for fear of scratching the paint; I'm gonna drive the sonofabitch, and drive it fast!
But I prattle on about myself. The real issue here is that you support an incredibly restrictive and oppressive regime, one that would treat it's citizenry as children. No, worse than that; most parents have the common sense to know that a child needs to learn and grow from personal experience (which includes the freedom to make "bad" choices), not to have their whole life blinded and restricted by the whim of another.
Protection and the expense of freedom... you don't happen to work for the US government, do you? People here are so terrified they will often gladly hand over their freedom for the illusion of protection, even though they are often just as vulnerable as before. Banning soda, for example, would just result in soda being a new black market item, and the adverse health effects would continue to plague society. I also worry about the slippery slope of oppression in this regard. If the government would really stoop to putting a ban on soda, where will that stop?
You've called a lot of names but I'd be interested to see if you could provide a "smarter" meaning to life than the one that I have chosen. Until you do, your name calling is completely invalid and somewhat irritating. Would my argument be served if I implied your stupidity a dozen times in a couple paragraphs? No, not unless I actually provided something to support my accusations first, and even then it's rude at best.
I find your "oppress, restrict, and control" ideology to be quite disturbing as I have always supported "legalize, educate, regulate." All things to all people with proper instruction and guidance. If my kid fell off his skateboard and bumped his head I'd get him a helmet and teach him a few tricks about skateboarding. I get the impression you would just confiscate the skateboard.
(Note: My response to you is a positively tremendous wall of test, but I am so proud of it that I insist you read and maybe respond to it anyway. I will not force you though. Please have a great day.)
I take it you're against suicide, assisted or otherwise?
It's arguable whether or not euthanasia is harmful or helpful to someone, but I don't quite know yet if that's a topic needed to bed addressed yet.
Part of my qualm is that a lot of harmful substances really aren't that harmful if taken and done in moderation.
I agree.
But it's also good to know that you accept that they are at least a little harmful.
Soda, the example here, is bad if you drink a six pack a day or what have you but if I wanna have a soda once in a blue moon it's not particularly harmful (I think our government has bigger fish to fry) and I should be allowed to.
They sure as hell do have bigger fish to fry, but I'd rather them fry little fish then no fish at all.
Besides, their biggest problem is being controlled by the corporate oligarchies that rule the modern market, and that's not a problem they can fix, that's a problem that we, the consumers, can only fix. It's a hole the government dug for themselves in thinking that free market works, but oh well, it's not one they can dig themselves out of it. So if we want it fixed, we have to do it ourselves.
I can also understand why you feel that you should be able to do it if it's not extraordinarily harmful to you. It is, after all, a luxury. The only problem I see in this train of thought though is that people constantly forget about the luxuries that are healthier simply because corporations can mass produce the unhealthy ones, and therefore out compete the healthier, equivalent luxuries.
But, continuing on;
For this particular example, I don't often enjoy a soda but sometimes a particular beverage is especially satisfying to drink with a certain meal, and soda finds it's way onto my table. And I savor it. You would have that revoked. A government that mandates 'healthy' behavior isn't protective, it's oppressive.
I wouldn't have the government take away your real choices, I'd have the government take away the harmful ones.
As I made claim, a harmful choice is worth nothing. Why drink a soda if you can have a drink that's just as good, but won't kill you like the cheap soda of unregulated corporations?
The only reason you can see the action of having your soda taken away from you as oppressive is because you feel like you don't have an alternative, and not having an alternative luxury, I will agree, is harmful to your lifestyle.
Except there are alternatives that are just as good and are healthier, and if they weren't so drastically oppressed by competition exponentially larger then it, they would have the chance to become just as cheap as soda. Our horrible corporate culture, though, doesn't like people understanding this, for obvious reasons.
But let's say that they are. What are they protecting me for? Why is an extra 20 years of my existence so god damn beneficial to the government?
Um... because it's their job to take care of civilians... because the government is run by civilians.
This democracy is run by a propaganda-hidden corporate oligarchy, but that doesn't mean government officials still don't teeter on the edge of what we want them to do, no matter how large the bribe they get from fat cats. Without us casting the votes, the bribes they receive mean nothing. So even when being run in the shadow of our out-of-control corporatism, they still have sincere reason to protect us like their original creators intended. Because even while being run in the shadow of our out-of-control corporatism, the government is still us.
It's not like politicians are exempt from the laws they make. If the lawmaker who passed a drunk-driving bill is caught drunk driving, is he going to be let off by the police? No. Because the point of our system is to have the people make laws that protect themselves. And since lawmakers require non-lawmakers to be in power, we are interdependent of one another, meaning that when they make a law, whether they think of it effecting themselves or us, they are still thinking of both themselves and us since we share mutual symbiosis. We are one social organism. What they do to us they do to themselves. Even if they get a huge bribe, they aren't going to do something that causes us to riot in their streets.
What's the overall purpose of my existence? I don't know for sure and I have yet to be provided with a substantial and satisfying answer, so I've decided to strive to enjoy my life, possibly ending it early in the process, yes, but if I can look back on everything and say it was a good life does that not mean something?
Since I am a man who perfectly understands the point of my existence, I actually understand why lacking that understanding would cause you to loose inhibitions. Now I'm reading into what you mean more, understandably.
And while yes, it means something to say you've had a good life, no matter what happens, as the person I am, I am going to tell you now that every second counts. Just because you don't know how to spend all these extra seconds doesn't mean you shouldn't try, because if you do find your purpose, and you've already made enough mistakes for you to loose a huge amount of time, then for all intensive purposes, you just wasted some of your life on accident, even though you were specifically trying not to.
And since this is such, I believe you should therefore be preparing yourself for the most extreme situation and doing all you can to preserve your life without degrading your happiness so that when you do find purpose, you have all the time you could possibly have to execute said purpose and truly fulfill your existence.
Keeping that in mind I decided to stop worrying about prolonging it as long as I possibly can and instead live my life to the fullest while I can, and that includes dabbling in illegal substances, fun aside, for the sheer experience of having done so.
Except if there are equivalent experiences that don't kill you, what's the point? All you're doing is exercising your choice to be stupid, again. You can enjoy life without harmful substances just as much as you can with them. The only difference is that one shortens the amount of time you have to enjoy yourself.
I can see you're drifting back into a frame of argument that I can't really politely dispute... so I'll ask again: why so eager to die?
And I know! I've been there! But what's awesome is I've also been there on drugs, which is double the fantastic experience that someone who abstains will ever have the chance to have.
I've also been there enough to know that I can abstain from harmful substances and have an experience equivalent to having the same double-experience feeling of doing something powerful while chemically. You can argue as much as you want that there is no equivalent, but trust me, I've also tried drugs too many times to understand that being hazily high and unaware of how to react to stimuli while doing something crazy is easily equal to, or lesser then, the experience of having perfect clarity on your existence while doing something crazy with absolute certainty.
I don't need harmful chemicals to fill a void. It sounds to me like you have such a void, and you cannot help but fill it with drugs in your uncertain journey. The problem is, you can't just up and stop looking for what properly should be there... because once again, and excuse me, but you'd just be exercising your right to be retarded and kill yourself off instead of truly living to the fullest.
And this actually brings an interesting question to me... if you don't entirely understand your purpose of being, and you fill a void of uncertainty with a chemical high, I have to wonder if you're actually stupid, or on the inside you just don't value yourself enough to care when you die, as long you die in euphoric pleasure that covers up... the pain? Perhaps?
That's what I mean by living life to it's fullest; not being afraid to branch out and try things for fear of ending up dead, even though you'll end up dead regardless.
It's not about the fear of death, it's about the fear of life unlived. That's the point of preserving your life. So you can keep living your life to the fullest. Having more time guarantees more pleasure, and since life, from my experience, can bring pleasures equivalent to a chemical high, except not dangerous, then what's the point of killing yourself with a high? Once again, it's literally the act of not using equivalent alternatives out of ignorance, and is therefore a valueless freedom.
You speak of accomplishments and purpose and such, but can you provide a higher meaning to my life than pleasure and enjoyment? For that matter, can you show that anything we accomplish here on Earth means jack shit?
Okay, one of my questions above was just answered. You do not value your life. Now I understand the entire point of your argument. Though... I wish this were less depressing a thing for you to be basing an argument on. I honestly wish you had at least some self-value to envy those that have a lot, but then again, if you had even that much self-value, I'd suspect you'd have dug yourself out of this delusional hole of killing yourself by now. So... from the start, I should not have had the hopes that this would somehow have a bright outcome in the end of me understanding you.
You condemn hedonism but can you offer up a more valid life goal? This body is a vessel, a toy, a fast car that I refuse to keep in the garage for fear of scratching the paint; I'm gonna drive the sonofabitch, and drive it fast!
I condemn hedonists because they don't value life. They fill their voided lives with hedonism because they give up trying to find the real answers, and since they gave up, they don't value their lives, and since they don't value their lives, they don't care what they fill the void in their lives in with. And what's worse in my mind is how hedonists are a community. A community of people that enjoy killing themselves and giving up on trying to live a life that has real meaning. And when people gather around a community over such a horrible thing, they cause other people outside the community to subtly believe that hedonism is actually an alright alternative to actually living life. It's been proven in scientific studies that humans will abandon logic and rationale if a social group indicates with their behavior that logic and rational conclusion is incorrect, and then will instead believe the illogical and irrational conclusion of the social group.
As in, by you behaving valuelessly as you do, you literally encourage others influenced by your opinion to do the same, when you should be encouraging them to live better then you. This is why human civilizations collapse and leave behind only footnotes over the technology they developed. Because the culture of the civilization becomes so overly-hedonistic, and therefore valueless, that eventually enough people kill themselves to the point that the order that made up the civilization collapses under the weight of the chaos caused by people who seek to have no value in their lives.
This is actually the reason religion exists. This is actually one of the things that religion gets right. Jesus Christ condemned the Romans for being too hedonistic and valueless. And you know which of the two exists today? Christianity. The Roman empire collapsed under chaos caused by out-of-proportion misrepresentation of how prosperity should be handled, and all they left behind were scattered groups of people lost to the old ways, no telling stories about how 'the greatness of the old empire was destroyed by the greatness it's sin.'
It doesn't actually even matter that Christianity and other religions impose senseless values on it's followers, because what this proves is that cultures with values, even if the values are illogical, survive the tests of time, and valueless, hedonistic cultures do not survive the test of time, because, you yourself just stated, hedonists don't believe there is any value in existing. When you do not value existing, you die. If your culture does not value existing, your civilization dies.
Do you see where I am going with this? Do you see the points I am making? You're stupid because you deter human evolution. And believe it or not, but no matter your values for living your life, the reason humans have any values at all are so we can continue evolving. How do I know this?
Because religion, an institution of values, no matter how nonsensical, exists, and the Roman empire and other world-conquering civilizations of old do not. You intend to die, value-based cultures do not. This is why evolution lets religion continue to exist. Because having values, even if the values are illogical, is still smarter then having no values.
(This is why you will generally find me defending both religion and lack thereof).
The real issue here is that you support an incredibly restrictive and oppressive regime, one that would treat it's citizenry as children.
No, I support a utopian society that prolongs our lives and helps us understand how to give value to our lives, and therefore also teach us the importance of being healthy.
Oppressive governments harm people. What I speak of doesn't.
But then again... you yourself are completely jaded. In fact, I can't say what I just said to you, because you believe in having no value to your life.
Which means... you're actually correct. In relation to someone who is eager to die, I am oppressive, because I believe that you shouldn't have the freedom to kill yourself. Since that is such... hm.
Well, alright. Then at this point, I agree with you.
My thoughts thereafter: Too bad, Sunny.
Hedonists are detrimental to human evolution and continued prosperity. For the first time in my life, I actually don't care what you think about how you should live your life because I care about you. Yes, that seemed like a weird statement, but it's NOT contradictory! I believe in saving you from yourself, not just to a certain point, but in this case, to the point of oppressing your way of thinking. Because I know that I am right and that you are wrong. Giving up on giving value to our lives and killing ourselves in valueless pleasure is NOT a way to live.
I assign more value to your life then you do! I will go to lengths where the ends justify the means because I care that much about you that much.
And that is why the realization of me being oppressive to hedonists, a group of living, breathing, human beings... still leaves my opinion unchanged.
No, worse than that; most parents have the common sense to know that a child needs to learn and grow from personal experience (which includes the freedom to make "bad" choices), not to have their whole life blinded and restricted by the whim of another.
I'm not saying bad choices shouldn't be stopped from being made entirely, but I think restrictions should be put in to stop people from revolving their lives around bad choices. We should have a system in which everyone reaches a conclusion with value, and not ever the conclusion of an absence of value.
My whim isn't to control everything you do. My whim is to control that which harms you so that everything you do will have a positive outcome for you and everything you value around you.
But once again... I am talking to someone who believes in having a valueless life, so there is a chance that it's impossible for you to understand my point of view. In which case, my thoughts again on why I want to do this would be better understood on your end as: Too bad, Sunny.
And since I understand that there is a chance you will never understand my point of view, I also don't mind the fact that you may never understand how I am being completely and utterly selfless in everything I have said so far. It really doesn't matter to me if you get that. Because I know I'm right and that you are too far gone at this point to probably ever agree.
Protection and the expense of freedom... you don't happen to work for the US government, do you?
I wish I did. You see everything I just wrote up above? I've always known this sort of thing, but I've never been able to put it into words until now. The fact that I finally have overfills me with joy. It's like, every day since I understood the purpose of my existence, I've continually made more and more solutions to human existence that go beyond me, and actually touch everyone!
If there was any chance I could share this with people who really could understand it entirely and actually support me... oh, I'd be such a happy camper. Of course, I don't know or care if you understand it or not, because I myself understand that I believe all this and have made all these statements simply because I care so much about you. Yes, you. And everyone else like you.
I'm glad I'm saving this whole response. I need to keep this written down so I never forget it.
People here are so terrified they will often gladly hand over their freedom for the illusion of protection, even though they are often just as vulnerable as before.
Yeah, except that's not what I want. I describe and have been describing, once again, a governmental utopia, where the government is - GASP - completely and utterly sincere in every way. No bullshit. No greed. No envy. No wrath. No lies. No sin. A government run by the most saintly people you could possibly imagine. A person who cares about everyone just cause, even if they greatly disagree or are even violently opposed by them.
That is what I've been talking about. No, it's not a fantasy. It's possible because when you give life value, anything is possible.
Would my argument be served if I implied your stupidity a dozen times in a couple paragraphs? No, not unless I actually provided something to support my accusations first, and even then it's rude at best.
Well, read above. I am very proud of the absolutely tremendous amount of supporting statements I have just given you. Now that I understand we are completely on different axis' of thought, I don't know if all of that supporting exposition means anything to you, but... it's still there. So that fact, at the least, should mean something to you, even if we are isometrically opposed.
And if you feel offended, I both refuse to apologize, and apologize. One, because apologizing may be meaningless to you, but the other, because the entire point of everything I've said is that I still care.
I find your "oppress, restrict, and control" ideology to be quite disturbing as I have always supported "legalize, educate, regulate." All things to all people with proper instruction and guidance. If my kid fell off his skateboard and bumped his head I'd get him a helmet and teach him a few tricks about skateboarding. I get the impression you would just confiscate the skateboard.
Actually no, I'd do exactly what you just did. Interesting that we agree on that... it's almost contradictory to some of your other statements. Perhaps one of us misunderstood the other, or perhaps both. Either way, I reserve my judgement, and once I had evidence to possibly support that understanding cannot be reached, I left explanations for both an assumption this was true and an assumption that this was false.
So, I think I've touched all the bases, in that regard.
My apologies for the delay in responding. I wrote up 80% of a reply shortly after you posted this and left it sitting while I went to work. Naturally my computer died and all progress was lost. For whatever reason I really loathe having to repeat myself or do things I've already done over again, so I was frustrated enough to not have the motivation to get back to you till now.
It's arguable whether or not euthanasia is harmful or helpful to someone, but I don't quite know yet if that's a topic needed to bed addressed yet.
And you follow this up with, "I am oppressive, because I believe that you shouldn't have the freedom to kill yourself." So that's against suicide and euthanasia, then.
But it's also good to know that you accept that they are at least a little harmful.
Did I ever say otherwise? Can I get you to accept that if something is only a little harmful perhaps a blanket ban isn't the best way to deal with it?
So if we want it fixed, we have to do it ourselves.
You seem to believe it's broken and in need of fixing, but that's not an opinion I share. And If we can indeed fix it ourselves, I imagine we would have already, if the public willed it to be so. But they haven't, which means you're just proclaiming your own personal, baseless opinion on the matter, not addressing the needs or wants of everyone else.
The only problem I see in this train of thought though is that people constantly forget about the luxuries that are healthier simply because corporations can mass produce the unhealthy ones, and therefore out compete the healthier, equivalent luxuries.
You would impose bans and restrictions for the sake of everyone elses shitty memories? Wow.
An old professor of mine drew a triangle on the board one day in class and labeled each point on it: one said "quality," another "price," the last "speed," and said in life and moreso in consumerism, you can pick two. If you want something now and you want it good quality, you can bet it won't be cheap. If you want something cheap and fast, it probably isn't quality substance, and so on. You seem to be under the impression we can, through manipulation of the free market, make it so that high quality items are readily available and dirt cheap. Which is a nice dream to have, but not particularly plausible. It would be awesome if I could pick up a high performance sports car for the same price I got my substandard sedan, but that's not how the world works. Trying to bend the world into working this way will only end badly.
As I made claim, a harmful choice is worth nothing
Claim is a good word to describe what you've done, but you're still woefully lacking in any substantial support for that little notion upon which you have based so much.
The only reason you can see the action of having your soda taken away from you as oppressive is because you feel like you don't have an alternative, and not having an alternative luxury, I will agree, is harmful to your lifestyle.
No to your idea that "the only reason" I feel I would be oppressed by what you are proposing is that I don't have an alternative, and no to your foolhardy assertion that a substitute is the exact same thing. If an alternative or substitute was ever the exact same thing as what it was trying to be an alternative or substitute for, it wouldn't be a substitute or alternate, it would be the thing itself. If you're hypothetical Prof. John was scheduled to have a substitute teacher come in, you wouldn't walk into class that day expecting to see Professor John, but rather someone else, someone different than your Professor.
This is another half-baked idea that you have based a lot of your recent revelations on. To test your idea that healthy and equivalent alternatives and substitutes exist for all of the things people might want to do or experience, could you please point me towards a substance other than alcohol I can use to get drunk? I'm trying to stay up for 3 days working and making music every second of it - can you offer up something other than stimulants that will allow me to do that? I want to spend a weekend seeing and conversing with very vivid hallucinations in the woods, what can I take or do to get me there? And more mild instances, too: I want a sugary, carbonated drink with a slight kick to keep me awake. What's the healthy equivalent?
Let me tell you me, man, if you can provide the kind of things you are talking about I know how to make you an instant millionaire. People would go ape shit over cheap cocaine with no negative side effects, and other "equivalent" substitutes you're taking about. Obviously if people are presented with being able to do something a healthy way or an unhealthy they'll choose the healthy way 10 times out of 10, but that requires the "something" to be the exact same in both instances. It's not. It never is. If it was this discussion would be unnecessary.
If, in your opinion, drinking all natural orange juice or something is just as enjoyable as drinking soda, good for you! But that's a completely subjective position to hold, not one you should try to lord over others just because you, personally, have found some alternatives you like.
Um... because it's their job to take care of civilians... because the government is run by civilians.
In theory, maybe. The reality of the situation is more akin to a dairy farmer tending to his cows only so he can milk them dry at every oppertunity.
Also I find it quite puzzling that you are able to put forward such a "we're all one" mentality here, when you quite clearly separated the citizenry and corporations into "us and them." Actually you did the same thing with government, as well: "It's a hole the government dug for themselves in thinking that free market works, but oh well, it's not one they can dig themselves out of it. So if we want it fixed, we have to do it ourselves." Explain your double standard, please.
Even if they get a huge bribe, they aren't going to do something that causes us to riot in their streets.
I chose not to respond to most of this quotes corresponding paragraph because I found it mostly irrelevant (it sound like something you have strong opinions on that you keep trying to tie to this unrelated issue), but I just couldn't resist with this one. Have you watched the news any time in the last... ever? People riot for political reasons all the time.
Since I am a man who perfectly understands the point of my existence, I actually understand why lacking that understanding would cause you to loose inhibitions.
You painted a very inaccurate picture of me in a lot of your post. To be fair, I didn't give you a lot to go on with my previous post. To be more fair, it's presumptuous at best for you to make so many assumptions and mischaracterize me so, knowing that you didn't have a whole lot to go on. This is one of those I feel I need to clear up.
I do understand the point of my existence: there is none. Lacking knowledge of a higher meaning and understanding that there is no higher meaning are not the same thing. I say I'm open to offers on the meaning of life because I'm curious what other subjective meanings of life people have managed to come up with, and I'm curious to see if there is yet one that can refute my own, but so far everyone, yourself included, has fallen short. Even when I know or understand something I like to keep an open mind, but I know and understand my purpose as surely as you do.
already made enough mistakes for you to loose a huge amount of time
This is another mischaracterization (that I'm some kind of junkie) that I'll adress later, but for now I'll just say my actions will not lead to the loss of a "huge" amount of time, but rather a "minor" or "insignificant" amount, and, furthermore, it will be taken off the time of my life where my body and mind are already in the shittiest state they will be in, regardless of my life decisions, so I don't value that time as much as I value time I have with a fully functioning body and mind.
when you do find purpose, you have all the time you could possibly have to execute said purpose and truly fulfill your existence.
Can you provide any scrap of objective, empirical support or evidence to show that I currently have no purpose or that my purpose is going unfulfilled? No? I thought not. Because any potential purpose of life is a subjective opinion, why not let everyone live out their own personal lives, instead of trying to impose your personal beliefs on others? Again, good for you you've found a purpose and your opinions all make sense in your head, but that doesn't mean that your purpose is what's best for everyone else, or that everyone will agree with or enjoy living the way you want them to.
All you're doing is exercising your choice to be stupid, again. You can enjoy life without harmful substances just as much as you can with them.
You might be able to enjoy life without substances, but that doesn't mean everyone can or should. You also have yet to show that exercising your freedom in this regard is actually stupid.
so I'll ask again: why so eager to die?
Haha. Most of my last post was attempting to answer that one question, so I'll keep it nice and simple this time around: I'm not.
I've also been there enough to know that I can abstain from harmful substances and have an experience equivalent to having the same double-experience feeling of doing something powerful while chemically.
Well, no, it's not a double-experience; one is one experience and the other is the other. If you partake you can experience both, if you abstain you will only experience one, or half.
You can argue as much as you want that there is no equivalent, but trust me, I've also tried drugs too many times to understand that being hazily high and unaware of how to react to stimuli while doing something crazy is easily equal to, or lesser then, the experience of having perfect clarity on your existence while doing something crazy with absolute certainty.
Sounds to me like you've tried the wrong drugs or you have a wholly wrong mindset going into the experience. Just because you don't enjoy that kind of high over you preferred one, why should everyone else have to conform to that?
I have to wonder if you're actually stupid, or on the inside you just don't value yourself enough to care when you die, as long you die in euphoric pleasure that covers up... the pain? Perhaps?
Pain of... what? You seem to have painted me as some kind of drugged-up junkie, here, and that I am not. I simply enjoy taking drugs in a recreational manner from time to time, and I insist on my ability to do so, should I choose.
That's the point of preserving your life. So you can keep living your life to the fullest. Having more time guarantees more pleasure,
Living life to your longest, not fullest. You keep mixing that up. And I beg to differ that time guarantees pleasure (I thought you despised hedonism; why is pleasure such a crucial aspect of the way you life your life?), have you ever been to a nursing home? I work with a multitude of seniors, and I can safely say I'd rather not "live" in a state where my mind and body are severely and irreversibly decayed. Abstaining from things I enjoy so that I may be able to endure on this planet as a semi-functioning sack of flesh for another decade of so doesn't really strike me as the best use of my time here on Earth.
and since life, from my experience, can bring pleasures equivalent to a chemical high, except not dangerous, then what's the point of killing yourself with a high? Once again, it's literally the act of not using equivalent alternatives out of ignorance, and is therefore a valueless freedom.
Great. Good for you. That's how things have been in your experience; how does that justify wanting to mandate your findings on everyone else? And I don't use the alternatives I know about because they're not equivalent (in my opinion), and it is therefore a freedom I value dearly. Can you show me anything (other than your opinion) that wholly refutes that I am living breathing evidence that your assertion is incorrect?
Okay, one of my questions above was just answered. You do not value your life. Now I understand the entire point of your argument.
If a close, trusted friend and a dear family member were both offering your advise on how to deal with a situation and you chose to go with your friends advise, does that mean that you don't value the opinions or advise of your family member at all, or does it mean that you valued one over the other? You seem to have this silly idea stuck in your head that because I prioritize one thing over another I must not value the first things at all, and that is simply not true and a little ridiculous. My life is important to me, very much so, but it's not so important that I will abstain from things I treasure (even though they might be dangerous) in the interest of extending it as long as possible.
So... from the start, I should not have had the hopes that this would somehow have a bright outcome in the end of me understanding you.
Again with the negative-Nancy attitude. My philosophy on life actually bring me a great deal of comfort, solace, happiness, and relaxation. Coming to realize and accept that my life is wholly and completely insignificant has brought about a measure of peace in my mind, because I can live life and not stress about things like "greater meaning" and the afterlife.
I condemn hedonists because they don't value life. They fill their voided lives with hedonism because they give up trying to find the real answers, and since they gave up, they don't value their lives, and since they don't value their lives, they don't care what they fill the void in their lives in with. And what's worse in my mind is how hedonists are a community. A community of people that enjoy killing themselves and giving up on trying to live a life that has real meaning. And when people gather around a community over such a horrible thing, they cause other people outside the community to subtly believe that hedonism is actually an alright alternative to actually living life. It's been proven in scientific studies that humans will abandon logic and rationale if a social group indicates with their behavior that logic and rational conclusion is incorrect, and then will instead believe the illogical and irrational conclusion of the social group.
I'm a hedonist and I value life, so there's one of your points down the shitter.
Voided lives as opposed to lives filled with... what? Why is hedonism a less valid life conclusion than whatever notion of purpose you've decided to cling to for comfort?
You haven't proved that to be hedonistic is to abandon logic and reason, so linking hedonism to the studies that you did is meaningless.
Because the culture of the civilization becomes so overly-hedonistic, and therefore valueless, that eventually enough people kill themselves to the point that the order that made up the civilization collapses under the weight of the chaos caused by people who seek to have no value in their lives.
This is the same logic used by the people who stand on street corners shouting at people that living as we do will bring about the end of times. And it's equally irrational. Which is probably why your notion that hedonism bring about the downfall of civilization, particularly your example of the Roman Empire, is so widely criticized by real historians who understand that there is a whole multitude of elements to the rise and fall of any civilization. Really. I looked it up. There are many theories on the collapse of Rome, and many of the theories can coincide with one another and still apply, but the notion that moral decline brought about the fall of Rome is scoffed at by every author of a more serious and realistic theory.
No, I support a utopian society that prolongs our lives and helps us understand how to give value to our lives, and therefore also teach us the importance of being healthy.
Since so much of your vision for humanity is based on your opinions, I'd be curious to hear which meanings of life will be considered valid and which will not. Unless you'd life to assert that there is an objective meaning of life that is the same for everyone, you understand that everyone needs to find their own purpose. So, in your book, which purposes have value enough not to be outlawed?
Because I know that I am right and that you are wrong.
And you've justified your idea that you can infringe on my freedom because you "care" with this. But saying it doesn't make it true. You haven't yet said anything that objectively proves that hedonism is not a valid way to live, and I'm getting the impression it's because you can't. And if you cant, all your arguments built on that idea (most of them) are baseless and false.
I'm not saying bad choices shouldn't be stopped from being made entirely, but I think restrictions should be put in to stop people from revolving their lives around bad choices.
So... you're changing your argument. Or clarifying something you failed to make clear earlier. Unless I am much mistaken you were on the "ban soda" side of my metaphor.
My whim isn't to control everything you do. My whim is to control that which harms you so that everything you do will have a positive outcome for you and everything you value around you.
First of all, I see this slippery slope ending in a ban on things like automobiles and sunbathing.
Second, who says my current and ongoing outcome isn't already positive? You? What do you know about my life? Certainly not enough to make those kind of decisions for me. And why should your opinion on how to lead a positive life be taken into account when I decide mine?
Lastly, I thought I didn't have values?
And since I understand that there is a chance you will never understand my point of view, I also don't mind the fact that you may never understand how I am being completely and utterly selfless in everything I have said so far. It really doesn't matter to me if you get that. Because I know I'm right and that you are too far gone at this point to probably ever agree.
This is such a cop out. Your argument is too poorly constructed and baseless for you to be throwing it around like divine revelation, as you currently are. Even if it wasn't, claiming that any argument is beyond the ability of someone you are debating to even understand is arrogant and condescending.
I could turn that around on you just as easily, asserting, essentially, that you are too stupid to comprehend an enlightened argument like the one I am making, but if my argument was lacking in objective proof, like yours is, and is founded instead only upon my own personal and subjective opinions, like yours is, you just come across sounding like a jackass while at the same time wasting both my time and your own; writing something like that progresses this argument nowhere, fast.
I describe and have been describing, once again, a governmental utopia, where the government is - GASP - completely and utterly sincere in every way. No bullshit. No greed. No envy. No wrath. No lies. No sin.
You're a lot more naive than you originally let on. This kind of fantasy land will only be possible if we entirely remove the human element from the equation, which, I think you will agree, would kind of defeat the point. It's in human nature to be envious and wrathful and dishonest and full of bullshit. As you astutely pointed out, the government is comprised of humans, and thus will always be as permeated with the aforementioned distasteful virtues as the society it governs.
Actually no, I'd do exactly what you just did. Interesting that we agree on that... it's almost contradictory to some of your other statements.
Then you're inconsistent; it sounds like you're changing your argument again. In accordance with your previously stated mandate that we should ban soda and drugs because they are harmful, you would ban the skateboard for causing harm. You never made any mention of educating people about any harmful behavior they might partake in, you only said you would ban and restrict those things. Your idea is to lay down law after law until we have a society where they ability to make what is in your opinion a bad choice literally impossible. Applied to this simile, short of putting your kid in a plastic bubble I don't see how you could stay true to your prior assertions and not take away the skateboard.
I don't see how allowing my hypothetical child the freedom* to make his own choices and mistakes and educating him instead of laying rules down on him is in any way "contradictory to some of [my] other statements," perhaps you could point those statements out?
Though you've made your opinion of my intelligence quite clear, I hope you can approach that post, in all it's stupidity, with an open mind, and I hope it answered your question (which delved into my life philosophy, hence the long reply).
I put in as much an open mind as I could. I don't know if it was enough for you to feel comfortable reading it or not, but I can also say for sure that this got me stringing together my own truths into something I haven't done before. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.
perhaps but if a doctor gets payed as much as a burger flipper why take the harder rode to be a doctor if theirs no greater benefit to be had by doing it so every one just becomes a burger flipper congratulations u now have an entire society of under educated blue collar workers what now Stalin?
perhaps but if a doctor gets payed as much as a burger flipper why take the harder rode to be a doctor if theirs no greater benefit to be had by doing it so every one just becomes a burger flipper congratulations u now have an entire society of under educated blue collar workers what now Stalin?
I just said the doctor won't be paid as much as a burger flipper. The doctor educated himself for 8+ years and now saves lives because of it. Communism would expect him to do that job and would pay him money for what the value of being able to save human lives is after training a significant portion of your life to do it.
A burger flipper is just a peon. He'll get paid more then someone who refuses to work, but anyone can flip burgers... so he'd be paid for the value of his work, which isn't as remotely valuable as the doctor knowing how to save lives.
So... you just said that I said something that I didn't say... did you even read what I said? Or did you not even comprehend it? Because you're putting words in my mouth that are the opposite of what I said.
you are thinking of socialism you can have a democratic free and pluralistic socialist society but history tells us that communist regimes tend to be extremely oppressive and totalitarian
Right, because they aren't actually communist. They say they are, but they are not. There has been not one single successful communist society, which is why I said it's perfect (on paper).
its widely excepted that Stalin, Mao Si dung. pol-pot, ho chi mien, Fidel Castro, kim ill sung,and Kim jong ill where all communist rulers and all there regimes where all communist so yes communism has been tried and it has proven to be horrible so your argument is invalided
Nope, wrong. No country has achieved communism, because no country can achieve communism. You should read the communist manifesto, it should enlighten you.
its widely excepted that Stalin, Mao Si dung. pol-pot, ho chi mien, Fidel Castro, kim ill sung,and Kim jong ill where all communist rulers and all there regimes where all communist
Propaganda being accepted as facts by sheep does not make it actually factual.
Also, I have NEVER heard anyone call the Kim Jong lineage communist. I have always heard them referred to as a dictatorship.
Furthermore, communism hasn't been tried and found horrible. People have been tried as attempting to use communism and have never been able to actually execute it due to human flaw. This says nothing about communism and only about how humanity cannot handle communism.
My argument is invalid? No. Yours is. You have yet to prove that communism does not work or is somehow not free; all you have pointed out is that people cannot work with communism without turning into something that is not communism.
You have yet to prove that communism does not work or is somehow not free; all you have pointed out is that people cannot work with communism without turning into something that is not communism.
Which, all in all, goes to show that communism is a bad choice for a government and its people. How can a form of government that has yet to be proved to be even possible to implement (no matter how great it sounds on paper) be better than freedom?
People shy away from the idea of Communism because it represents all the bad that used to happen in the days of Lenin and Stalin. The idea of communism its self though, equality to every9one is a good idea. I my self would choose to be communist rather that capitalist. Besides, communism is freedom. Only in capitalism are there unfair taxes, disgustingly poor people, and unjustly rich people. Communism shows we can all live the same way. Or at least the idea. It was introduced badly, with catastrophic results.
yeah sure if you can call a one party system with no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of religion, in fact no freedom of any thing at all whatsoever freedom then sure you might be right
Again, you're resorting to the dictatorship idea people have of communism. It didn't work the first time because it was introduced wrong! How can you fail to comprehend this?!
no communism is an enslavement to the government those "fat cats" are the job creators the employers capitalism is about freedom and opportunity communism is about oppression and totalitarian control by the state over the population
Because of corruption generated by their "President" who lived under that fake title while he manipulated those around him with the actions of a dictator
Honestly, I'm not sure what Communisam is. Is that where Uncle Sam starts banging hippies in a pogrom outside of Berkeley? Or does it happen when the Green Eggs And Ham guy stops getting his government cheese, that Sam I am, that Sam I am. I have a pretty good idea what communism is though.
Just because dictators have seized power by using communism to get the poeple to rise does not make the idea flawed. marx would probably deny that there had ever been a communist nation and one that had a succesful communist countrie would enjoy more freedom than us. capatilism does not work as the wall street protests show
Communism is stateless classless society, global and with advance means of production.
socialism may have countries, and is ideally ran by the workers via some type of federated councils.
The "communist" countries which you are likly thinking of are called such because the political machinery was made up of communists, and lead by vanguards, depending on who you talk to the vanguard methodology just creates a new class of oppressors, or the elimination of soviet democracy in every case of a Leninist revolution was some practical thing that had to be done for one reason or another.
People shy away from the design of Communism since it represents all the bad that used to come about in the days of Lenin and Stalin. The idea of communism it’s self though, equality to every9one is a good idea.
The government strive for equality so harshly that a neurosurgeon that worked his/her ass off to achieve magnitude must now be corresponding to a bum (they will end up getting payed about the same).
So... communism vs anarchy? If you're ruled by any sort of government, you have, willingly or otherwise, relinquished various freedoms in exchange for security. Well, among other things, obviously.
Anyways, Communism isn't exactly terrible, it's just that people are assholes and it doesn't work unless you have people who -aren't- and can stay that way. It's not impossible, just hard. 'sides, it's not like democracy works any better anyways. We don't live in a pure democracy, and I doubt we could live in a pure communism.