Jacque Fresco wasn't some peace guru, he was wired to be cold and calculating. He was a social chameleon and capable of being highly manipulative
If he wasn't a peace guru then why did he spend so much time thinking up ways to make the world a better place? Your attacks against his personality don't really stack up against his actions in the real world.
All of those systems have 2 things in common which socialism doesn't. 1 they were actually implemented successfully after being thought up
Socialism has been implemented successfully on plenty of occasions mate. That isn't the problem. Most of mainland Europe presently uses a hybrid system with some socialist and some capitalist elements. Countries like Denmark and Iceland lean heavily towards socialism. The problem is that nobody has ever figured out how to transition from socialism to communism. Marx's idea about the state simply withering away seems to have been wrong. In fact, in most examples the precise opposite has happened, although that might be because the state is needed to protect any socialist system from the pressure it comes under from capitalist countries.
they all allow (yes, allow) humanity to be unequal as it is by default
You're trying to disguise an absolute fallacy here. Yes, humanity is unequal. Some people are smarter, some are stronger and some work harder. However, nature does not default a condition where wealth is horded from generation to generation across families. That condition exists nowhere in the natural world. Class is not a default condition. It is imposed artificially by people with wealth.
Before anyone is even allowed to call themselves a communist or socialist they should be mandated to have a realistic explanation for how it can be achieved which no human being in history has been able to produce. Your futile retarded religion is built upon a faith in humanity
Has anybody been able to produce a different system other than capitalism in the last 300 years? In the 300 years before that, was anybody able to produce a different system other than feudalism? In the 300 years before that, was anybody able to produce a different system than monarchism?
The problem is, and always has been, indoctrination. And I don't just mean the media telling people that capitalism is the best system. It's also that people are generally petrified of change. Even when capitalism has blatantly failed them, as it has for 90 percent of the world population, most people are still usually more willing to stick to the devil they know.
At the end of the day, there are few things more stupid than wanting to call a halt to progress. To believe that capitalism cannot be improved upon and that giant wealth inequalities and corporate authoritarianism are the best things mankind can achieve from its socio-economic systems, is the thing which is "retarded".
I'm going to glaze you in barbecue sauce and drop you into a pit of hungry Muslims three minutes after Ramadan.
Lol. You're honestly just such a halfwit. An argument "over semantics" would be an argument about the linguistic meaning of the same word. It isn't "arguing over semantics" when you claim to own a badger and show me a chicken to prove it.
Please shut up. You're annoying.
Communism has been tried and failed.
It hasn't brother. You need to delve a little deeper into this, past the distorted information provided by capitalist governments acting through proxy of the mainstream media. Marx never wanted an all-powerful state. He wanted the complete opposite. His mistake arose from the real problem of how to transition societies which had been capitalist for hundreds of years into communist ones. The only way he saw to enact that change was government, but on the other hand he'd also spent countless hours writing about how government was an unnecessary by-product of capitalism, whose only real-world purpose was protecting the interests of the upper class. His idea was, as the roots of communism expanded into society, government would cease to perform any useful function and gradually would "wither away". However, what happened in reality is that opportunists like Stalin took advantage of the power vacuum left behind by the overthrow of the Tsarist system which had existed previously, and simply set up shop for themselves. It takes a very particular sort of person to be omnipotent, almost like a god, and then hand that power back to the people themselves. I'm not sure anybody has the strength to do that, but if they do then it certainly wasn't Stalin or Mao.
You left out that when Marx said "workers", he meant people who did manual labor
He meant people who did work, you thick Nazi twat.
One of the bitter ironies of the 20th century was that communism, which began as an egalitarian doctrine accusing capitalism of selfishness and calloused sacrifices of others, became in power a system whose selfishness and callousness toward others made the sins of capitalism pale.
It's incredibly disappointing when I watch idiots like you attempt to criticize The Communist Manifesto without ever actually having read The Communist Manifesto. Communism, as envisioned by Marx, necessitated the complete end to the state and therefore state power.
It takes an overwhelming amount of arrogance, not to mention ignorance, to try to criticize a book you clearly haven't even read.
These, criticisms of yours, which have become all too common among shit-stirring capitalist deceivers, essentially all follow precisely the same formula. Hitler claimed he was a socialist, therefore socialism is bad. Stalin claimed he was a communist, therefore communism is bad. Well, guess what? Jeffrey Epstein claimed he was a capitalist.
Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".
Marx worked for the Daily Tribune for ten years as a journalist you pig ignorant twat. At least throw the occasional piece of truth into your historical hatchet job.
You want beef?
Because I will open up a steak house on your nipples.
It would help if first we established which version you want. With machine guns or without machine guns?
If you found a better study from a peer reviewed article this would be helpful.
Please follow my words closely. An opinion poll taken of women about their own opinions of driving is no type of "study". You should spend some time learning the difference between an opinion poll and a study. Try to start that task after completing the previous one where you learn the difference between the words "better" and "safer".
Instead, you have impossible expectations and nitpick
It is not an "impossible expectation" for you to support your own claims with relevant literature you fucking idiot.
The overall trend is women are safer drivers, so no not cherry picking.
You were absolutely cherry-picking. You made a claim that "women are BETTER drivers than men" and attempted to support it with an analysis about who are the SAFER drivers. I can only conclude at this point that you either struggle with interpreting the English language, or that you are simply dumb as a tree stump.
Here's a peer reviewed article for you.
You are again randomly cherry-picking titles which do not match the content of the material involved. The abstract of your paper reads:-
They [women] are less involved in accidents and drive safer and less fast than men
So again, they are SAFER drivers, not BETTER drivers.
What science says about who are BETTER drivers, is:-
When it comes to raw cognitive skill needed for driving, men have an advantage over women. The male brain tends to excel at motor, spatial and visual processing, all of which play crucial roles in good driving.
However, driving involves much more than finesse. Conscientiousness and safety are more important behind the wheel, and women demonstrate these traits far more often than men.
https://www.autoloansolutions.ca/blog/
So men are BETTER drivers, and women are SAFER drivers. You are trying to conflate these two distinct and separate concepts because you are a sophist little dickhead.
The left has become a religion for Corporatism
Sure Bronto. Definitely the left. Occupy Wall Street and Antifa are very pro-corporate dictatorship.
Meanwhile, you have some of Hitler's ass hair stuck on your chin. Maybe you should wipe that off before you continue.
Shut up Bronto. I quoted your story directly you mad fuck:-
He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular
I am told that worshippers of false prophets have their own special little VIP table in hell, where they can play cards, drink wine, and surrender their bottoms to the relentless sexual advances of Lord Moloch.
Musk allows the 1st Amendment on his private company
No he doesn't. What about Alex Jones' first amendment right?
Musk is full of shit.
Get a life you absolute weirdo. Nobody gives half a shit about your unhinged rantings. You've literally been talking to yourself for the past 24 hours.
The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints is built upon a false foundation and a false prophet, which is why millions of Mormons are going to hell unless they turn from Mormonism and turn to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
https://www.christianity.
Repent or you're going to hell. Simple.
Nice try Bronto.
He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular
From where can I buy a pair of magic glasses like Joseph Smiths that enabled him, and only him, to interpret the word of God.
Powerful glasses, right buddy?
Also, I'd like some of those golden printing plates Smith claims were given him by angels, but which mysteriously vanished upon further enquiry.
Ah, unfortunately there appears to be no end to the strange things you can make people believe with a bit of charm and guile.
I think you should be imprisoned for five years for impersonating a Jew.
Your argument is nihilistic
I don't think you understand what Nihilism is and I think you should probably shut up if you don't have a valid rebuttal to what I wrote.
Another example, the myth that all media is flawed. Again, some media sources are very accurate and others deliberately mislead.
You don't seem to understand that your sources do not support the claims you made. Work on that.
Your filthy Satanic cult is being EXPOSED, Dr Batman. You are a mere SEXUAL PLAYTHING of the PRINCE OF LIES. He has slid his HONEY COATED MEMBER into your ear and you have ENJOYED HIS ATTENTION.
Q. Are Mormons Christians?
A. Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity. In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from God’s Word, they are not.
Hope you enjoy the weather down there Dr Batman, you spawn of Satan.
