Why are people against communism?

It should be clear by now, in the context of this thread and one other recent one I've noticed your presence in, that noble for one man is not for another.
I don't believe in altruism. Every man gains something for his actions, but that gain does not have to be tangible.

In answer to the quoted statement, I would say that for me, Tiassa is the very model of a modern Ellsworth Toohey.

We certainly don't have any history together.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See now, Gusty, that there was brilliance. But not a single one of you chicken scratchers went anywhere near it. Well, one... ineffectually.
Those who raise objections as to when a thread is on-topic or when it is not often do so in only when it is in their interest.


/fun

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The vagaries of desperation

You should probably try explaining why it's not a strawman, especially as your behavior since only proves the point.

Perhaps you might try stating that more clearly.

About as expected.

That you think so poorly of your neighbors is your business, and may not have anything to do with fact.

(guffaw!)

And I would be naîve, after all these years, to expect you to have a point.

Ah, yes. The vagaries of desperation.

Oh, grow up. Do you really think you can prove you weren't building a strawman by erecting another? Would it be too much to ask that you should deal with reality and facts from time to time?

I don't think you know what honesty is, Marquis.

Tell you what: Try stating a case that isn't built entirely on fallacy and off-topic personal considerations.

But, really, Marquis, a piece of advice: When you ask for something that is already on the record, and then complain when you get it, people are going to wonder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mediocrity according to whose standards?

Challenges and competition that keep us moving and evolving whereto?


Even in a society of equals, or the nominally equal, the challenges and competition remain, they might just be in regard to different things than in an unequal society.

Many of us nowadays live in societies where there is equality - equality before the Law, for example.
It is an equality that surely keeps us moving and evolving, requiring of us attitudes and practices that were not necessary 500 years ago, for example.
If back then one was of a noble family, the Law was practically on one's side. A nobleman could commit murder (even of a fellow nobleman), blame it on being seduced by a witch, and be exonerated, and the woman burnt. Nowadays, such a defense does not pass in the court of Law, and people have to have a tolerance for other people's legal rights that that nobleman didn't need.

 

99.99 % of people are selfish to some degree.

Even giving to charity can be selfish if you do it to so you can ejoy calling yourseld good.

Most people aw quite selfish and are two selfish to put their personal ambitions aside to primarily serve their fellow citizens as wae the ideal in communism.

 

Does anyone ever get the impression that people here don't actually read, they just post shit?

(And yes, Tiassa, I've noted that you already said as much in post #278)

 

i suppose it is a matter of degree
would you consent to being taxed at say... 80%? what would you want in exchange?

Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.

Danes do have one potential complaint: high taxes. The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.

Those high taxes have another effect. Since a banker can end up taking home as much money as an artist, people don't chose careers based on income or status. "They have this thing called 'Jante-lov,' which essentially says, 'You're no better then anybody else,'" said Buettner. "A garbage man can live in a middle-class neighborhood and hold his head high."

Indeed, garbage man Jan Dion says he's an eight out of 10 in terms of happiness. He said he doesn't mind collecting garbage for a living, because he works just five hours in the morning and then can spend the rest of the day at home with family or coaching his daughter's handball team. Dion says no one judges his choice of career, and he actually loves what he does because he has many friends along his route. It makes him happy when he sees the children who wave to him and the old ladies who bring him cups of coffee.

Josef Bourbon, a carpenter's apprentice, is also happy with his choice of career and enjoys the work. "I think it's about building something, seeing what you've worked on the whole day -- you can see what you've done," he said. On weekends he likes fish and hunt or play with his new puppy.

Bourbon is another example of Denmark's unusual social structure, because he happens to be a prince. Descended from a Danish king and related to the royal houses of both Spain and France, Bourbon has chosen to be a carpenter's apprentice, and he rarely discusses his lineage with anyone. Not even with potential dates when he's out on the town.

In all likelihood, Bourbon will probably just keep up his current cozy social life, hanging around with friends and family who live nearby. Danes even have a name for these kind of gatherings, calling these intimate and spontaneous get-togethers 'hygge' (pronounced "hoogey").

Hanging out with other Danes just may be their happiness secret. Ninety-two percent of Danes belong to some kind of social club, dancing, singing, even practicing laughing with other Danes. Get a few people together who enjoy model train building, for example, and the government will pay for it. In Denmark, even friendship is subsidized.

And Denmark is what is called a "post consumerist" society. People have nice things, but shopping and consuming is not a top priority. Even the advertising is often understated. Along with less emphasis on "stuff," and a strong social fabric, Danes also display an amazing level of trust in each other, and their government. A University of Cambridge happiness study found that both kinds of trust were higher in happier places.

In Denmark, you can see trust in action all around you. Vegetable stands run on the honor system, mothers leave babies unattended in strollers outside cafés, and most bicycles are left unlocked.

And perhaps the bicycle is the best symbol of Danish happiness. Danes can all afford cars, but they choose bikes -- simple, economical, nonpolluting machines that show no status and help keep people fit.
​

beep click
does not compute

 

(Insert Title Here)

I should note that I've finally caught up on what I missed, and no, I have never been so fortunate as to encounter those people. Sorry it took so long for the prior sentence. I only figured it out late last night.

 

The problem I have with Communism as I debated rather redundantly with my friend Anarcho Union; is that it goes against human nature. Even wild animals in the jungle have a hierarchy.

Then there's humanity's neverfailing greed, violence, and selfish ambition. Not all, but most people show these traits at some point(or even their entire life).

 

The problem is that sympathy for a viewpoint plays a rather large part in the care with which one examines it.

The aforementioned post #278 contains a few little anomalies of its own.

The only real question here is which of those you noticed, and what it was specifically that prompted you to make this remark.

 

My behaviour since proves that what I said was a strawman?

Ok. So let me get this straight, and I'm going to rephrase a little here... just trying to figure out where you're coming from, is all.
"You're a complete dick, so what what you said about communists is a strawman."
Do I have that right?

Oh my. I'll try... once you let me know to what level you'd like me to dumb it down for you.

I have fans, you know.

My opinion of my neighbours has been rather low for quite some time now, alleviated not in the slightest by what I'm witnessing here.
That you think your opinion of them has any more final validity than mine is one of the reasons I find you so amusing.

giggle

That, Tiassa, is your greatest problem. Your brain doesn't function too well when faced with something it can't understand. Rather than confront that, you dismiss it in a cloud of verbosity.

I have to admit, though; You are perhaps the greatest filibuster I have had the dubious pleasure of encountering firsthand.
The only cause I have to doubt the word can be accurately applied to you is that I'm not entirely sure that it's a deliberate tactic.

Ah, yes. The inability to confront anything deeper than simple politics.

"Reality and Facts", Tiassa, as I've already noted, differ widely according to the sympathies of the observer.

I know exactly as much about it as most men do. When I'm in a particularly egotistical mood, I like to think I know a little more.

Again, what you really mean to say is that you won't be satisfied until I present a case based around the facts as you see them, not as I do.
Rather a tall order, don't you think? Intrinsically unfair, old bean.

So while we're on the topic of strawmen, laddie, was that first sentence above a strawman, or was it not? Perhaps it all depends on the perception of "fact"?

You must take some time someday to understand absurdity, Tiassa.

I'm wondering myself.
How you continue to quote yourself in order to demonstrate what you claim was a strawman aimed not at yourself is quite beyond me.
Your duty, if you wish to point out a strawman, is to present a case as to why it was such using the words and viewpoint of those you are attempting to defend.

It went something like this:

Me: These guys think...
You : No, that's a strawman because I think...
Me: Wasn't really talking to you. I retract the "all".
You : I said, it 's a strawman because I think...
Me : Yes, I heard you. What you've said isn't what they said...
You : Yes it is!.

There. A picture. Now is that really so difficult to understand?

 

Another problem with Communism is that once they take control there's no way, besides an armed rebellion, to remove them from their positions. there are no elections if the citizens don't like what is happening and those who disagree are thrown into jail for being "against the state"!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This and That

Well, as appealing as it is, no, that's not right.

You asserted a questionable notion, used a limited example to support your assertion, and then disqualified from consideration anything that doesn't meet your expectations.

Any level that actually tries to explain the point instead of resting on the implicit demand that I should be a psychic medium in order to read your mind.

I'm sure I would care if that point was important.

You keep raising what appear to be straw men. It's not that my opinion in general has any more final validity than yours. Rather, I would simply appreciate it if you would base your opinion on facts, not spurious assertions thereof.

Oh, I admit you caught me off guard, entirely. You also wrote one or two of the funniest lines I've seen around Sciforums for a while.

But you are mistaken insofar as I do understand what I'm seeing, and if you really think you can convince people that your opinion is valid specifically for its hostility to supporting facts, you're perfectly welcome to continue trying.

Why, thank you. I would return the compliment, except I have, indeed, encountered plenty of people who are just as stubborn and averse to reality as you are, so in that sense I must confess you only stand out for the acute stupidity of your argument.

This from a guy who wants to rehash an aged, well-known complaint about communists in order to avoid looking at what has happened since?

I think the proposition that you are to be taken seriously would make that point clear.

I think the first sentence in that is particularly egotistic.

It would be unfair if that was the case.

It's a straw man because it demands what is already on the record, thus misrepresenting another by suggesting it is not.

Well, in this case, Sisyphus is clearly quite happy.

You included a lot of people in your straw man; all communists, I might remind. Perhaps we could have settled that issue had you been forthright, sir:

"Perhaps I'm being a ilttle harsh with the "all" (although it does appear quite true in the case of the op'er) but I've yet to meet an individual who manages to address it effectively.

Perhaps you'd care to try?"

(#127; boldface accent added)​

All I did was point out that I had already considered those issues on the record. Apparently, you couldn't be bothered to tell me what of that you disputed. Rather, you just decided to complain.

I already have. Please see #160 and #278 above. From that latter:

The problem I have is that as various sympathetic voices discuss communism's track record, nobody wants to move beyond it. Take a look at The Marquis:

• Communists suffer a general lack of perspective regarding human nature.

• No communist can have anything intelligent to say.

• Considerations of communism that do not conform to the first rule are not communist.

∴ No communist can have anything intelligent to say.​

I consider it a straw man argument to ignore what someone has written, and then demand they reiterate it. Since you obviously can't be bothered to attend the record, I haven't any great faith that you will understand.

Just think, for a moment, Marquis, how much further along we could be in a constructive discussion if you would simply respond to my arguments instead of trying to write them for me.

You asked. And then you complained when that question was answered, apparently because you didn't like the answer.

"... but I've yet to meet an individual who manages to address it effectively.

Perhaps you'd care to try?​

You asked Marquis. You asked for what was already on the record, and then complained when it was pointed out to you.

• • •​

My question to you, sir, is why anyone should take seriously a political opinion that has no connection to reality?

Communism is no more incompatible with the ballot box than capitalism.

 

Seconded

 

At least I'm enjoying the ride

I should probably be proud. After all, if a trolls and hatemongers alike disdain what I have to say, perhaps I'm doing something right.

 

Oh, the love! Uh! So much love it hurts!!!

 

I don't think so, Tiassa.

I mean you're a reasonably bright sort of lad, if a little misguided; I'm sure you'll work out the inherent danger in such an assumption.
By the way, you dropped the ball on page four. Own goal, actually. One can only hope you aren't the best still on offer.



Aside, I'm still waiting for Parmalee to come to the party. A smart boy, by all appearances; but perhaps a little lacking in the fibre.

 

Now we know you're a troll

Four days later, and that's all you can come up with?

 

Poor Tiassa.
A toy, left in the rain, a week after Christmas.