[Rapperson]

@Rapperson

Pardon me? Are you trying to imply ad absurdum? This is not going to get you anywhere.

It's a valid argument. Your proposition is clearly false, because it leads to absurdity. If you said something you didn't mean, feel free to make a correction.

[JohnRawls]

@Rapperson

A fallacious argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience failing to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

You understand what i meant.

[The Immortal Goon]

The truthfulness of a statement hinges on the interpretation of its meaning, and this meaning must be established when the statement is made.

This may be helpful to you:

After you watched that, try to put what you learned to the test in this rockin' educational video and see how you do:

I got a perfect score. Maybe you can do better!

The statement is false under my interpretation, so it is untrue.

You seem to be having difficulty understanding that your feelings do not translate to reality. Keep this in mind:

You made the claim, I refuted it.

No you didn't.

[Rapperson]

@Rapperson

that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

You understand what i meant.

In what way does the argument not apply?

@The Immortal Goon

Do you have a list of nations or other material that supports your claim, like I mentioned before?

[JohnRawls]

In what way does the argument not apply?

@The Immortal Goon

Do you have a list of nations or other material that supports your claim, like I mentioned before?

It is rather stupid to play this game but i will amuse you. It still does not excuse your dishonesty and use of ad absurdum.

Using transitive logic you can deduce the following:

Atom Egoyan is a living human.
Living humans consists of systems of organs.
System of organs consist of organs.
Organs consist of tissue.
Tissue consists of molecules.
Molecules consist of atoms.
-------------------------------
Atom Egoyan consists of molecules.
Atom Egoyan consists of atoms.
-------------------------------
Molecules consist of atoms.

[Rapperson]

It is rather stupid to play this game but i will amuse you. It still does not excuse your dishonesty and use of ad absurdum.

Using transitive logic you can deduce the following:

Atom Egoyan is a living human.
Living humans consists of systems of organs.
System of organs consist of organs.
Organs consist of tissue.
Tissue consists of molecules.
Molecules consist of atoms.
-------------------------------
Atom Egoyan consists of atoms.

This doesn't change anything. I can make any interpretation I like on any of the concepts you used to make this chain of logic fail (like, an organ is a musical instrument). The simple fact is that there's no statement that is independent of interpretation, and we are not even into the field of humanities yet!

There's nothing wrong with the use of ad absurdum, it is a valid logical device. You shouldn't accuse others of dishonesty while quoting out of context and without sources!

[The Immortal Goon]

Do you have a list of nations or other material that supports your claim, like I mentioned before?

I posted a 4,000 word reply with citations and links to your earlier claims. You have chosen not to address any of it.

Since you have been unable to articulate any one of the many claims that I made, I am unsure what you want when you claim you want, "a list of nations whose history supports your claim."

Which claim? Force mobilization during the Russian Civil War? The CIA's use of the National Student Association?

Since you seem not to be able to define, "fact" and, "opinion," I am guessing that you could not read my response and have instead opted to continue punting in an attempt to justify your precious snowflake feelings. As noted previously, this is not a new or especially imaginative way for capitalists to justify their emotions.

Please make a specific request or refutation if you have one.

I can make any interpretation I like on any of the concepts you used to make this chain of logic fail (like, an organ is a musical instrument). The simple fact is that there's no statement that is independent of interpretation, and we are not even into the field of humanities yet!

Your own personal snowflake interpretation is irrelevant.

[Rapperson]

History has also shown that capitalism is, or very soon becomes, a violent dictatorship. It is an oppressive government that curtails many human rights, notably freedom of speech.

Do you have a list of nations whose history supports your above claim, or any other material that would do so?

I have no intention of arguing a myriad of propositions all at the same time, but your other propositions seem interesting and I may very well address them later.

[JohnRawls]

@Rapperson

So you basically believe that the Starwman argument is not a logical fallacy. Good to know i guess.

StarwMan argument is a logical fallacy though.

[The Immortal Goon]

Do you have a list of nations whose history supports your above claim, or any other material that would do so?

India, China, the First Nations of the American continent, the native Australians, the South East Asians, the former Dutch colonies, Belgian Congo, Ireland...

Really, the countries in pink here are the ones where the British came into curtail human rights, notably freedom of speech:



Notably there is, of course, overlap. For instance, here's where the French attempted to do the same with any measure of success:



And here's a list of American military operations (excluding, of course, in all cases, supporting oppressive governments that curtails many human rights like Saudi Arabia)

[Rapperson]

@Rapperson

So you basically believe that the Starwman argument is not a logical fallacy. Good to know i guess.

StarwMan argument is a logical fallacy though.

Now who's being dishonest? Ad absurdum and Straw man are two different things! It is dishonest of you to suggest they are the same thing.


@The Immortal Goon

You are talking about foreign aggression. That is NOT what I was referring to at all, if you want to know. All nations and groups of people (maybe with very few exceptions) use foreign aggression when and if they are in a position to do so.

Marxist states are violent dictatorships. By that I mean that they are an authoritarian government that monopolizes political power within their own borders and use violence to suppress their own subjects. That is a rule with few if any exceptions for marxist states, but is absolutely not the rule for capitalist states.

[JohnRawls]

Now who's being dishonest? Ad absurdum and Straw man are two different things! It is dishonest of you to suggest they are the same thing.


@The Immortal Goon

You are talking about foreign aggression. That is NOT what I was referring to at all, if you want to know. All nations and groups of people (maybe with very few exceptions) use foreign aggression when and if they are in a position to do so.

Marxist states are violent dictatorships. By that I mean that they are an authoritarian government that monopolizes political power within their own borders and use violence to suppress their own subjects. That is a rule with few if any exceptions for marxist states, but is absolutely not the rule for capitalist states.

In its purest mathematical form, a reductio ad absurdum argument is a proof that a given proposition leads to a logical contradiction. As contradictions are not allowed in most forms of logic, this serves to disprove the proposition. It has been a valid and useful part of mathematics for thousands of years.

In other contexts, it might mean simply that accepting a certain proposition would lead to a result which is logically absurd.

A strawman argument is a dishonest argument technique (often called an 'informal fallacy', meaning that its form is not necessarily invalid, but its content is) based on replacing the position your opponent does hold with one they do not, and arguing against that new proposition.

[Rapperson]

In its purest mathematical form, a reductio ad absurdum argument is a proof that a given proposition leads to a logical contradiction. As contradictions are not allowed in most forms of logic, this serves to disprove the proposition. It has been a valid and useful part of mathematics for thousands of years.

In other contexts, it might mean simply that accepting a certain proposition would lead to a result which is logically absurd.

A strawman argument is a dishonest argument technique (often called an 'informal fallacy', meaning that its form is not necessarily invalid, but its content is) based on replacing the position your opponent does hold with one they do not, and arguing against that new proposition.

Is this your way of saying you were wrong? I ask because I'm not sure what point you're making with this, especially since you are taking the words of others and publishing them as your own.

[The Immortal Goon]

You are talking about foreign aggression. That is NOT what I was referring to at all, if you want to know. All nations and groups of people (maybe with very few exceptions) use foreign aggression when and if they are in a position to do so.

Oh, well I'm sure the victims of the Saudi Arabian regime will be relieved to know that they are not living in a violent dictatorship or oppressive government because something-something foreign aggression.

In the United States, I'm sure Fred Hampton's family will be happy to know that there was nothing oppressive about the FBI and local police conspiring to murder him for essentially speaking out:





And it's an open secret that the British government was colluding with terrorist groups within the UK to suppress groups that didn't happily go along with the UK.

But the meat of your assertion is that it doesn't count if it does not occur within a certain nationstate, but is the result of capitalism as a whole. I'm sure you're aware that I can find any number of other examples, in Asia, Africa, and Central and South America, where there is a resource capitalism wants or needs to continue going, and so a regime is put into place that is a horrific violent dictatorship and oppressive government.

Your way out of this is to simply pretend it doesn't happen because your precious snowflake emotions don't feel like it should happen.

However, this is not the case.

[JohnRawls]

@Rapperson

I am saying that you have changed the topic of the discussion severely by now while ignoring all of things that other people told to you. When you were faced with a true statement, you straight away apealed to a logic fallacy. I don't know how many times i have to repeat this seriously. You have substituted the proposition of the statement to something else and then did the negation of the faulty proposition to make it seem that the statement is false. Do i need to rephrase this one more time?

[Rapperson]

Oh, well I'm sure the victims of the Saudi Arabian regime will be relieved to know that they are not living in a violent dictatorship or oppressive government because something-something foreign aggression.

Why do you say Saudi Arabia is not a violent dictatorship?


JohnRawls wrote:
@Rapperson

I am saying that you have changed the topic of the discussion severely by now while ignoring all of things that other people told to you. When you were faced with a true statement, you straight away apealed to a logic fallacy. I don't know how many times i have to repeat this seriously. You have substituted the proposition of the statement to something else and then did the negation of the faulty proposition to make it seem that the statement is false. Do i need to rephrase this one more time?

I did not employ a fallacy, that is an outright lie.

[The Immortal Goon]

Why do you say Saudi Arabia is not a violent dictatorship?

It is a means to demonstrate how and where your lack of logic has led.

If we are to assume, as you feel, that the capitalist system has not developed any violent dictatorships, then Saudi Arabia is not a violent dictatorship.

The Middle East itself, as currently composed, was created by the British and French after WWI:



...in large part as a way to counter the Soviet program of encouraging mass action, secularization, and modernization:

In this respect you are confronted with a task which has not previously confronted the Communists of the world: relying upon the general theory and practice of communism, you must adapt yourselves to specific conditions such as do not exist in the European countries; you must be able to apply that theory and practice to conditions in which the bulk of the population are peasants, and in which the task is to wage a struggle against medieval survivals and not against capitalism. That is a difficult and specific task, but a very thankful one, because masses that have taken no part in the struggle up to now are being drawn into it, and also because the organisation of communist cells in the East gives you an opportunity to maintain the closest contact with the Third International. You must find specific forms for this alliance of the foremost proletarians of the world with the labouring and exploited masses of the East whose conditions are in many cases medieval. We have accomplished on a small scale in our country what you will do on a big scale and in big countries. And that latter task you will, I hope, perform with success. Thanks to the communist organisations in the East, of which you here are the represelitatives, you have contact with the advanced revolutionary proletariat. Your task is to continue to ensure that communist propaganda is carried on in every country in a language the people understand.

It is self-evident that final victory can be won only by the proletariat of all the advanced countries of the world, and we, the Russians, are beginning the work which the British, French or German proletariat will consolidate. But we see that they will not be victorious without the aid of the working people of all the oppressed colonial nations, first and foremost, of Eastern nations. We must realise that the transition to communism cannot be accomplished by the vanguard alone. The task is to arouse the working masses to revolutionary activity, to independent action and to organisation, regardless of the level they have reached; to translate the true communist doctrine, which was intended for the Communists of the more advanced countries, into the language of every people; to carry out those practical tasks which must be carried out immediately, and to join the proletarians of other countries in a common struggle.

Such are the problems whose solution you will not find in any communist book, but will find in the common struggle begun by Russia. You will have to tackle that problem and solve it through your own independent experience. In that you will be assisted, on the one hand, by close alliance with the vanguard of the working people of other countries, and, on the other, by ability to find the right approach to the peoples of the East whom you here represent.

This is a policy and tension that continued until the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet sphere of influence in the Arab world is easy enough to see in pictures of Afghanistan in the 1960s and 1970s. This, of course, changes drastically after the British and Americans start supporting the Taliban. This is repeated elsewhere—notably in Reagan and Thatcher supporting Pol Pot while the Vietnamese communists have to go in there and clean out that shithole brought to the world by the world's most powerful capitalist countries.

[Rugoz]

The idea that a communist West, if equally powerful, would have behaved any better on the world stage is utterly preposterous. The Sowjet Union was absolutely no role model in that regard, it behaved like a 19th century imperial power in the second half of the 20th century.

[Pants-of-dog]

I believe this to be the case also. But not all instances of capitalism benefit only the rich, which is my point to a degree. Profit seeking for example is something that is not inherent only to the rich. This benefits all of the classes. It becomes a problem only when over accumulation happens which is presented as the "evil" of the upper classes by communism while at the same time communism ignores the benefits of this for the other classes.

Profit seeking does not benefit all of the classes. At best, it benefits a small percentage of some of the classes, while simultaneously disadvantaging most others in the working class.

And accumulation is an inherent trait of profit seeking. I do not think you can separate them.

----------------

@Rapperson

I noticed that you have ignored my previous claim about Pinochet when you incorrectly claimed that capitalists do not oppress their own people.

So, you did know about Pinochet, yet you still made this incorrect claim.

[MememyselfandIJK]

@Rapperson

You list as many communist dictatorships as you can, I'll list as many capitalist dictatorships as I can. We'll see who gets more.

No it doesn't.

@MememyselfandIJK

What is the really big problem with capitalism that marxism solves? What is the first thing you'd mention?

My First thought:
Poverty

My First 5 seconds of thinking:
Poverty
Hunger
Environmental destruction
Wage labor
Unjust hierarchy

Would you like the whole list?