Pants-of-dog wrote:None of this is an argument. Now you are arguing about how to argue.
I'm just pointing out your ignorance and incompetence, this never was a real argument because it's not a real controversy. Confronting a dishonest, irrational denier with evidence is not an argument. I'd call it an intervention but that would imply the possibility of you accepting reality. I think of it more as an exhibition really.
Now, do you believe that all socialists and communists are “batshit crazy and their methods are maniacally inhuman”, or do you think some are and some are not?
I believe all the gulag apologists pretending to be socialists are ideological extremists who if given the opportunity would plunge society into a totalitarian nightmare.
Also, do you have any examples of Latin Americans trying to create something like a European social democracy? How did that work out? Why did it work out that way?
That's actually a good question. I think the difficulty Latin America has had maintaining liberal democracy stems mainly from a culture of authoritarianism and corruption. Don't get me wrong, the imperialists have ruthlessly snuffed out any movement toward real democracy and rule of law, but they were only as successful as they were because of the culture. History has shown that liberal democracy can be maintained in defiance of much larger hostile powers and in some instances in defiance of an entire world order that's hostile to its existence. So we know the failure of liberal democracy in Latin America can't be explained solely by aggressive imperialism.
Bab·bitt | \ˈba-bət
A narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority.