- 14 Jul 2019 16:10
#15018060
Do you make zero assumptions? You just assumed I was putting down Puerto Ricans because I wasn't a Puerto Rican. Why did you do that? You were assuming. Now, you deny you were assuming. Then you make a series of error-filled assertions such as thinking racism is about collective stuff. Racism is about a complex series of socially constructed myths that are real because Africans were brought to the Americas to work for free because they were considered, collectively by feudal plantation owners and slave owners of being property. Why did slaves in the Americas wound up being used as property, and their humanity was not acknowledged, Julian? Because it was economically inconvenient for a person who owns another human being to acknowledge they are as human as they are. It becomes hard to justify not paying them anything for their labor and it forces them to give them legal rights they are not entitled to if they remain property. The economic system dictated the sort of relationship those two sides of slaves and slave owners had. Economic structure dictated it. What are the economic structures? COLLECTIVIST. Capitalism has to have workers who work for a salary and trade their labor for wages. Is it done individualistically or do they pay the wage earners as a collective? You know the answer. Not acknowledging that human economies are systemic and based on large swathes or groups or classes of human beings is being a bad analyzer. Take a good look at what you are saying that crony capitalism isn't real capitalism. It exists. It is there. They are practicing it and it is a product of a capitalistic defective system. You can't deny it because it messes up your ideology whom you say you don't have or don't have? Who are you kidding with that weak argument, Julian?
Does that give you a lead into understanding the flaws of capitalism and how it is an error to think individuals live separate from society or do you need more?
I am sorry Julian but I would rather debate Blackjack. He actually reads his own ideology and understands it well and can defend it well because he did his research. Do I agree with him? No. But I can debate with him because he knows what he is about. So do I. With you? You seem to be all over the place and you think that by saying you are not a slave to ideology what you are actually doing is not being thorough is finding out what exactly you are about or why you differ from me on what is going on.
Do you think I did not notice how you made assumptions about a lot of stuff? I did. Own your mistakes, Julian, because if you don't? I got the information I needed about you...a man who doesn't acknowledge an error and who covers it by trying to say he knows a lot when he doesn't. I don't have time for that Julian. I got interesting things to do today. I am going to breakfast with a Mexican artist to discuss something I want to do with him for my project. No time to waste debating men who refuse to admit they made a mistake.
Lol. Pinker I have read before Julian. He does great work in the linguistic analysis as well.
BTW, I want to be a socialist because I find the idea of pooling all resources to serve as many people as possible with a structure that is about publicly held collective wealth is a good thing. What happens when you got this rugged individualism stuff going on without any public spending that is good for all? Such as public schools and public universities? You got only the wealthy getting educations and no social responsibilities and obligations. I am against that. I think this definition of socialism is accurate about what I am. I am an Erich Fromme Socialist. If you know who that is? Then you know who I find the most logical for socialisms many diverse manifestations. I also believe in Richard Wolff's analysis of economic realities for today's capitalism. If you disagree with Wolff's economic stances and Erich Fromme's ideas of socialism then go and open a thread. But right now as it stands? I seriously doubt you have done enough reading and work on what it is.
You know little about socialism Julian. There are a hugely diverse group of socialists, Christian socialists, Scientific socialists, Utopian socialists, Primitive socialists, modern technology based socialists, and that is why I suggested you read something that gives you an idea about it. Now? If you think anything that is collectivist is socialist and therefore authoritarian? Then you are going or flying against the face of a lot of evidence. Human beings do they live in a society or in complete social isolation? You got a belly button there Julian. Your mother gave birth to you and that belly button is physical evidence of your dependence on her in the womb. She is not you. She is another individual. But if she did not exist and gave birth to you could you have lived on your own outside of a social structure to raise you? The answer is no you could not have. So all human beings on some level especially the adults who are here writing on fora here had to be socialized in a social group. To think the collective is not real is living in denial. Prove to me the collective group has no influence on you as an individual and I will say Julian has proved his belief in rugged Libertarian stuff and I have lost. Lol.
I will be back later...breakfast is calling!
In order for you Julian to have strong arguments against socialism you need to realize what made socialism emerge in the first place. Study economic human history. You start with foragers, hunter gatherers, then agricultural societies, then you got urban centers and why they had to have administrators and how class systems emerge and are done in human civilizations. What are the purposes of having specialized classes of humans and as you say 'authorities' in charge of things? What advantages are there to that? Got to deal with that. Then once you understand it well, you say "Tainari88 I am against it because I think the individual becomes a slave to the collective and the collective is (fill in the blank) of your argument." Not based on something you never understood before Julian. That is bad argumentation.
For the purposes of Puerto Rico the Puerto Ricans are historically another nationality with a separate history from the USA. It is obvious because you see a woman there who is Puerto Rican and she speaks Spanish before English in the video. Why? Spain ws in Puerto Rico since 1493 til 1898. A long long time. So the Puerto Rican identity is not about England and King George and that language, history or culture. That land has been occupied continually by a mixture of Spaniards, Tainos and a series of mostly West African slaves for centuries and the Puerto Rican people did not leave Puerto Rico and leave it empty for the USA people to come in and say, "It is ours now." So since it was occupied as a collective by the Puerto Ricans, the USA had to negotiate something to be able to control the island. To favor them. It is undemocratic and all political parties on the island agree on one thing. We are a colony. Not some kind of democracy.
Who is responsible? For that lack? The USA government is. Be responsible and realize who is responsible for what in history. Don't reinvent it to say that history is bunk like Henry Ford said. Because it is not. If history is bunk? Why do you think Puerto Ricans in 2019 still speak Spanish first? And not English only now? Because history is not bunk. History is not apart from land and tradition and family. It is all part of a whole. History. Study it and it might get you in the right direction about how to argue against socialism someday. Right now? You need to work.
Here this is for you (you need this):
You fell neatly Julian in what the man in the above video stated as not having a clue about what it means. Because the first thing you pulled was authoritarianism. He coves the error in that thinking very well.
Julian658 wrote:You are possessed by ideology. It is easy to predict what is coming out of your mouth or keyboard as you follow the left wing social justice dogma to the letter. And you fail to understand my point. I already said capitalism was unfair. In fact, capitalism is so unfair that it needs to create social programs to take care of those that are low in the competence hierarchy. Without those social programs we end up with a revolution and EVERYBODY suffers. Nevertheless, despite all the shortcomings of capitalism we are living in the most prosperous times in world history. PLease read Steven Pinker's latest book. He is very liberal, not conservative at all.
Your personal data does not make your arguments better or worse. In fact it is an outright debate fallacy.
Stereotypes are based on reality, however, it would be racist to judge one individual because of stereotypes.
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. Ayn Rand
I make zero assumptions.
Another debate fallacy: Appeal To unknown Authority; you are on a roll.
Socialism fails every time and then the experts like you say: That was not real socialism! The issue is BASIC and simple. Socialism only works within the framework of an authoritarian system. That is the problem: AUTHORITARIAN You will never see a nation where everybody volunteers to be a socialist. Therefore socialism has to be authoritarian.
Do you make zero assumptions? You just assumed I was putting down Puerto Ricans because I wasn't a Puerto Rican. Why did you do that? You were assuming. Now, you deny you were assuming. Then you make a series of error-filled assertions such as thinking racism is about collective stuff. Racism is about a complex series of socially constructed myths that are real because Africans were brought to the Americas to work for free because they were considered, collectively by feudal plantation owners and slave owners of being property. Why did slaves in the Americas wound up being used as property, and their humanity was not acknowledged, Julian? Because it was economically inconvenient for a person who owns another human being to acknowledge they are as human as they are. It becomes hard to justify not paying them anything for their labor and it forces them to give them legal rights they are not entitled to if they remain property. The economic system dictated the sort of relationship those two sides of slaves and slave owners had. Economic structure dictated it. What are the economic structures? COLLECTIVIST. Capitalism has to have workers who work for a salary and trade their labor for wages. Is it done individualistically or do they pay the wage earners as a collective? You know the answer. Not acknowledging that human economies are systemic and based on large swathes or groups or classes of human beings is being a bad analyzer. Take a good look at what you are saying that crony capitalism isn't real capitalism. It exists. It is there. They are practicing it and it is a product of a capitalistic defective system. You can't deny it because it messes up your ideology whom you say you don't have or don't have? Who are you kidding with that weak argument, Julian?
Does that give you a lead into understanding the flaws of capitalism and how it is an error to think individuals live separate from society or do you need more?
I am sorry Julian but I would rather debate Blackjack. He actually reads his own ideology and understands it well and can defend it well because he did his research. Do I agree with him? No. But I can debate with him because he knows what he is about. So do I. With you? You seem to be all over the place and you think that by saying you are not a slave to ideology what you are actually doing is not being thorough is finding out what exactly you are about or why you differ from me on what is going on.
Do you think I did not notice how you made assumptions about a lot of stuff? I did. Own your mistakes, Julian, because if you don't? I got the information I needed about you...a man who doesn't acknowledge an error and who covers it by trying to say he knows a lot when he doesn't. I don't have time for that Julian. I got interesting things to do today. I am going to breakfast with a Mexican artist to discuss something I want to do with him for my project. No time to waste debating men who refuse to admit they made a mistake.
Lol. Pinker I have read before Julian. He does great work in the linguistic analysis as well.
BTW, I want to be a socialist because I find the idea of pooling all resources to serve as many people as possible with a structure that is about publicly held collective wealth is a good thing. What happens when you got this rugged individualism stuff going on without any public spending that is good for all? Such as public schools and public universities? You got only the wealthy getting educations and no social responsibilities and obligations. I am against that. I think this definition of socialism is accurate about what I am. I am an Erich Fromme Socialist. If you know who that is? Then you know who I find the most logical for socialisms many diverse manifestations. I also believe in Richard Wolff's analysis of economic realities for today's capitalism. If you disagree with Wolff's economic stances and Erich Fromme's ideas of socialism then go and open a thread. But right now as it stands? I seriously doubt you have done enough reading and work on what it is.
You know little about socialism Julian. There are a hugely diverse group of socialists, Christian socialists, Scientific socialists, Utopian socialists, Primitive socialists, modern technology based socialists, and that is why I suggested you read something that gives you an idea about it. Now? If you think anything that is collectivist is socialist and therefore authoritarian? Then you are going or flying against the face of a lot of evidence. Human beings do they live in a society or in complete social isolation? You got a belly button there Julian. Your mother gave birth to you and that belly button is physical evidence of your dependence on her in the womb. She is not you. She is another individual. But if she did not exist and gave birth to you could you have lived on your own outside of a social structure to raise you? The answer is no you could not have. So all human beings on some level especially the adults who are here writing on fora here had to be socialized in a social group. To think the collective is not real is living in denial. Prove to me the collective group has no influence on you as an individual and I will say Julian has proved his belief in rugged Libertarian stuff and I have lost. Lol.
I will be back later...breakfast is calling!
In order for you Julian to have strong arguments against socialism you need to realize what made socialism emerge in the first place. Study economic human history. You start with foragers, hunter gatherers, then agricultural societies, then you got urban centers and why they had to have administrators and how class systems emerge and are done in human civilizations. What are the purposes of having specialized classes of humans and as you say 'authorities' in charge of things? What advantages are there to that? Got to deal with that. Then once you understand it well, you say "Tainari88 I am against it because I think the individual becomes a slave to the collective and the collective is (fill in the blank) of your argument." Not based on something you never understood before Julian. That is bad argumentation.
For the purposes of Puerto Rico the Puerto Ricans are historically another nationality with a separate history from the USA. It is obvious because you see a woman there who is Puerto Rican and she speaks Spanish before English in the video. Why? Spain ws in Puerto Rico since 1493 til 1898. A long long time. So the Puerto Rican identity is not about England and King George and that language, history or culture. That land has been occupied continually by a mixture of Spaniards, Tainos and a series of mostly West African slaves for centuries and the Puerto Rican people did not leave Puerto Rico and leave it empty for the USA people to come in and say, "It is ours now." So since it was occupied as a collective by the Puerto Ricans, the USA had to negotiate something to be able to control the island. To favor them. It is undemocratic and all political parties on the island agree on one thing. We are a colony. Not some kind of democracy.
Who is responsible? For that lack? The USA government is. Be responsible and realize who is responsible for what in history. Don't reinvent it to say that history is bunk like Henry Ford said. Because it is not. If history is bunk? Why do you think Puerto Ricans in 2019 still speak Spanish first? And not English only now? Because history is not bunk. History is not apart from land and tradition and family. It is all part of a whole. History. Study it and it might get you in the right direction about how to argue against socialism someday. Right now? You need to work.
Here this is for you (you need this):
You fell neatly Julian in what the man in the above video stated as not having a clue about what it means. Because the first thing you pulled was authoritarianism. He coves the error in that thinking very well.
La historia de mi amor
se pudiera encontrar
en cada corazón,
en cada soledad.
Silvio Rodriguez
se pudiera encontrar
en cada corazón,
en cada soledad.
Silvio Rodriguez
- By Skynet
- By wat0n