|
|
Socialism
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've never understood why so many westerners, especially North Americans and most often (it seems) Americans, treat the ideals of socialism like it's one of the worlds great evils. Not only is it derided commonly but when the word is spoken and read by many, the word itself is meant to imply a level of unacceptability that continually astounds me.
Why is this? I'm genuinely interested. It might be difficult but my intention here is definitely not to start an argument over whether socialism is good or bad or to start the usual partisan pillow fight. I just to get to the heart of why it is perceived as bad by so many people.
Does it do anyone harm?
Does it stop anyone from enjoying life and living their lives to the fullest?
I don't think that it does either of these things.
Can it not healthily coexist with democracy?
Can it not healthily coexist with capitalist ideals?
I do think that it can do both of these things.
Anyone care to weigh in?
(
Last edited by gradient; Mar 9, 2012 at 02:28 AM.
Reason: Fix confusing spelling mistake.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gradient
Can it not healthily coexist with democracy?
Can it not healthily coexist with capitalist ideals?
No.
Because Socialism will continue to bleed and drain the system until it collapses. There are no prescribed boundaries or limits.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
No.
Because Socialism will continue to bleed and drain the system until it collapses. There are no prescribed boundaries or limits.
-t
I'm talking about the ideals of socialism, not a full-scale all-encompassing implementation. Again, I'm not looking for a thread about the merits/disadvantages of a socialist system. I'm looking to find out why the the ideals themselves are treated so negatively by so many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Republican Party is really good at repurposing words. They did this with "liberal".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
The Republican Party is really good at repurposing words. They did this with "liberal".
I'd laugh in their face if someone called me a liberal as an insult, but then I know what the word actually means and don't just consider it a political label.
It strikes me as quite an easy wrong to write since the opposite and therefore probable alternatives to being liberal are being intolerant, bigoted, closed-minded, prudish. There are many and I struggle to think of one that isn't predominently negative.
As for socialism, I suspect Subego is right. In particular I think it has probably been tainted by association with communism.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Socialism is a socioeconomic system, democracy is a political system. They should be able to coexist, without other influences pushing things around and distorting one or both.
Historically, "socialism" has been used as the bait to entice a population to follow a demagogue (think 1930s Germany) or as a justification for total control of the population (think 1920s Russia). In contrast, Israel is a fairly solidly democratic country (with some extra-political issues, of course) with a fairly solid socialist social system, and it works OK for them. Certainly not perfectly for anyone, but pretty much OK. But the big sign over Israel is "Jewish Homeland" rather than "socialist desert nation" so much of the West doesn't even think about them in those terms.
In short, it's all about the track record of the use of the word, not about what it stands for by its definition. IMO, anyway.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gradient
I'm talking about the ideals of socialism, not a full-scale all-encompassing implementation. Again, I'm not looking for a thread about the merits/disadvantages of a socialist system. I'm looking to find out why the the ideals themselves are treated so negatively by so many.
Oh, sorry, didn't know you wanted a fruitless philosophical discussion.
Of course, the idea that you take someone else's money and use it for your own pleasure has merits.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Oh, sorry, didn't know you wanted a fruitless philosophical discussion.
Of course, the idea that you take someone else's money and use it for your own pleasure has merits.
-t
The vehemence of your response here is a big part of what I'm curious about. Why are you being hostile around this subject? It's definitely a philosophical type of discussion that I'm interested in, though it won't be fruitless if a few people like yourself can help me understand where you're coming from.
I know that you don't agree with socialism, and I understand why (though I disagree). What I don't get is why it produces such an automatic, negative, and emotional reaction. Blanket assumptions/stereotypes about people such as myself who believe in these ideals is also common, as evidenced by your last sentence. What is it that convinced you that people like me want to take your money and use it for our own "pleasure"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gradient
The vehemence of your response here is a big part of what I'm curious about.
To be fair he's like that about pretty much everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Socialism is "state ownership of productive property." This is an inefficient system, and that's why it has a bad reputation.
The welfare state is not socialism. The welfare state was invented by liberals to mitigate poverty while at the same time keeping the poor from embracing socialism. In the west, this political strategy worked. Socialism is a dead ideology here.
Many parties in the world that were historically socialist have abandoned that ideology in favour of advocating a larger welfare state. This has confused many conservatives into believing the welfare state is a socialist concept. It isn't, and it never was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
The Republican Party is really good at repurposing words. They did this with "liberal".
Everywhere in the world except Canada and the US, the word liberal means capitalist.
It used to mean capitalist in Canada too. The conservatives wanted a society like Britain (paternalist) while the liberals wanted a society like the US (capitalist).
Today, the words still don't have the same meaning. In Canada, a liberal is a centrist, what Americans might call a moderate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gradient
Blanket assumptions/stereotypes about people such as myself who believe in these ideals is also common, as evidenced by your last sentence. What is it that convinced you that people like me want to take your money and use it for our own "pleasure"?
Taking money from peopel and give it to others is NOT optional in Socialism. It's what Socialism is at the core. So don't tell me there is Socialism w/o redistribution. And you can't philosophically discuss this either.
I completely disagree with the idea that a government should do this.
I believe in communities taking care of people on a VOLUNTARY basis (neighborhoods, churches, families, etc...). This works, because when it's voluntary, you can stop things when they get out of control or get abused.
Once government runs this, it just ever expands, enriches a few insiders, and drains the whole system.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Its a preposterous statement.
Those who are so unwaveringly against all forms of socialism are perfectly happy to take everyone else's money for their own pleasure, this is how anyone gets rich. Its just a matter of whether you can justify to yourself whatever it is you do for several hours a day in exchange for getting rich.
One way is at least theoretically supposed to take from those hwo can afford it to provide necessities for those who cannot. Sure its not perfect, but its basically the difference between ruthless selfish greed and altruism.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Once government runs this, it just ever expands, enriches a few insiders, and drains the whole system.
That's exactly what opponents of standing armies said too. Then look at the absurd size of the American military and the puny size of the American welfare state and tell me who was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think there's a balance between socialism and privatization, and upholding a representative government. I think certain areas should be socialized because it benefits everyone regardless of demographic; areas such as health care and education. I think Norway is a great example of this balance. Everyone has top notch health care and everyone has the opportunity to go to a great university. Not only do you get to go to university, you get paid to go to university. It's to prepare your for a life outside academia.
While not as extensive as Norway, I like how Germany puts as much emphasis in vocational schools as they do academic schools. Not everyone is going to get an MBA or become a lawyer, so why not have top notch vocational and trade schools? We all need our cars fixed and our leaky pipes tightened. I'd rather have someone who spent 4 years and knows cars inside and out than get taken by some crook who doesn't even replace the oil filter.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
That's exactly what opponents of standing armies said too. Then look at the absurd size of the American military and the puny size of the American welfare state and tell me who was right.
No argument from me.
Cut military spending radically, close all oversea bases. Vote Ron Paul.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
I like how Germany puts as much emphasis in vocational schools as they do academic schools. Not everyone is going to get an MBA or become a lawyer, so why not have top notch vocational and trade schools? We all need our cars fixed and our leaky pipes tightened. I'd rather have someone who spent 4 years and knows cars inside and out than get taken by some crook who doesn't even replace the oil filter.
Great example, and proves an important point: YOU DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.
The German vocational education system is (mostly) run and paid for by private companies.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
I suggest everybody go ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks about socialism.
You want angry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by amazing
I suggest everybody go ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks about socialism.
Even douchbags can be right about some things sometime.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Great example, and proves an important point: YOU DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.
It depends on the school, and the government is very much involved. It's tradition. The difference is that the businesses that sponsor the schools and offer internships see it as a beneficial partnership. The government sees it as an investment to keep skilled labor within the country, increase exports, lower costs, etc. Businesses see it for the very same reason. The cooperation between private industry and government has allowed them to create an extensive alternative education system that's completely tuition free.
Originally Posted by turtle777
The German vocational education system is (mostly) run and paid for by private companies.
Germany has both public and private vocational schools, just like our Universities here in America. I think the most important difference is, unlike the United States, vocational schools haven't been stigmatized in Germany.
There's no mystery to why companies are offshoring like made. The U.S. has an entire generation of MBAs and not one of them knows how to manage an assembly line.
Incidentally, it's one of the reasons why I love the show Dirty Jobs and admire Mike Rowe for his tenacity and honest opinions. He's pissed off more than a few congressmen with his remarks about U.S. attitude towards working men and women, and has never apologized for it. A good man.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ghporter
Historically, "socialism" has been used as the bait to entice a population to follow a demagogue (think 1930s Germany) or as a justification for total control of the population (think 1920s Russia).
Pretty much spot on. That's why it has a bad rep.
Most Americans realize that the type of socialism that liberal Democrats want to apply in the United States would end up resembling Cuba far more than say, Sweden. Most liberal Democrats (politicians, not populace) would thrive under Cuba-like conditions more than they would under Sweden-like conditions which won't happen in the US anyway, so for them it's clearly all about having more power over the populace than giving a good shit about the lowered lifestyles they'd create for millions of people.
And I've said it before- people generally have insanely stupid motivations, which is why dictators like Castro get away with what they do, and then get sung accolades from US politicians and prominent personalities like they are heroes.
So long as a large number of state-impoverished people are placated by the idea that someone else who is richer than they ever would be has also been impoverished, they'll put up with virtually ANYTHING. Living in a shack with a tin roof and no running water? Fine, so long as their neighbor who might have been richer than them has to live in a smaller house with no car instead of a mansion and several limos. Politicians understand this horrible jealousy motivation of people, so the would-be socialists in our country know they've got a LOOOOOOT of wiggle room to play with between the average middle class American and absolute poverty.
The design isn't rising poor people to a higher level, it's lowering 'undeserving wealthy people that we don't approve of' to a lower level of existence, thus placating the poor people because someone else was punished for 'undeserved' success.
We see the attitude in every single class-envy 'argument' made by the left. No, most people don't trust western leftists to implement their vision of socialism on everyone else, no matter how they have to shred the constitution in order to install the dictatorial nanny-state it would take to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
No argument from me.
Cut military spending radically, close all oversea bases. Vote Ron Paul.
-t
Ayup.
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Most Americans realize that the type of socialism that liberal Democrats want to apply in the United States would end up resembling Cuba far more than say, Sweden.
"Most Americans" are idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Our US military is a socialist institution run by our government.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Socialism as an ideal is incompatible with the human condition and has no true staying power, either giving way to some semblance of centralized capitalism; an unsustainable system resembling an alligator head with Barbie legs, or straight communism. Its most reprehensible manifestation has been communism and it is this that gives it a bad name.
Why? The Little Red Hen, a simple illustration of human nature that we have to unlearn through a great deal of costly academia and paper ideology.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Taking money from peopel and give it to others is NOT optional in Socialism. It's what Socialism is at the core. So don't tell me there is Socialism w/o redistribution. And you can't philosophically discuss this either.
I believe you are making the common mistake of equating Socialism with Communism.
In my opinion, this is *exactly* why there is so much vehemence against Socialism; it's a hold-over from the Cold War, where Westerners were trained to see everything even remotely related to the enemy as the ultimate evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
I believe you are making the common mistake of equating Socialism with Communism.
No, I'm not. In regards to re-allocating money, both are similar.
How does your Socialism work w/o benefitting some, and w/o making others pay ?
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
No, I'm not. In regards to re-allocating money, both are similar.
How does your Socialism work w/o benefitting some, and w/o making others pay ?
-t
Fair enough, but only in the biggest picture sense. You've implied that Socialism involves taking money from one group and directly handing it to another, which is simply not the case. It may do so indirectly, via public ownership of resources (as in the case of the US military infrastructure), but not directly via a cheque from the rich to the poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Maybe I'm crazy or something, but I always thought Socialism is a tool, just like Capitalism is.
Both have flaws and strengths, and as Mr. Natural sez, "use the right tool for the job".
Now, don't get me wrong, there are lots of people who would use either tool incorrectly, but that's not the tool's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Maybe I'm crazy or something, but I always thought Socialism is a tool, just like Capitalism is.
Both have flaws and strengths, and as Mr. Natural sez, "use the right tool for the job".
Now, don't get me wrong, there are lots of people who would use either tool incorrectly, but that's not the tool's fault.
The point of contention appears to be in defining the job.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
You've implied that Socialism involves taking money from one group and directly handing it to another, which is simply not the case.
Well, how would you call a system where 50% of the people get CASH handed to them, taken by other other 50% ?
Oh, and yes, I *AM* referring to the US, where 50% of the people get cash tax credits, taken from the other 50% in forms of taxes.
That ain't Free Market Capitalism any more.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
The point of contention appears to be in defining the job.
AUGH! AUGH! AUUUGGGGHHHHHH!
Which job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
AUGH! AUGH! AUUUGGGGHHHHHH!
Which job?
That's the question, yes. You have to decide what you want your government to do before you can pick the right tool for that job.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
In my own experience, the situation is more along the lines of people insisting the tool which is furthest from their ideology is always wrong. The job is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
In my own experience, the situation is more along the lines of people insisting the tool which is furthest from their ideology is always wrong. The job is irrelevant.
In my experience, those who generally advocate socialism see a very large job for their government. They also have a tendency to decry Big Corporation in their advocacy, which is most ironic. And wrong.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
In my experience, those who generally advocate socialism see a very large job for their government.
As opposed to the lean government that Bush ran?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
In my experience, those who generally advocate socialism see a very large job for their government. They also have a tendency to decry Big Corporation in their advocacy, which is most ironic. And wrong.
Again, not the tool's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Been having a huge debate with a friend about this. He seems to think Socialism will solve all the world's problems, I strongly disagree.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
Ronald Reagan on Capitalism and Socialism. (Specifically towards the end, listen to the "Little Red Hen")
There is a place for 'socialism'.... government, defence, basic infrastructure, laws and law enforcement, fire departments and such things.
The funny thing about 'socialists' is they seem to fell that they or "a few political elite" can do a better job deciding how to allocate resources eared by others, than the free market. IMHO Socialism might look great on paper, but it fails to fully take into account one of the main ingredients of our existence..... our differences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
The funny thing about 'socialists' is they seem to fell that they or "a few political elite" can do a better job deciding how to allocate resources eared by others, than the free market.
Sometimes it can, you've listed a few things where it can already. It's just a matter of recognizing socialism as a tool that can be used in some situations, and not some weird word that has been co-opted to become this divisive, phantom sort of conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Sometimes it can, you've listed a few things where it can already. It's just a matter of recognizing socialism as a tool that can be used in some situations, and not some weird word that has been co-opted to become this divisive, phantom sort of conflict.
Ok, so socialism is a tool, like a gravy boat. There are a couple of tasks that it is ideal for, and in these specific conditions the tool's utility is truly remarkable, but that doesn't mean you can expand its repertoire and expect it to perform as well at the new tasks that it did at the old. There are way too many people out there who think they can expand the success of this particular tool to do everything, like cleaning gutters and repairing the car. Gravy boats would have as bad a reputation as socialism if there were more "gravyboatists" running around trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Ok, so socialism is a tool, like a gravy boat. There are a couple of tasks that it is ideal for, and in these specific conditions the tool's utility is truly remarkable, but that doesn't mean you can expand its repertoire and expect it to perform as well at the new tasks that it did at the old. There are way too many people out there who think they can expand the success of this particular tool to do everything, like cleaning gutters and repairing the car. Gravy boats would have as bad a reputation as socialism if there were more "gravyboatists" running around trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
I'm not understanding the motivation behind getting up in arms about this though, because there are people that want to expand the repertoire of the private sector and expect it to perform as well, like you said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
I'm not understanding the motivation behind getting up in arms about this though, because there are people that want to expand the repertoire of the private sector and expect it to perform as well, like you said.
And people are up in arms about that, right? Do you understand them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
And people are up in arms about that, right? Do you understand them?
What do you mean?
People have different opinions on where these tools should be employed, it's not that complex. The only distinction is that the word "socialism" is a dirty word and a complete non-starter with some people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
What do you mean?
You said you "don't understand the motivation."
People have different opinions on where these tools should be employed, it's not that complex. The only distinction is that the word "socialism" is a dirty word and a complete non-starter with some people.
Let's just say, some people think it's one of those tools that is niche, like a gravy boat, and other people think it is one of those tools that is versatile, like a knife or a spoon (aka tiny shovel). Re-branding the word "gravy boat" as a dirty word is just a tactic for people who have decided the other side of the debate is too stubborn to be won over by logic, or too stupid to understand the logic that it's possible to predict the failure of a gravy boat to perform the duties of a knife. There is a lot of money to be squandered by mistaking a gravy boat for a knife (if they are indeed correct), so it's not crazy for them to resort to tactics like that, if reason hasn't worked. Of course if they're not objectively correct, then tactics like this are just what we call a sore loser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
You said you "don't understand the motivation."
Let's just say, some people think it's one of those tools that is niche, like a gravy boat, and other people think it is one of those tools that is versatile, like a knife or a spoon (aka tiny shovel). Re-branding the word "gravy boat" as a dirty word is just a tactic for people who have decided the other side of the debate is too stubborn to be won over by logic, or too stupid to understand the logic that it's possible to predict the failure of a gravy boat to perform the duties of a knife. There is a lot of money to be squandered by mistaking a gravy boat for a knife (if they are indeed correct), so it's not crazy for them to resort to tactics like that, if reason hasn't worked. Of course if they're not objectively correct, then tactics like this are just what we call a sore loser.
You've lost me, but nothing personal, my interest is gone...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
You've lost me, but nothing personal, my interest is gone...
It seems like every time I demonstrate that the conservatives might just have a good point after all, and aren't all greedy conniving villains that it's ok to hate unconditionally, you lose interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
It seems like every time I demonstrate that the conservatives might just have a good point after all, and aren't all greedy conniving villains that it's ok to hate unconditionally, you lose interest
I lose interest in having to squint to make out your point in something that is not terribly debatable.
The word "socialism" has been made into a knee jerk emotional sort of word, there really isn't much debate here. You can say that this is for good reason, but this doesn't change my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
What's your point?
Edit: oh I think I see the problem. I saw you say "I don't understand x" and I do understand x, so I thought I was helping by explaining x to you. Meanwhile, you thought I was trying to make a point, so you were looking for a point within my explanation, and when you didn't find one (because there was none), you got frustrated. Am I close?
Anyway, I still don't see your point, unless it was something about "I don't understand x," so I'm just asking what was it. Honest question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Whatever, I'm not interested in picking this apart this much, let's just let it go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|