Why do socialists deserve to not be poor?

Your apathy, and the resulting ignorance and the resulting arrogance and aggression give the Neocons another chance to leverage Trump.

Respectfully, youre idiots.
Which is a shame.

Socialists arent interested in real beings.

Hypothesis, they have to hypothesize their own being.

The real depth-problem brought about by mass industry. Not financial poverty, but dilution of presence, of Geist, thus of density of being.

Yes, a Capitalist is a higher density of being than a Socialist - this is why there are far more socialists, and why it takes one capitalist to move a thousand socialists.

Chemistry remains the best tool to discern the life of ideological qualia.

A farmer is in essence a capitalist.

Can’t we just discuss ideas without being insulting?

And why does everyone/thing have to be absolutely right/wrong?

You’re the nomenclature man who can tell me what I’m talking about :smiley: And I think identifying fallacies by name is a rare expertise. :sunglasses:

I’m not particularly good with labels, which apparently includes vocabulary considering I ran about the forum admonishing “superficially sensible, but actually false ideas” without knowing I could save real estate by simply saying “specious”. But then the problem is: how many know what specious means? So by educating myself, I’m making communication more difficult as most folks would probably assume specious means “silly” without looking it up.

I do better with concepts, the nuts and bolts, and although I can’t remember the quadratic formula, I’ll never forget how to derive it. Likewise, I know the fallacies, but can’t remember the names. I could learn what Bulverism means, but by using the term I’m relying on someone else to look it up, and if a person could be trusted to look something up, then I probably wouldn’t need to use the term in the first place :wink:

On the other hand, you have a innate talent for words and enjoy such, so rather than struggle with what I’m not good at, I’ll concentrate on what I do best and fall on the mercy of the naturally talented to polish it up for me, if they would be so kind :slight_smile:

I could point out a very subtle difference in venezuelans and scientists which is the latter is practiced at being scientific, so there is some merit in considering the opinion of a scientist outside of his field. But what skill or talent does a venezuelan have by virtue of being venezuelan? If the topic were about the equatorial climate, then I could see a venezuelan as more of an expert than a canadian, but still might defer to a meteorologist.

He didn’t think it through, but bulveristically assumed the premise before finding evidence. I think all absolutists do that because absolute truth is inherently baseless and held on faith, and evidence of having an absolutist proclivity is using terms like “honor”. Absolutists are practiced at not thinking things through.

I don’t think economists disagree with each other as much as colloquially suspected. Kenneth Arrow for instance taught many economists who went on to win nobel prizes. The problem isn’t economics, but politics (ie the interest of the capitalists to keep people down for profit).

Chomsky characterized Adam Smith as liberal, but conservatives have distorted his teaching and pigeonholed him into the capitalist category. Milton Friedman is often championed by capitalists, but they make no mention of his negative income tax idea. The economists are in far more agreement than disagreement, but the capitalists have incentive to distort.

A liberal economist is a professor at university.
A conservative economist is a hedge fund manager.

Singapore is a good example. Checkout singapore on google maps. The zoo is like a small city. With all the socialism, no wonder they don’t have a minimum wage; they don’t need to.

I can’t understand how any intellectually honest person could listen to Rush, ad hom extraordinaire, without getting nauseous.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

If a person has the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then he has the right not to be poor. Especially if the only reason he is poor is because the rich “deserve” to keep “their” money, which they pirated honestly.

Yes, objectivists, absolutists, conservatives, religious, they’re all bulverists.

That’s a profound observation and I wish it were as innocent as a capitalist merely advocating competition as a virtue to society, but it’s far more nefarious than that. It’s much easier to be a winner by pushing others down than in lifting oneself up. Remember the baby video? They will take less for themselves if it means even less for someone else. That’s in no way beneficial to society. Remember organ-donor guy? He didn’t have society’s interests in mind.

Capitalists lie and claim they think competition is good for society, but they don’t think that. Gain Wealth, forgetting all but Self chomsky.info/nothing-for-other- … ed-states/

Oh yes, good point, I should settle for quarks of copper atoms for every mention lest my penny get too big for the universe :smiley:

Because the absolutist can only defend the indefensible by insult.

What’s held on faith is defended by violence. Add that to my “theists commit atrocities” argument :wink:

Did my explanation of approaching economics from different frameworks mean nothing to you, Jakob?

Does your ad hominem psychologising prove that Socialist arguments are wrong?

Or is the purpose of this thread only to vent by means of telling other people what they think without any wish for feedback other than confirmation?
If so I can leave you to it, if you want?

Jeez, the flattery… :astonished:

It can work both ways, I reckon. Somebody like Hitchens would brazenly reel off terminology, references, quotations, and even superficially the fluency would only make him sound more convincing even though doubtless it would be better if more people knew exactly what he meant. Encouraging others to look up these things up for themselves is a good habit to instil, I think, even if it’s motivated by the fear of not keeping up in future.

I still tend to be selective with the complexity of my language for the sake of accessibility, but I’ll use terminology if the prosody effectively punctuates my key concepts. ↔ Some casual assonance is also nice.

It also depends on your audience - clearly a “straight talking” president communicates better to the reckless and sophisticated demonstrations of understanding requisite to the role of presidency communicate better to the concerned.

Haha, a nice comeback.

Yes, as I see it, Capitalism is a merciful, human and natural type of mindset, which takes a lot of discipline and downright merit to uphold. Not everyone is willing to show such merit, or discipline.
Many people have simply the desire for comfort, and they see people in big cars and think “I should have that”. Why? “Because I feel I should”.
And then this gets extrapolated to “we should have that”, when socialists get together and spew their gall and conspire to “take over the world”.

And because there are now a bunch of them screaming together in a room, they start to imagine there is a rationale to it all, besides the primordial drive of envy.

Organized envy wearing the mask of rationality.

What is lacking in all Socialists is loftiness.
There are no philosophers here so no one will understand this but Ill say it anyway; this, loftiness, is how nature seduces herself to herself, how she draws out the exorbitant efforts of self overcoming that is its life essence.

A socialist prefers to be unhappy for his fellow man over being happy for his fellow man. He needs to look down, he can not bear to look at that which is more splendorous and be conscious of that fact.
Whatever lives in splendor is, per the Socialist heart which is small and cold, a sinner, a transgressor, a “the rich”. Socialists can not see persons, only categories.

I think the relevant discussion in terms of capitalistic failing to produce prosperity is addressed in this masterpiece.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04[/youtube]

It addresses the question: what is prosperity? At one point along the line the definition was altered for the masses.
Using the sexual doctrine of Freud, society was altered from a need- into a desire-economy, and consumerism, which indeed is self-consumerism, was born.

Social engineering has transformed the bulk of mankind into a highly volatile substance which at the same time is less inclined to be volatile en masse.

getyarn.io/yarn-clip/57a114fd-7 … 988036da7c

Yes, this is how I understand the Capitalist framework of understanding.

You also explain well how I understand the understanding of Socialists within the Capitalist framework of understanding. But am I to also understand that you regard alternative frameworks of understanding as without merit, correctness and thus relevance whatsoever?

I went to a couple of local Socialist party meetings in my country, and believe me it was nothing but confirmation bias. Are you suggesting that this would not be the same at any other point in the spectrum?

Poetic and continental as this may be, I am familiar with Nietzsche and your value ontology enough to grasp the gist of what you are talking about. However, as someone with Socialist sympathies, am I to suppose that I garner no credence in your eyes as a philosopher by this fact alone? Am I to also understand from you that as a lover of wisdom, there is in your reckoning only a particular path to maximising said wisdom in line with Capitalism and not at all through Socialism? No assumptions this far, just questions.

Is that right? Have you explored Socialist sympathies in yourself such that this is the only rationale that could possibly explain them? If you have I am tempted to now assume that you did so in bad faith, else you would know that sociable happiness is optimised by the happiness of not only oneself but others also such as family, friends and even beyond. By contrast, yes, the unhappiness of fellow man does diminish the happiness of oneself, yet the latter is not the primary reason as you suggest but merely a consequence of the former. The Socialist does not fail to see persons, quite the contrary: they see persons if anything too clearly - hence the empathy. This is only conceptually simplified as a group, when in fact it is an overflow.

Will you now disregard what I have said to return to what you have initially been presenting as where have set your heart - prior even to any discussion?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9flQ2muVFGU[/youtube]

When talking to conservatives, one must type real slow :wink:

This is hilarious:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY9QkQHosJI[/youtube]

From my experience, every demographic is equally at fault.

From my experience, age is correlated to propensity to insult, but it could be skewed by the fact that age is correlated to conservatism… or perhaps vice versa.

You can test this right now today. Just go to a no-holds-barred political forum and argue in favor of a minimum wage. Note how many insults you get. Then argue against climate change. Note how many insults you get.

When I performed the said experiment, zero liberals insulted me and zero conservatives did not. Let me know if you get a different result.

So what explains this? (Besides old people being cranky) Well, conservatives can only hold beliefs on faith because all evidence is antipodal to their conclusion. There is no recourse except to insult.

Try it. I’m interested.

Serendipper just likes to blame other people for his own problems.

Typical socialist scummery.

He doesnt know that Mao and Stalin were both Atheists. He knows very little when it comes to history.

Socialists and the like tends to know a lot less than nothing. That is to say, what they know is almost always a tapestry of bizarre fiction.
It think they are too proud, in their own experience, to know real things.

So a Socialist who knows precisely nothing is, by comparison to his type, a kind of wizard.

But so far Ive only met Socialists who fall far short of this standard.

Capitalists do possess knowledge, as some knowledge is required for successful enterprise.

The most immediately evident thing about Socialists and their gatherings, such as the heap of bugs in this thread, is their surrealistic power to bore. It is even greater than their power to disgust. Possibly. Though that, given their axiomatic support of large scale malice and their palpable hatred of honesty and bravery, is quite a claim.

I guess my above suspicion is true.

Jakob, I’ll leave you to it since you have no interest in engaging with anything I’ve said.

Have fun!

Silhouette, no one responded to my own inquiries.
You all went on a complete deconstructivist rave which is what always happens.
Yes but there is no meaning and rich people should give money to the state.
I dont buy that as an attempt at discourse.
Its not been any fun, obviously.

Conservatives are all the consistent: they make a claim with much bravado, an argument is produced against it, then they ignore the retort, attack the messenger, and beat their chest in indifference.

Blaming socialists for your problems? :confusion-shrug:

Gods usually are atheists.

Speaking of history, why did you want me to lookup Dunamis?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=153476&start=75

Some things never change:

I’ll take you up on that, but in the meantime, consider that climate change and minimum wage aren’t hot button issues for most progressives, at least not anymore, but try telling them abortion is murder, about black and female privilege, that same sex marriage is unconstitutional, there’re only two genders, the holocaust is a hoax, the Jews perpetrated 9/11, and watch them flee to their safe spaces, insult you (misogynist, racist, homophobe, anti-Semite, asshole, dumbass, etcetera), even threaten your life.

And I’m not sure why you have it out for old people, young people are just as likely to fly off the handle, they haven’t learned how to control their anger, and they’re also far more prone to violence than old people.