You have posted there. Many, many times. Just click on your name. Click on ‘Search User’s post’, then scroll down.
Communism as a political ideology did in fact exist historically on planet earth. But then it becomes a question of whether some can demonstrate in turn that it ought not to have.
Cause the mass graves don’t demonstrate anything.
I’ve addressed this above. The historical narratives are clearly in dispute. And capitalism is bursting at the seams with its own horror stories. But, again, it would seem your point of view is that Communism is to be construed only as you portray it. The right way.
Well, if you go into the discussion convined that your own value judgment is the right one, then the only thing you ever can hope to get out of it is that everyone accepts that.
That’s not why I participate. It never was my motivation or expectation.
Okay, but, for all practical purposes, that seems to be the way it works. Otherwise you would offer us your own views on communism while acknowledging [as I do] that others [with very different life experiences] may well see it in other ways. Ways that they are able to rationalize based on a different set of assumptions regarding human interactions.
All this thread does is to provide an outlet for the believers – a discussion enabling them to connect the dots between here and now and there and then.
On the contrary, when engineers use the laws of nature in the construction of airplanes or dams or bridges or skyscrapers, the consequence of not being in sync with the most rational understanding of these relationships can be catastrophic.
They are not obligated to be engineers or to build anything. It’s a choice which obligations a person takes on.
What’s that got to do with the point I’m making? There are the material obligations engineers must embrace if they ever get around to building the most effective wall for Don Trump; and there are the moral obligations that folks all along the political spectrum endlessly argue about regarding whether the wall ought to be built.
The default premise here always being that you are simply “more knowledgeable” about this than those who disagree.
And your default premise is that I can’t be more knowledgeable about it.
No, my premise is that conflicting arguments do exist all along the political spectrum. Arguments the objectivist proponents already insist do reflect a more knowledgeable perspective.