IBDaMann
Well-known member
So doing whatever is convenient is enough, right?
What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?
- Thread starter StoneByStone
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
IRL?
I usually respond in like kind ... but I always start out super polite. Leftists are almost always ashsole cowards right out of the starting gate the moment they believe they sniff an opposing viewpoint ... and that becomes my cue for the gloves to come off and no holds barred.
Yes, but at any time I am willing grant a "start-over" if you would prefer a more civilized discussion.
Nope. that is what you did.
It pretty much started when I noticed your TDS. You can't be rational when Trump enters the discussion ... and you blame others for your apoplexia. How do you suggest we deal with that without you attacking me over it?
Nope. I simply return RUDE with RUDE. I can do RUDE very well. I can also do POLITE very well. I simply let others choose which one they get.
... but I am intrigued. Which position of mine are you claiming has been debunked?
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
I'm doing what I can. Giving up EVERYTHING that harms the environment is impractical.[/QUOTE]
Impractical?
Translation: you don’t care that much
ROFLMAO
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
No, because it's impossible to prove a negative. If you make a claim, it's on you to prove that it's true.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
I'm going by the original definition of Socialism, which means collective ownership. Nazi Germany didn't have that. Neither did the Soviet Union.
Now I agree that words get redefined, so maybe we can say that "State Capitalism" is a form of Socialism. But Nazi Germany didn't have that either because most companies in Nazi Germany were private. Yes, they had regulations, but not much more than private companies have in America.
And I'm definitely not a Socialist. I don't believe in government-forced collective ownership, I think that would be a disaster. And it does open the door for other forms of Authoritarianism. That's why I'm a Social Democrat, I believe in private ownership. However, I also believe in truth. So I'm not going to pretend the Nazis and the Bolsheviks were Socialists just because I disagree with them.
Link? If this is true, I'm sure that part of the Communist Manifesto is online where it's being criticized.
Marriage used to be more about convenience. If a man had a good job, and a woman's father trusted him, he would give her to the man for marriage.
The idea that marriage is about love is a fairly new idea. I'd say this is one of the way marriage was redefined in recent history.
Sure it is. Extramarital sex used to not be off the table, it just depended on the circumstances.
Yes, but limiting it to one woman to one man was a major change. Another major change was women's rights, because now women don't belong to men.
I don't know where you stand on women's rights, but even if you're against them, the point is still that we've always redefined and otherwise made changes to marriage.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
No, that's not how it works.
My statement was an unfalsifiable statement. I cannot prove it TRUE and you cannot prove it FALSE. It's just like A Christian claiming that God exists. He can't prove it TRUE and you can't provie it FALSE.
That's the nature of "unfalsifiable" statements.
Your best response is to say that you disagree, that you don't believe it is true.
How was that for being polite?
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
My dude, how am I supposed to prove something isn't real? This is a fallacy that religious people use. Yeah, I can't prove God isn't real. I also can't prove the Tooth Fairy isn't real. It's on the religious person to prove that their claim is real. If they can't, then it remains a hypothesis.
You're history is off the mark - women of merit, prestige, power, and such - such as a monarch or a queen always weilded a margin of power over "lesser men", much as a historical queen such as Catherine, Victoria, Cleopatra, or otherwise had more "status", power and influence in relation to her time than the "average" or "low-income" woman today has. Women who came from better families, such as the nobility always had access to the best education, job and career opportunities, much as family and social connections still matter in this day and age in spite of allegedly more upward mobility.
Traditionally family and birthright had more of a play in the matter, but "women" as a whole never "belonged" to men anymore than they do today in lesser living conditions - even today, family plays a role - such as how a woman who comes from a well-educated family and has an above-average IQ would have a much easier time becoming a lawyer or doctor than a poor, inner city woman with an 80 IQ who has 5 kids with 5 baby daddies at age 15.
Much as in nature, such as the "matriarchial" status of many species, such as ant colonies - evolution has always favored might - always favored the might and merit of men and women of prestige, and vested in them a natural right to rule and dominat those inferior men and women, whether physically, intellectually, or otherwise.
The myth about "love" is also bullshit, the concept is as old as Plato and the ancient Greeks.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
True, but those women were a tiny minority. It's actually a pretty ironic aspect of history. If a woman ended up in a position of power due to the monarchic system, she would have more power than any of the men, but the common men still had more power than the common women. There were no women's rights, even when the person in power was a woman.
Yes, women as a whole didn't belong to men as a whole, but within a marriage, a woman belonged to her man. Women weren't allowed to get divorced and not getting married wasn't really an option. Changing the laws wasn't even an option for women because women couldn't vote. So when society allowed women to vote, work, and get divorced, that caused a major change in how marriage functioned. Today American society openly acknowledges that marriage is a partnership, as opposed to a man owning a woman.
Sure, but this concept died out during the Middle Ages. This is another thing, culture doesn't always move in one direction.
Instead of saying same-sex marriage is bad because it's different, it would be a better argument to try explaining why gay marriage hurts society.
Even today, women do "inherit" some margin of status if they marry; regardless your notion is anti-meritocratic, I can't think of any historical era in which prominent women who inherited better family and education than what was "common" weren't able to actualize themselves. Much as in nature itself, there is "meritocracy", there is potential for the females of many species to have prestige and influence.
Even today, at the lower ends of the job/income spectrum, often "work" is more of a "have-to" rather than a "want-to" thing, with less than ideal job satisfaction rates; to begin with - though such things tend to be less common as the education and/or self-discipline required to aspire to higher-level tasks increases.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Well we don't have a patriarchy anymore, so I'd say anyone who marries into wealth is going to have more power. But sure, even throughout history, a woman would have been better off if she had money through her husband. But she still couldn't leave the marriage, couldn't vote, and was extremely limited when it came to work. So it still wasn't a partnership, it was the woman belonging to the man.
Overall, it was a situation of intersectionality. A woman with money had less power than a man with money, a woman without money was at the very bottom.
So look, we can agree that throughout history, gender roles and marriage have changed. So change itself isn't always bad, just like it isn't always good. So why is same-sex marriage as a single issue a bad thing?
BattleofHodow
New member
I'm going to agree, that Nazi Germany was more Capitalist, than it was like the Soviet Union.
Still, compared to the USA, it still had some things in common with Soviets, even if more in common with the United States.
Nazis achieved fast economic growth, and so had Mussolini, and Japan.
Actually, the Axis was better off economically during the Great Depression vs the Allies.
I don't know why we can't take a second look at the good parts of them, like their economic growth, for example.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Nazi Germany did have amazing growth, and part of that was Hitler and Göring being very intelligent, but it was also a result of Imperialism. Nazi Germany had a vampire economy in which they needed Eastern Europe. Sooner or later, it would have collapsed, even if it was doing better than the Allies for a while.
BattleofHodow
New member
Nazi Germany had fast economic growth, before invading Eastern Europe.
But, I think they went overkill, they wanted Lebensraum, to create a mega empire.
Sound familiar?
Sounds like Israel, never enough, always need more Lebenrsraum.
But, absolutely, Nazi Germany outmatched FDR who had achieved economic growth beyond other US Presidents.
It just kind of shows, that Nazi Germany & FDR were hybrid Socialists, in small doses, and they did well for the economy.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
I think it would be fair to say that Nazi Germany and FDR's America were mixed economies. Most of the West is still made up of mixed economies.
The Nazis did fix Germany's economy before the invasions began, but it set up a situation where they needed to start invading other countries to keep their system going. Lebensraum was the plan from the beginning. But who knows, maybe if they slowed down, they wouldn't have needed Imperialism. Of course, they also had slave labor.
BattleofHodow
New member
The slave labor happened after 1939, from my understanding, but this graph I sent you is pre-1939.
I think, Nazis could've had a good gig, if they didn't go so mental.
As for mixed economies, they are the most successful.
Libertarians say look Communism fails, there's no Communist utopia.
Well, where's the Libertarian Utopia?
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
It's funny how similar Commies and Lolberts are.
BattleofHodow
New member
Russia was really backwards prior to Soviets, it had no compulsory education, and just healthcare for the elite.
So, actually Soviets increased literacy rates & life expectancies, significantly.
But, those are 2 policies Libertarians champion, no compulsory education, and healthcare for the elite.
I think Libertarianism is even more absurd, because true Libertarians don't believe in much military, police, or border security.
It's like a step above Anarchy, crime would go up, and of course, any country could invade them, or immigrate there.
Besides, the impacts to the environment, just dumping waste all over.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are going to love this; I'm going to be really polite. Let's see how this works.
Key Point: Common ownership comes into existence with communism but not before while socialism is controlling everything.
That is the original definition. The responsibility to clear up your misunderstanding is yours and yours alone. I will nonetheless "lead the horse to water" so to speak. You can read all about it HERE.
Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had that. Of course, neither transitioned to Communism. Authoritarian States never relinquish power.
Ergo, we cannot say that any form of sound economics ("capitalism") is somehow a form of Marxism (economic dysfunction).
Would you support a fair flat tax, all people equal under the law paying the exact same percentage ... and support ditching the Marxist heavy graduated tax that we have today that comes right out of the Communist Manifesto as a step in the path towards Communism?
Would you support school choice giving all families the freedom and liberty to be responsible for guiding the education of their children ... and support ditching the compulsory Marxist government indoctrination of our children (unless the parents pay additionally for a private school)?
On that point, on what position do you disagree with the Black Lives Matter platform? BLM is a totally Marxist organization.
Where is this somehow not the case?
Marriage is a traditional event. All people are free to never marry and to never participate in that tradition. Yes, marriage is legally recognized but there is no requirement for anyone to engage in that custom.
The original definition of Socialism is a central planning of all industry and total control (irrespective of ownership) of everything by the government ... as a necessary preparatory step to usher in Communism.
Key Point: Common ownership comes into existence with communism but not before while socialism is controlling everything.
That is the original definition. The responsibility to clear up your misunderstanding is yours and yours alone. I will nonetheless "lead the horse to water" so to speak. You can read all about it HERE.
Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had that. Of course, neither transitioned to Communism. Authoritarian States never relinquish power.
No, we cannot. "Capitalism" is a slur coined by Marx. It was his way of saying "Economics" with disdain and negative connotation. Marx was a lazy, spoiled crybaby who never wanted to work, who never wanted to contribute and who never wanted to add value to society. Everything about Marxism is an attempt to repudiate sound economics ... which is why Marxism has never worked and why it can never work.
Ergo, we cannot say that any form of sound economics ("capitalism") is somehow a form of Marxism (economic dysfunction).
Let's see.
Would you support a fair flat tax, all people equal under the law paying the exact same percentage ... and support ditching the Marxist heavy graduated tax that we have today that comes right out of the Communist Manifesto as a step in the path towards Communism?
Would you support school choice giving all families the freedom and liberty to be responsible for guiding the education of their children ... and support ditching the compulsory Marxist government indoctrination of our children (unless the parents pay additionally for a private school)?
You have not yet articulated any substantive difference between Socialism and Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism and Progressivism.
On that point, on what position do you disagree with the Black Lives Matter platform? BLM is a totally Marxist organization.
That doesn't matter. What matters is government control. If you are supporting greater and greater government control over our lives and over business and industry then you are a socialist regardless of your position on "private ownership."
Marriage, to this day, is a roleplaying ritual in which the woman plays the role of her father's property that he "gives away" to the groom in his very public pronouncement "This woman is MINE!"
Where is this somehow not the case?
No. Marriage is still a custom in which the woman plays the role of her father's property that he "gives away" to the groom in his very public pronouncement "This woman is MINE!" If the father is not around to "give away the bride" then the bride typically finds someone else to give her away to the groom.
... but women still roleplay that they do. Yes, you can point to the relatively small percentage that tailor their ceremonies to be really dry and devoid of all traditional elements. Nonetheless the reason they are getting married is to register with the state that the bride is legally the groom's ... wife.
In the United States, all men and women are equal under the law. How's that?
Marriage is a traditional event. All people are free to never marry and to never participate in that tradition. Yes, marriage is legally recognized but there is no requirement for anyone to engage in that custom.