Topic: Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live. Horrible true story (Read 10346 times)

People make personal attacks to avoid having to argue with the real points.  Its a sign of someone who lacks relevant points in the actual discussion and you are doing it in almost every post.

I'll keep pushing for workers' rights, universal healthcare, education, and housing without any real concern for what its called.  You can either debate the actual issues or keep looking for a semantic debate on outdated concepts, linking them to 20th century systems of government and sprinkling in personal attacks.

Your total lack of self awareness and ability for projection is amazing. Either that or you are completely disingenuous. This is classic "accuse your opponent of the crimes you yourself are guilty of", is right out of the Nazi propaganda tactics as well as Saul Alinski's Rules For Radicals. Your entire argument was a semantic one with no logical basis, then you accuse me of using semantics as a defense. This may work on people with low levels of awareness and low intelligence such as yourself, but it doesn't work for everybody.

Its called asking a question while giving ones own perspective for congruence and creates less useless back and forth talk.  

Please... drop the attitude... it doesn't help your case.

A simple answer goes a long way.

Ask me a question and then answer it yourself. Cool! Live, artisanal strawman crafting! Then ad-hominem attacks based on the weakness of the argument that you just crafted on my behalf.  You don't even need me.  You could literally do this with a tree and it would be exactly the same.

My argument is that I don't care about semantics at all and that you want to make the entire discussion one based on semantics so that the policies cannot be discussed.  If you were to get passed semantics then your go to talking points will all be null and void.  You are that meme.    I'll let you call things whatever you want but I will call you out for inconsistency.   Its either socialism and it works or its not socialism and no one is trying to create socialism.  

I'll just focus on the individual policies and those are the policies I'm advocating.  

So what is your argument, that because other people call these things Socialist, they must actually be Socialist? Socialists love to call the fruits of Capitalism Socialist, and the rot of Socialism Capitalist. This is why I have no respect for you, you can't manage basic levels of logic and you claim to educate people for a living. You are a fraud.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

TECSHARE is actually extremely on-point.

I really think the subject of this thread should actually read: "Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live in poverty. Horrible true story";  because historically, and presently:  This is the truth when seen from an objective eye analyzing past and present data.  Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

For instance in California;  people actually believe the last "drought" [when it was actually just a water shortage] was caused by "climate change/global warming/etc..."  when in fact California simply ran extremely low on water reserves because they local government decided to flush all stocks of water from pretty much all of the reservoirs in the year and a half prior;  there was very heavy rains in the preceding years, and they assumed it would continue as such.  

These people are driven by the same mentality that the sea level should/will never change;  not being understanding of the fact that elevation is based on sea level, and not the other way around....   As a professional land surveyor;  I can attest to the face that the ground moves;  a LOT more than you would expect.  

Not to mention: that pumping mass amounts of water out of the ground for drinking caused the city of Palo Alto to sink pretty far below sea level, and the water district continually pumps mass amounts of water back into the ground to offset and keep it from sinking further.  Go ahead;  look it up.

But people never wish to factor in aspects that go against their perceived notions when it comes to studying a thing in the first place.   Statistics are only as good as the datum inserted and the parameters formed by the person with an objective for a particular result.

Now im not quoting or linking citations, but at least i'm being extremely clear about what is and isn't; in an extremely easy to verify way.  It is courteous to do such when speaking in such a manner.

"widely accepted truths", often times known as a lot of dumb people in a room reassuring each other. It is a fact that psychology is the least scientific of the accepted sciences, because by their nature they lack empirical requirements such as controls, repeatable results, and direct observation among other things. Your sources had failed methodologies such as being based on surveys. I dismissed your surveys because they are not only a wildly unreliable source of information, but one which is easily manipulable, not just because "psychology is a farce". The point was that even if everything you presented was correct, it would still be of the lowest forms of evidence available. You don't cite anything because you don't have the capability to competently review your sources, and you know that I do. Everything I don't support is not, "deconstructive postmodernism" (its deconstructivist btw), just the vast majority of what you have to offer. Are you insinuating that Holodomor happened because of a drought now? And I am the pseudo-scientist?

Posts on this website are generally informal and not intended to be taken as an attempt at scientific literature. 

You really should study up on proper ways to cite literature. It's not to go gung ho in a direction you are already biased on, with one study that seems to support you.

Science doesn't work that way at all.

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

It's a combination that works, whether looking at enterprise (social or corporate), healthcare (private or state funded) or schools, transport, food production, etc. The observations about Venezuela in this thread are in part correct, but there was an identifiable level of corruption and over reliance on socialist (borderline communist) principles, along with poor leadership, faux concern for the populous, sanctions and other external actions that stressed the system enough so it broke. The internal issues being evident through the ongoing actions of the leadership.

People are naturally community oriented and will always strive to cooperatively support their families, community, city, nation and so on as it's inherently, perhaps even instinctually, recognised as the best thing on the micro and macro scale. If every individual was isolationist, self-focused and disregarded their place in society then society would fall apart overnight. People understand that cooperation and yes, social support and social welfare, in whatever shape it takes, is a necessity and an inherently good thing for society overall.

In a modern world it is right and proper that fundamental needs are safeguarded for the individual and community. Be that shelter, education, healthcare, food, water, security, etc., as without those there is no bedrock on which to build. Where an individual cannot support themselves, permanently or temporarily, social welfare should be available. However, being a citizen, a member of a family, community or organisation comes with responsibilities. Some of that responsibility is in not abusing the support on offer and understanding it is available only for those in dire times. The rest of the time individuals are obligated to safeguard themselves in these terms, to become educated, stay healthy, engage in free markets, creative production, building commerce and industry for example. This ensures that it isn't take take take to a point of collapse.

As with most things it requires a balance and an assumption of personal responsibility, built on effective cooperation.

CBF

I enjoy a good debate, but I am not going to put too much energy into it if it is not based in logic. You said you yourself take time to verify the validity of people's statements, but how do you do that without a source? I am not devoting more energy to his argument than he is willing to, to prove HIS point for him. If you can't explain your position in simple terms and provide sources for your claims then you probably don't actually know what you are talking about. Ignoring this fact is just a waste of time and energy. People like Coins4commies often avoid or just neglect completely to make citations, because they know I will actually read and deconstruct them, something they never bothered to do in the first place. They then pretend I am being unreasonable for demanding they support their claims with a source, declare themselves correct, and move on to the next distraction.

no worries whatsoever... sometimes I have to be the proponent of evil to get a little more paint on the picture so to speak.... hopefully nothing was taken personally.

Anytime I see some sort of lacking statement/statistic, I take the time to go in and attempt to verify the validity of their statements....   and it kinda rubs me wrong people dismiss things so easily... no matter how farse they can be... not unless you actually know the details about what they are obviously incorrect about.



As a prime example;  people are all up in arms right now about the citizenship questions on the national census....

You search for census forms, and all the major search engines give you results that seem to back up the claims that they weren't asked in previous years, and that its crazy and racist or whatever the #@$% that the question of citizenship is being asked....


But if you were to find the actual historical forms; you would see all the questions that are omitted from the PDF's that are commonly returned in search results [today] for lets say the year 2000....  these newly drafted 3 page PDF's are presented as original;  but they are recently created.    I actually have filled out the census form many times in the last 10+ years personally.   These questions are indeed on them, and here's the prime example of the real census forms that were sent out and filled out on 2000-2002: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/Quest00to02.pdf?# As these are the real forms.

Trying to find those actual forms... took me quite a bit of work;  which I totally feel for you because that's the exact position he was putting you in to... but it doesn't excuse the need to verify claims regardless of the citations if you are truly intent on understanding the other side and not just pushing your perspectives onto them in a one sided argument/discussion on your end.

Lol. Ok. That's not a "citing", it is a graph with no citation. Sure he made an argument, a totally unsubstantiated one. You are quite confused. Sorry but you have everything ass backwards. Also I think you have problems reading because he was the one claiming to have a college degree, I think such arguments are nonsense (appeal to authority) unless it applies to the field he is arguing.

I am dismissing it because this is the standard lazy way this individual makes arguments all the time. If he doesn't care enough to show me where the information came from I don't care enough to bother to look it up because he doesn't believe in his argument enough to provide a source. I do in fact source my arguments, especially when asked. Feel free to check out my post history. Sourcing information is considered very basic levels of requirements in debate. I realize it goes no where, just like Socialism, which is why I am giving it exactly as much energy as it deserves. You have fun being confused an indignant though.

Here, have some actual citations:

https://www.techsling.com/2017/10/citationreferencing-important-education/
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/05/16/why-cite/
https://librarybestbets.fairfield.edu/c.php?g=496653&p=3399372

You have been clear that you wont accept it citing: "I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him" as a basis for your stance on the "non-research and bash em for giving input" approach; not everyone in the world is college educated, and most people who come out of college don't have a real "education".  They have a certificate.
So again I will repeat:

You are not out to prove his argument for him, he made his argument.   You are dismissing it out of lazyness.  Plain and simple.  Its clearly in your replies, so own up to it.

I bet if it was a claim that was similarly unsubstantiated that supported your stance; you would be diligent to verify it; had someone said it was false or brushed off what you consider to be truth.  But this paragraph is purely speculation.

See where this is going yet?  Or am I gonna have to hear the same thing repeated again ignoring what I have pointed out more than once?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ZDgz8MO1M

If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented.

You wouldn't be researching his point for him;  he made his point.  You would be researching for your own benefit;  not his benefit.   Don't pass the buck off on others... and don't cloud that situation when it's a clear cut as this short paragraph.

This is why I specifically chose the troll I used as my example.   With minimal effort, most of those people can be identified with a basic background in general american history... but most people who read that specific one;  do nothing to verify any of it and speak against it because of their beliefs; and instantly dismiss it's message with no regard to logic and discourse. (in my own experience)

I understand its not easy to research;  but don't put someone down without verifying anything first; you have no basis to prove him wrong (by your own words).  Take the effort to be able talk to someone that way; with substantiating facts that are relevant.

Don't be so quick to dismiss things that are contrary to your beliefs.  They may be fact.  Refusing to accept statement and treating it as if it isn't fact without first having substantiated that stance..  is not a good thing.  It creates chaos.

As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.

FYI its not hard to take the little bit of effort and research information given to you;   this is what you are supposed to learn in school so you can get that degree you speak of the honest way.

no offense meant, but people playing the ignorant card when it comes to rebuttals;  aren't discussing and are exacerbating the nonsense....

Likened to reading the following list in this photo;  and not accepting the information because there aren't fancy blue links to articles or names listed.


(FYI: I picked this photo specifically as a troll example)