I mean, at the limit, if they were clear in their rules that only radical leftists are allowed (which you would assume given it’s called ML - marxist leninism) it might be acceptable.
The genocide denial and masquerading as a neutral all purpose instance isn’t though.
Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.
I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).
I would tolerate them a little more if it weren’t for the constant brigading.
Wanna analyze Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory, self-crit, and all that good stuff? Fine by me, I like discussion of varying viewpoints. But often it’s not about that but are bad faith arguments and whataboutisms about how the decadent West is ruled by the US and how Putin/Kim/Xi did nothing wrong.
It’s exhausting. I don’t go into their subs and rattle on about liberal market economics.
Like, I get it…I get their issues with capitalism. But it’s not like socialism won’t have it’s own problems.
Personally, I’d rather not go through a bloody civil war in order to inact a new system, because I know that my children are going to be the ones that have to suffer that nightmare. I’d much rather try to fix the problems of our current system than start from the beginning with a brand new one.
I mean don’t you prove his point, by pointing out that all governments that call themselves communist are “so called communist governments”? So they aren’t doing communism right, else they could call themselves rightfully communist.
I do share the notion that communism is an ideology or economic system that is supposed to liberate people from class war. So it should be a liberating force. Suppressing dissent, free media, and casually engaging in imperialism and ethnic cleansing is not what I’d imagine a liberating government would do.
Obviously democracies with “free markets” also have these pitfalls. Not to say that both are equally wrong, but both are surely not the implementation of its self proclaimed ideals.
Good lord, and any criticism of an authoritarian communist government and they expose just how much they love the taste of boots.
Removed by mod
Okay, but debate pervert is really funny, though.
Removed by mod
I’ve seen people banned with “liberal” being the reason.
I mean, at the limit, if they were clear in their rules that only radical leftists are allowed (which you would assume given it’s called ML - marxist leninism) it might be acceptable.
The genocide denial and masquerading as a neutral all purpose instance isn’t though.
Removed by mod
Fallacy fallacy: only because it contains a fallacy (or a bunch) the argument isn’t necessarily void.
Still stacking fallacies isn’t usually a sign of a good and or valid argument.
Removed by mod
Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.
I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).
Removed by mod
Would you be so kind as to point out the straw man in that?
And no I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, I think you apply your standards selectively.
Removed by mod
Nice set of logical fallacies in this comment, and I don’t see any citations supporting your anecdote.
I don’t see you actually countering his statement, just throwing random sentences out.
Removed by mod
So, still just throwing out random sentences thinking you are making a point.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Your entire comment history reads like a cautionary tale of what happens when you deny a child the attention they crave.
Removed by mod
I would tolerate them a little more if it weren’t for the constant brigading.
Wanna analyze Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory, self-crit, and all that good stuff? Fine by me, I like discussion of varying viewpoints. But often it’s not about that but are bad faith arguments and whataboutisms about how the decadent West is ruled by the US and how Putin/Kim/Xi did nothing wrong.
It’s exhausting. I don’t go into their subs and rattle on about liberal market economics.
Removed by mod
Like, I get it…I get their issues with capitalism. But it’s not like socialism won’t have it’s own problems.
Personally, I’d rather not go through a bloody civil war in order to inact a new system, because I know that my children are going to be the ones that have to suffer that nightmare. I’d much rather try to fix the problems of our current system than start from the beginning with a brand new one.
“authoritarian communist” is an oxymoron to begin with. how can you build a society where everyone is equal by enforcing authority
Well, every so called communist government has been one, so there are examples…
Thanks for making my point.
I mean don’t you prove his point, by pointing out that all governments that call themselves communist are “so called communist governments”? So they aren’t doing communism right, else they could call themselves rightfully communist.
I do share the notion that communism is an ideology or economic system that is supposed to liberate people from class war. So it should be a liberating force. Suppressing dissent, free media, and casually engaging in imperialism and ethnic cleansing is not what I’d imagine a liberating government would do.
Obviously democracies with “free markets” also have these pitfalls. Not to say that both are equally wrong, but both are surely not the implementation of its self proclaimed ideals.
Another one crawling out the woodwork.
What?
Removed by mod
The hilarious irony, they technically agree. He’s just not knowledgeable enough to know it.
Every government that called itself communist, yes
Removed by mod