The Truth About Socialism

[fskimospy]

Because you just made the argument that Rape is good *or at least not inherently bad. All of the successful countries have rape in it, so how can it be inherently bad. The reason you cannot make that argument is because you have to isolate the impact of socialism and rape to see their effect.

This is an absolutely ridiculous argument that I can't believe I even need to respond to. You're smarter than this.

What you learn in stats 101 is that for a proper causitive argument to be made you need both statistical evidence for an effect (which we have for socialism) and a plausible causal mechanism. There is no plausible causal mechanism by which rape powers effective economic performance in the modern era, therefore trying to say it is a similar argument is facially absurd. Again, this is stats 101.

You cannot say that it must not be inherently bad just because countries have a mix of it. And, its not like those countries have a majority of it as their GDP either. Its not a great argument at all.

This is also ridiculous as you can never prove a negative, it's simply that the available evidence strongly suggests that socialism is not an inhibitor and is in fact a contributor. If you look at the percentage of GDP consumed by the public sector and economic indicators like GDP per capita, health effects, education, etc, you will see a strong positive correlation until you reach extreme levels, at which point you get North Korea or Venezuela or whatever.

Again, you're better then posting this sort of nonsensical argument.

 

[mikeymikec]

Because you just made the argument that Rape is good *or at least not inherently bad. All of the successful countries have rape in it, so how can it be inherently bad. The reason you cannot make that argument is because you have to isolate the impact of socialism and rape to see their effect. You cannot say that it must not be inherently bad just because countries have a mix of it. And, its not like those countries have a majority of it as their GDP either. Its not a great argument at all.

When in doubt, substitute terms of your opponents' argument that you don't like for "rape". Genius!

Please, intrigue us with your comparisons of socialism (perhaps other economic models too?) to rape. Perhaps you should also show us on the doll where the tax inspector touched you.

 

[jackstar7]

I can imagine Amazon and Walmart building their own private highway systems. That'd be amazing.

 

[realibrad]

It's wealth concentration. The rich just pass the cost of the extra taxes off to the middle class and any "redistributed tax" money ultimately ends up back into the pockets of the rich.

That does not make sense. Taxes take money, and to take those taxes you have to build a system to do it. In that system there is costs and people get paid. What you get out cannot be greater than what goes in. So, even in this weird hypothetical you created, its redistribution. Apparently not to the middle or lower classes, but redistribution all the same.

 

[jackstar7]

Because you just made the argument that Rape is good *or at least not inherently bad. All of the successful countries have rape in it, so how can it be inherently bad. The reason you cannot make that argument is because you have to isolate the impact of socialism and rape to see their effect. You cannot say that it must not be inherently bad just because countries have a mix of it. And, its not like those countries have a majority of it as their GDP either. Its not a great argument at all.

Wow. You just went to the zoo.

 

[realibrad]

This is an absolutely ridiculous argument that I can't believe I even need to respond to. You're smarter than this.

What you learn in stats 101 is that for a proper causitive argument to be made you need both statistical evidence for an effect (which we have for socialism) and a plausible causal mechanism. There is no plausible causal mechanism by which rape powers effective economic performance in the modern era, therefore trying to say it is a similar argument is facially absurd. Again, this is stats 101.

But you did not do that. What you said was that it cannot be inherently bad because its part of successful countries. Calm down and think about it.

This is also ridiculous as you can never prove a negative, it's simply that the available evidence strongly suggests that socialism is not an inhibitor and is in fact a contributor. If you look at the percentage of GDP consumed by the public sector and economic indicators like GDP per capita, health effects, education, etc, you will see a strong positive correlation until you reach extreme levels, at which point you get North Korea or Venezuela or whatever.

Again, you're better then posting this sort of nonsensical argument.

Well its a good think I did not say or ask you to prove a negative. What I said is that saying its not inherently bad because its part of successful countries is a flawed argument.

Spy, you literally said Socialism is not inherently bad... because its part of successful economies. There are many things part of successful economies that we can both agree are bad. Theft is also part of all successful economies, but you and I both don't think that its not inherently bad.

I'm also not saying that a little Socialism is bad either, but your argument is flawed. If you want to talk about the studies about the costs/benefits then you can make a case, but all you said was... "While there are certainly countries that take it too far, the idea that socialism is inherently bad has been pretty conclusively disproven by history."

History does not prove or disprove anything. Common, you have to agree with this. Maybe what you wanted to say came out differently than what you actually said. But your argument is clearly that because its there, it cant be bad.

 

[realibrad]

When in doubt, substitute terms of your opponents' argument that you don't like for "rape". Genius!

Please, intrigue us with your comparisons of socialism (perhaps other economic models too?) to rape. Perhaps you should also show us on the doll where the tax inspector touched you.

Do you not understanding comparisons?

 

[realibrad]

Wow. You just went to the zoo.

Ill make sure to feed your mother while I'm there.

 

[jackstar7]

But you did not do that. What you said was that it cannot be inherently bad because its part of successful countries. Calm down and think about it.

Telling him to calm down is rich.

You can't make the distinction between what's "part" of an economic system and what's just part of a country's crime stats?

The fallacious one here is you.

Get it together.

 

[bshole]

It's wealth concentration. The rich just pass the cost of the extra taxes off to the middle class and any "redistributed tax" money ultimately ends up back into the pockets of the rich.

Um right.... even though we have 80 years of taxation policy and wealth concentration data proving the EXACT opposite. This shit is no secret and you can find it yourself with a simple google search.

I can prove your assertion absolutely fucking false with data. I want you to provide ANY data backing up your assertion.

It is very difficult to debate against people when they deny almost the entirety of science, despise the scientific method and have utterly no regard for objective data or facts.

 

[jackstar7]

Ill make sure to feed your mother while I'm there.

You're so brave.

 

[realibrad]

Telling him to calm down is rich.

You can't make the distinction between what's "part" of an economic system and what's just part of a country's crime stats?

The fallacious one here is you.

Get it together.

You are an idiot. Crime is part of GDP.

 

[jackstar7]

You are an idiot. Crime is part of GDP.

Pedant gonna pedant.

Carry on, noble prince of goodthink!

 

[realibrad]

You're so brave.

Your mom is a beast.

 

[jackstar7]

Your mom is a beast.

That makes you the beauty, eh Belle?

 

[realibrad]

Pedant gonna pedant.

Carry on, noble prince of goodthink!

Says the person that ignored or failed to understand the connection. I took rape, at the extreme to exemplify the point to make it clear. I never equated the impact, or severity, just that things can be part of large things that are good overall, while having bad parts.

 

[jackstar7]

Says the person that ignored or failed to understand the connection. I took rape, at the extreme to exemplify the point to make it clear. I never equated the impact, or severity, just that things can be part of large things that are good overall, while having bad parts.

I did fail to understand the connection. This is all on me.

Feel free to continue with the mom jokes. You're definitely winning on many fronts.

 

[fskimospy]

But you did not do that. What you said was that it cannot be inherently bad because its part of successful countries. Calm down and think about it.

Are you seriously saying that you need the plausible causal mechanism for a method of distributing economic goods to have an effect on economic performance explained to you?

You simply cannot be serious. I don't care if you disagree with me, as I think I have shown many times. I do care when you make transparently stupid arguments like this one though.

Well its a good think I did not say or ask you to prove a negative. What I said is that saying its not inherently bad because its part of successful countries is a flawed argument.

Spy, you literally said Socialism is not inherently bad... because its part of successful economies. There are many things part of successful economies that we can both agree are bad. Theft is also part of all successful economies, but you and I both don't think that its not inherently bad.

I'm also not saying that a little Socialism is bad either, but your argument is flawed. If you want to talk about the studies about the costs/benefits then you can make a case, but all you said was... "While there are certainly countries that take it too far, the idea that socialism is inherently bad has been pretty conclusively disproven by history."

My argument was perfectly fine but you should be embarrassed for the one you tried to make. There is no way a rational adult engaged in a good faith argument would think that because I said a certain way of organizing the distribution of economic gains existing consistently through successful economies meant it was good would mean that I thought rape was also economically beneficial because it also existed in successful places. Again, we're back to stats 101 here and the plausible causal mechanism.

History does not prove or disprove anything. Common, you have to agree with this. Maybe what you wanted to say came out differently than what you actually said. But your argument is clearly that because its there, it cant be bad.

I sincerely don't know what to say other than /facepalm.

1) Of course history proves and disproves things. This is the whole point of empirical evidence. That is unless you're trying to make the argument that nothing can truly be proven or disproven, at which point I would need to /facepalm some more as that is pedantic nonsense. For the intents and purposes of rational discussion history not only can prove or disprove things, it is the most reliable way to do so.

2) My argument is most certainly not that because it exists in a prosperous country it can't be bad. I'll tell you what, if you can find a single solitary person on this board (other than obvious trolls) who agrees your interpretation of my argument was reasonable then I will acknowledge that I phrased it poorly and should have been more clear. If you can't, you admit that your interpretation was ridiculous. Deal? Take as much time as you need to find one.

 

[crashtech]

Socialism is part of successful and failed economies. Just being a part does not necessarily indicate a correlation to success. I think that was the point.

 

[realibrad]

Are you seriously saying that you need the plausible causal mechanism for a method of distributing economic goods to have an effect on economic performance explained to you?

You simply cannot be serious. I don't care if you disagree with me, as I think I have shown many times. I do care when you make transparently stupid arguments like this one though.




My argument was perfectly fine but you should be embarrassed for the one you tried to make. There is no way a rational adult engaged in a good faith argument would think that because I said a certain way of organizing the distribution of economic gains existing consistently through successful economies meant it was good would mean that I thought rape was also economically beneficial because it also existed in successful places. Again, we're back to stats 101 here and the plausible causal mechanism.



I sincerely don't know what to say other than /facepalm.

1) Of course history proves and disproves things. This is the whole point of empirical evidence. That is unless you're trying to make the argument that nothing can truly be proven or disproven, at which point I would need to /facepalm some more as that is pedantic nonsense. For the intents and purposes of rational discussion history not only can prove or disprove things, it is the most reliable way to do so.

2) My argument is most certainly not that because it exists in a prosperous country it can't be bad. I'll tell you what, if you can find a single solitary person on this board (other than obvious trolls) who agrees your interpretation of my argument was reasonable then I will acknowledge that I phrased it poorly and should have been more clear. If you can't, you admit that your interpretation was ridiculous. Deal? Take as much time as you need to find one.

Spy, I'm saying that you just saying it cant be inherently bad if other do it is a bad argument. I'm not saying there are not other arguments to be made.

 

[realibrad]

Socialism is part of successful and failed economies. Just being a part does not necessarily indicate a correlation to success. I think that was the point.

Yes it was, but, someone that got lost.

 

[brycejones]

Says the person that ignored or failed to understand the connection. I took rape, at the extreme to exemplify the point to make it clear. I never equated the impact, or severity, just that things can be part of large things that are good overall, while having bad parts.

just wow

 

[fskimospy]

Socialism is part of successful and failed economies. Just being a part does not necessarily indicate a correlation to success. I think that was the point.

You are saying that correlation does not equal causation, which is an entirely pointless statement to make.

 

[crashtech]

You are saying that correlation does not equal causation, which is an entirely pointless statement to make.

Well, not exactly. I'm saying we aren't even to the point where we can make a correlation, which is not the same thing. Socialism is not in place to make economies successful anyway, it's ostensibly to improve the human condition.

 

[fskimospy]

Spy, I'm saying that you just saying it cant be inherently bad if other do it is a bad argument. I'm not saying there are not other arguments to be made.

No, this is what I said:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. When all of the most successful economies includes a strong dose of socialism the logical conclusion is that socialism is not an inhibitor to a successful economy and is most likely a contributor to it.

This argument is not only good, it is amply supported by the available empirical evidence. The only way your argument is logical is if you were trying to say 'well there's no way to actually know anything', which is also a stupid argument but for different reasons.

In closing your argument is either pedantic nonsense or a purposeful misstatement of my argument in the service of...well... more pedantic nonsense. Your arguments here are extremely bad and if you were anyone else on this board I would have probably already started simply mocking you for your stupidity rather than attempting to reason with you because... jesus....this is embarrassing. Because I know you're smarter than this I hope you think twice before doing this sort of ridiculous shit in the future.