Is non truth a lie?

[DirtyMustachio]

Hey I put up my flag in my previous post

[Piotr]

Then the only thing I have left to question is the validity and moreso the bias of your citations(don't bite my head off I'm attempting to be objective)

And your "choice" to "agressively" continue to pursue something so obscure.

Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong. Hence the voting process.

If you choose to agressively pursue one or either as pure truth, isnt that in a sense a misleading of sorts.

Which is different opposed to. "Oh hai guys, I like socialism because of this "" you should check it out of YOUR OWN VOLITION.'

^now I don't see piotr having an issue with this one. Maybe he still does, and he can tell me. And I'll shut up and let the debate continue. I just kinda felt this was more the case.

Also I'd like to thank you for bringing me up to speed and apologize for being ignorant of the full debate.

Socialism was stated as an absolute untruth and anyone who prompted it a liar or naive.

Where was it stated?

[Piotr]

Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong.

Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.

[Boringanarchy2]

Then the only thing I have left to question is the validity and moreso the bias of your citations(don't bite my head off I'm attempting to be objective)

And your "choice" to "agressively" continue to pursue something so obscure.

Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong. Hence the voting process.

If you choose to agressively pursue one or either as pure truth, isnt that in a sense a misleading of sorts.

Which is different opposed to. "Oh hai guys, I like socialism because of this "" you should check it out of YOUR OWN VOLITION.'

^now I don't see piotr having an issue with this one. Maybe he still does, and he can tell me. And I'll shut up and let the debate continue. I just kinda felt this was more the case.

Also I'd like to thank you for bringing me up to speed and apologize for being ignorant of the full debate.

Socialism was stated as an absolute untruth and anyone who prompted it a liar or naive.

Where was it stated?

Pages 4-5 of the Jobs thread.

[Boringanarchy2]

Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong.

Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.

This is completely ignorant of socialism in any form other than bastardizations of the international socialist order prior to WWi and the struggles of socialists for basic living condition increases such as the Dublin Lockout. That is all I will say on the subject

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong.

Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.

You are assuming too much. Yes people flee socialist countries more often than capitalist countries, but I think we should look into that more deeply. France (the French socialist president) for example has recently installed a tougher policy, taxing the rich more heavily (75%) so in response many of the French rich moved out of the country to a town just outside of France, in fact many of their backyards are in France, just to avoid the taxes. Now there are MANY other cases of people fleeing socialist countries for good reason but many times it is either because an oppressive dictator is abusing his people (and yet we still call them socialist ex. Russia under Stalin) and/or the system is broken (which in every case is true because when everyone is not being treated equally it is no longer socialism).

Socialism, like nomocracy, is a perfect system. The problem though (in both systems) is that people are greedy (to delve more into this I HIGHLY recommend "Envisioning a Sustainable Society" by Lester W. Milbrath). People are constantly in a struggle for power and this is what makes utopias and other perfect systems unrealistic, eventually someone rises up and take the power for themself, claiming a higher power or a quest for the "greater good".

[Piotr]

What am I assuming? Fleeing a country because of oppressive taxation is still fleeing.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.

No one in the history of socialism, since 1827 when socialism was first thought of, has ever fled from a "free" (I'm assuming you mean democracies and republics) to a socialist country? I also think that the "it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves." comment was uncalled for and untrue as true socialism's goal is equality. As I tried to point out in my last post, the main problem with socialism isn't the system, its the people who abuse it like Stalin.

[Apathy Reactor]

Where did this topic come from?
I thought the topic was "is non truth a lie?"

[Mikefrompluto]

Where did this topic come from?
I thought the topic was "is non truth a lie?"

It happens.

[Piotr]

Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.

No one in the history of socialism, since 1827 when socialism was first thought of, has ever fled from a "free" (I'm assuming you mean democracies and republics) to a socialist country? I also think that the "it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves." comment was uncalled for and untrue as true socialism's goal is equality. As I tried to point out in my last post, the main problem with socialism isn't the system, its the people who abuse it like Stalin.

When talking about economic systems you cannot look at individuals, only at statistics. I said many times before that socialism is good for greedy people with low morals, I'm sure you got that, didn you? When I talk about people who flee from socialism, I will not talk about the minority of oppressors, I will talk about the majority who are being oppressed.

The problem with socialism is the fact that it has nothing to protect itself from people like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, PolPot and illegal benefit claimants. It is because it assumes that goal justifies the means and hence the traditional ethics must be replaced with anti-ethics. You don't deserve something because you made it, they say you deserve something when you NEED it. This is anti natural laws, anti common sense, anti all reasonable religions. The actual problem of socialism are not the tyrants, because it is indeed relatively easy to stop them (although tell that to over 100 million people murdered by socialists in power). You cannot stop the people who abuse the system because you will always always always run out of resources before you can change the human nature. That's why socialism always failed, is failing now in America under Obama, and will always fail unless you cure people from greed. It is in fact something socialists are trying to do, they are trying to turn you into cattle, to kill your natural greed.

[DirtyMustachio]

^this x 1000

[Boringanarchy2]

Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.

No one in the history of socialism, since 1827 when socialism was first thought of, has ever fled from a "free" (I'm assuming you mean democracies and republics) to a socialist country? I also think that the "it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves." comment was uncalled for and untrue as true socialism's goal is equality. As I tried to point out in my last post, the main problem with socialism isn't the system, its the people who abuse it like Stalin.

When talking about economic systems you cannot look at individuals, only at statistics. I said many times before that socialism is good for greedy people with low morals, I'm sure you got that, didn you? When I talk about people who flee from socialism, I will not talk about the minority of oppressors, I will talk about the majority who are being oppressed.

The problem with socialism is the fact that it has nothing to protect itself from people like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, PolPot and illegal benefit claimants. It is because it assumes that goal justifies the means and hence the traditional ethics must be replaced with anti-ethics. You don't deserve something because you made it, they say you deserve something when you NEED it. This is anti natural laws, anti common sense, anti all reasonable religions. The actual problem of socialism are not the tyrants, because it is indeed relatively easy to stop them (although tell that to over 100 million people murdered by socialists in power). You cannot stop the people who abuse the system because you will always always always run out of resources before you can change the human nature. That's why socialism always failed, is failing now in America under Obama, and will always fail unless you cure people from greed. It is in fact something socialists are trying to do, they are trying to turn you into cattle, to kill your natural greed.

Ok, this is just dumb. Socialism isn't about oppressing the majority for the minority. The USSR, the Eastern bloc, Maoist China, and North Korea represent one branch of Marxism that usurped the rest and have been the convenient boogeyman for the rigt for far too long.

Socialism is responsible for so much we take for granted, we simply forget anything prior to WWII. The forty hour work week, weekends, public education, social welfare, and other programs that benefit the cast majority at the expense of the minority who exploit are all causes championed by socialism. The problem with socialism is that it is thought of today as being subservient to a nation-state paradigm, when it functions best as international coalitions. It is being forced to go through the political process when it worked best as a tool for change through economic pressure. Any government may fall prey to a charismatic figure with less than noble intentions, even democracy. The key to stopping it is a vigilant public. So this nonsense about socialism being more susceptible is just that. It's no coincidence that the countries that became totalitarian had long histories of cultures that ruled absolutely, it takes time to break such a mindset. Ultimately, I would argue that these regimes were merely one autocratic regime replacing another with a shiny new dogma on the surface to hide the fact that little had really changed.

[Piotr]

Ok, this is just dumb.

I beg your pardon?

[Boringanarchy2]

Ok, this is just dumb.

I beg your pardon?

That's right, take a small snippet out of context and just ignore all the content. I think we are done here.