Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The point I'm trying to make is that you're full of stuff, and lo and behold I was right.Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "appeal to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.
no, nothing happened to them. the communist state doesn't care if you have a small backyard vegetable garden, plus they lived in a rural area where there wasn't super-heavy ussr influence.you're right, they were too busy starving the Ukranians to go looking for gardens.
that's the difference between a negligent dictatorship and a genocidal dictatorship. one simply doesn't care, and the other "cares" far too much.
keep in mind this was not deep central USSR, this was communist poland as occupied by the USSR. it did suck bad but they did not round up people for something as insignificant as having a backyard garden.
cappy's comments and grasp on oppressive dicatorships/Flash Mob are just as ridiculous as his comments on net neutrality
The point I'm trying to make is that you're full of stuff, and lo and behold I was right.keep going with the argumentum ad lapidem/ad hominem
"Deliberate extermination and unjust capital punishment are the same thing" - basically CappytainoThe intention of both concentration camps and gulags was that political enemies/ "undesirable" people sent there would die there. What point are you trying to make?
There is a moral distinction in terms of relevant intent. One is careless and doesn't intend to kill civilians while the other is careful and deliberately plans the deaths of civilians. The end result is different. For example people living in communist countries can sometimes still grow their own food and survive, if they have land. My economics professor last semester grew up in rural communist poland, and his family beat the food quotas by growing their own food. Under a genocidal dictatorship they wouldn't have had a chance.and under communism, if they were caught growing and withholding food for themselves without the knowledge of the state, they'd get gulag'd
look at what mao said and did and tell me he isn't psychoticWe don't have any psychological evaluations so we can't be sure about Mao.
qin shi huang killed much more people (in a ratio) than mao ever did out of complete negligence for the past and future. the dude ruled for such a little time but affected china for millenniaqin shi huang also was drinking lead-contaminated water and mercury in an attempt to live forever; he isn't really a great equivalency because he was actually insane, not just evil like Mao
he wasn't evil, just loving handicapped.
are you speaking just in reference to the responsibilities of country leaders or are you speaking universally hereIn reference to leadership. I see no moral distinction between negligently creating famine and genocide. The end result of both is the same.
The Cemetery of Confucius was attacked in November 1966 by a team of Red Guards from Beijing Normal University, led by Tan Houlan.[14][15] The corpse of the 76th-generation Duke Yansheng was removed from its grave and hung naked from a tree in front of the palace during the desecration of the cemetery.[16] Attacks on other cultural and historic sites happened between in 1966 and 1967. One of the greater damages was to the Ming Dynasty Tomb of the Wanli Emperor in which his and the empress’s corpses along with a variety of artifacts from the tomb were destroyed by student members of the Red Guard. Between the assaults on Wan Li and Confucius’ tombs alone, more than 6618 historic Chinese artifacts were destroyed in the desire to achieve the goals of the Cultural Revolution.[17]
alright you can't blame mao's stupidity on communismthe authoritarian control of communist dictatorship allowed his negligence to kill far more people i.e. the order to kill all the sparrows that resulted in massive crop failure.
i think the distinction here is that there were ~67 million people in germany for the ~10 years that the national socialists were in power and 600 million (1950)-1.5 billion (1990) soviets and chinese for ~70 years that communists were in power (and still in china but the great leap forward is over)If you're talking about genocide proportional to population size, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge killed approximately a third of the Cambodian population.
he wasn't evil, just loving handicapped.
any branch belief of communism such as maoism or stalinism will kill a lot of people but their sole purpose isn't to do it out of evil, since literally the base idea is "share the wealth" and "work hard", which idealistically is what people wanted back then. communism is basically broken because of greed unlike a dictatorship/fascist state where they do multiple choices out of spite and "evil".Killing people is evil regardless of the intention
Mao was a skilled general though. Won against all odds.
I would actually respect him if the death toll was intentional. But no it was just plain stupidity.
The communists were so stuff at running a state that they let their own people die. The national socialists only had people die due to ethnic cleansingcommunists did ethnically cleanse people as well.
wow im so glad media companies can censor people instead of internet providersCite an example of companies barring access to legal material, please. I honestly have never heard of this happening, just people saying it "could happen"
It's a dog-whistle term that activates the microchip which enables neo-conservative circlejerking.implying pro-NN isn't also a circlejerk
do you pay for this stuff orr do you just fry your cpuit's a shared hosting solution aka I pay someone to host it.
nobody ever on :<I legit just got home from uni
Arguing with you isn't gonna bring net neutrality back so it's a waste of time. It's not my job to pick apart whatever lame conclusions you have about how our economy worksbut that wasn't your original assertion.
Because the government is lazy as hell and they only censor stuff that catches their immediate attention - which I totally prefer over the ISP choosing what I can and cannot viewGive me an example of an ISP that currently censors legal content from its customers
I don't have Hughes Net anymore, but they are a prime example of a stuff internet company that limits consumers online capabilities on purpose with a data cap and throttle - the government doesn't regulate this because as a "utility" it's up to the provider to charge what they want (even if they are scamming people) *COUGH COUGH DATA PLANS COUGH*Data caps are a garbage business practice; the way to solve it is to introduce competition to break their pesudo-monopoly in areas in which they are the only provider. Then, customers wouldn't be forced to concede to such a garbage practice.
Most if not all states in the U.S offer assistance in paying for utilities - even though utilities are a luxury most people consider them essential for their standard of living and can expect the state to help them with such thing if their salary is below the federal or state poverty levelIf you're living below the poverty line, you have bigger issues than broadband access. Paying for broadband for people below the poverty line would require the money to come from somewhere, likely taxes, and I don't think most people are content to pay taxes to subsidize some social program that isn't really a necessity such as food, water, or electricity.
