Author Topic: kimon/poliwhirl is back as karl marx (Read 23442 times)

torin� · August 16, 2017, 02:13:52 AM

make the color scheme red yellow and black instead of red and cream

Ad Bot · Advertisement

ultimamax · August 16, 2017, 10:00:28 AM

Quote from: bloody jumper on August 15, 2017, 10:37:21 PM

That is literally the basis of Communism. Nothing is owned, everything is owned by the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property
No, private property is owned by the state, personal property (items for intended for personal use, consumer goods and non-capital goods and services) is not owned by the state but by an individual.

bloody jumper · August 17, 2017, 01:44:34 PM

Quote from: ultimamax on August 16, 2017, 10:00:28 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property
No, private property is owned by the state, personal property (items for intended for personal use, consumer goods and non-capital goods and services) is not owned by the state but by an individual.

Did you just completely skip my noedit?

Quote from: bloody jumper on August 15, 2017, 10:38:14 PM

Noedit: Nothing is owned PRIVATELY

ultimamax · August 17, 2017, 02:52:13 PM

Quote from: bloody jumper on August 17, 2017, 01:44:34 PM

Did you just completely skip my noedit?

Regardless, your original post said "can't have personal property" which is wrong. Your second statement + noedit is more accurate but it doesn't change the fact that the original post was wrong. I also still don't think there's anything inherent to communism that means even personal property is considered "owned by the state" despite the owner having a distributive right to exclude others, but even if that's technically true it's a meaningless distinction because you'd still effectively be the owner, in everything but name, simply by having that distributive right to exclude others.

bloody jumper · August 17, 2017, 06:38:36 PM

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 02:52:13 PM

Regardless, your original post said "can't have personal property" which is wrong. Your second statement + noedit is more accurate but it doesn't change the fact that the original post was wrong. I also still don't think there's anything inherent to communism that means even personal property is considered "owned by the state" despite the owner having a distributive right to exclude others, but even if that's technically true it's a meaningless distinction because you'd still effectively be the owner, in everything but name, simply by having that distributive right to exclude others.

Okay, so you corrected me even though I immediately corrected myself. Thanks dude.

ultimamax · August 17, 2017, 06:43:33 PM

Quote from: bloody jumper on August 17, 2017, 06:38:36 PM

Okay, so you corrected me even though I immediately corrected myself. Thanks dude.

You didn't make it clear that you were correcting yourself. The noedit was terse and did not seem like a correction, and the second post was literally you doubling down on it ("that is literally the basis of communism")

gr8dayseth · August 17, 2017, 06:45:24 PM

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 02:52:13 PM

Regardless, your original post said "can't have personal property" which is wrong. Your second statement + noedit is more accurate but it doesn't change the fact that the original post was wrong.

s-so?

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 06:43:33 PM

You didn't make it clear that you were correcting yourself. The noedit was terse and did not seem like a correction, and the second post was literally you doubling down on it ("that is literally the basis of communism")

it seemed pretty clear to me

bloody jumper · August 17, 2017, 06:45:49 PM

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 06:43:33 PM

You didn't make it clear that you were correcting yourself. The noedit was terse and did not seem like a correction, and the second post was literally you doubling down on it ("that is literally the basis of communism")

The whole point of the noedit was that people wouldn't jump out of the woodwork to correct me like you're doing right now.

K�tt · August 17, 2017, 06:46:28 PM

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 06:43:33 PM

You didn't make it clear that you were correcting yourself.

what the forget do you think noedits are for when they are applicable in non-editable posts in drama

ultimamax · August 17, 2017, 06:58:29 PM

Quote from: bloody jumper on August 17, 2017, 06:45:49 PM

The whole point of the noedit was that people wouldn't jump out of the woodwork to correct me like you're doing right now.

"out of the woodwork" like I'm not defending myself from something you started.

Quote from: K�tt on August 17, 2017, 06:46:28 PM

what the forget do you think noedits are for when they are applicable in non-editable posts in drama

Quote from: gr8dayseth on August 17, 2017, 06:45:24 PM

it seemed pretty clear to me

I interpreted it as him making a correction to make his defense of his original post rhetorically sound, but the correction was literally in contradiction to the original post which he was defending. It'd be like posting "no the sky is blue idiot" and then "noedit: red". You should make it more clear that you realized your original point was wrong.

K�tt · August 17, 2017, 07:00:51 PM

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 06:58:29 PM

It'd be like posting "no the sky is blue idiot" and then "noedit: red".

what? do you not know how simple corrections work? does he need to add a few extra words in his correction? he's done a very similar thing to what i just said. it's kinda easy to comprehend:

The sky is blue.
-
green*

bloody jumper · August 17, 2017, 07:03:06 PM

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 06:58:29 PM

"out of the woodwork" like I'm not defending myself from something you started.
I interpreted it as him making a correction to make his defense of his original post rhetorically sound, but the correction was literally in contradiction to the original post which he was defending. It'd be like posting "no the sky is blue idiot" and then "noedit: red". You should make it more clear that you realized your original point was wrong.

I said nothing is privately owned, because in communism almost everything is owned by the state and is rationed out equally to everyone. Seriously dude, stop. The fact that at the end of the cycle, the rationed supplies are given to an individual, I suppose implies ownership? However, you're making a big fuss over a simple correction I made to a previous statement.

ultimamax · August 17, 2017, 07:05:35 PM

Quote from: K�tt on August 17, 2017, 07:00:51 PM

what? do you not know how simple corrections work? does he need to add a few extra words in his correction? he's done a very similar thing to what i just said. it's kinda easy to comprehend:

The sky is blue.
-
green*

My brown townogy was actually dumb because "noedit: red*" is a loving obvious contradiction and "Noedit: Nothing is owned PRIVATELY"

Think about his noedit - it turns this statement:
"That is literally the basis of Communism. Nothing is owned, everything is owned by the state."
into this statement:
"That is literally the basis of Communism. Nothing is owned PRIVATELY, everything is owned by the state."

It's dishonest because the new statement is still stated as a response to a point it no longer adequately rebuts.

Quote from: bloody jumper on August 17, 2017, 07:03:06 PM

I said nothing is privately owned, because in communism almost everything is owned by the state and is rationed out equally to everyone. Seriously dude, stop. The fact that at the end of the cycle, the rationed supplies are given to an individual, I suppose implies ownership? However, you're making a big fuss over a simple correction I made to a previous statement.

just read what I wrote above this ffs

ultimamax · August 17, 2017, 07:06:06 PM

noedit:

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 07:05:35 PM

My brown townogy was actually dumb because "noedit: red*" is a loving obvious contradiction and "Noedit: Nothing is owned PRIVATELY"

Think about his noedit - it turns this statement:
"That is literally the basis of Communism. Nothing is owned, everything is owned by the state."
into this statement:
"That is literally the basis of Communism. Nothing is owned PRIVATELY, everything is owned by the state."

It's dishonest because the new statement is still stated as a ~~response~~rebuttal to a point it no longer adequately rebuts.
just read what I wrote above this ffs

K�tt · August 17, 2017, 07:07:43 PM

Quote from: ultimamax on August 17, 2017, 07:05:35 PM

My brown townogy was actually dumb because "noedit: red*" is a loving obvious contradiction and "Noedit: Nothing is owned PRIVATELY"

Think about his noedit - it turns this statement:
"That is literally the basis of Communism. Nothing is owned, everything is owned by the state."
into this statement:
"That is literally the basis of Communism. Nothing is owned PRIVATELY, everything is owned by the state."

It's dishonest because the new statement is still stated as a response to a point it no longer adequately rebuts.

...you're clearly overthinking this. you've said it yourself, "noedit: red is a loving obvious contradiction".