In jail for being in debt

[shagdrum]

Socialism is a system advocating social and economic equality.

I assume you are pointing out that social justice is unique to socialism, which I would agree with.

This is why it cannot exist in a fascist state.

But both Nazism and Fascism are rooted in social justice. While Nazism may end up obscuring it's social justice aims to some degree with it's irrational, extreme, and genocidal identity politics, with Fascism it's roots are much more clear; just look at the intellectual lineage behind it's creation.

Fascism was created by Mussolini, who, as a child, was read bedtime stories from Das Kapital, was named after socialist heroes of the time and was, as an adult, a socialist advocate/writer/intellectual as well as one of the most recognizable socialists in Italian politics until he had a falling out with the party establishment over World War I when he supported a nationalist position of entry into the war while the Italian Socialist party supported the internationalist position of staying out of the war. Mussolini's justification for entry into the war was rooted in Marx's writings and doctrine. It is from this difference in national socialism vs. international socialism that Mussolini's Fascism was conceived.

Still, even when the Italian socialist attempted to ostracize Mussolini, he famously told them:

Whatever happens you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood.​

Fascism, more so then Nazism, was socialist to it's core. It's platform and policies were rooted in social justice (and ideas derived from social justice) and in Marxist doctrine. The biggest difference was that it rejected international socialism for a new, nationalist stripe. Mussolini also employed populist rhetoric over economic class warfare.

Yes, there is totalitarian government control, but under socialism, individualism and individual identity is respected as long as there is social equality.

Individualism conflicts with social justice (social "equality" as you say) because of the collectivism necessary to further social justice. This is why socialism does not respect the individual except in misleading rhetoric; individualism is incompatible with collectivism.

There is technically no separation of classes, because in a true socialist society, there are no capitalist or monetary transaction, all people are "given" an equal amount based upon their needs and all people are expected to contribute evenly based upon their ability.

Change "a true socialist society" to " a true communist society" and I would agree with that statement.

Socialism, in theory, works to weaken those class distinctions; but the ideology is focused on the process of weakening those distinctions; toward expanding and maximizing social justice. Socialism is not focused on being a classless society; that is where communism comes in.

Granted, that goes against human nature, so that is why socialism, in and of itself, does not exist.

Your first point hit the nail on the head; socialism, in any form FAILS because it goes against human nature. But the second point of saying that socialism does not exist makes a bit of a logical leap.

Just because a government is an imperfect implementation of an ideology does not mean it is not rooted in that ideology. By this standard, our nation was not founded as a liberal nation (in the classical sense).

Instead you only have the implementation of some socialist ideas or people twist the principles to create something else that they call socialism.

Again, you are running with that "orthodox socialist" standard. If you are going to to that then you need to confront the challenges to that standard raised in my previous post; I laid them out in bullet points and explained them in the rest of the post.

Fascism has the view that citizenry should share a collective identity and individualism is repressed.

A view derived from Marxism.

There also must be a strong head of state in a fascist regime, and there is a separation of classes that are generally difficult if not impossible to move out of.

Because Fascism suffers from the same inherent flaws of all Marxist derived ideologies; the theory doesn't fit with reality when it comes to human nature, among other things.

The understanding of Fascism you are employing seems to be derived differently then your understanding of socialism.

If we take the standard you use concerning socialism and apply it to Fascism, then what you are calling Fascism is not Fascism at all.

Fascism, as an ideology is opposed to class distinctions (just like socialism, and for the exact same reasons) as well as being opposed to elitist distinctions. The fact that, in the real world, those distinctions do exist under Fascism would mean that it is not, in fact, Fascism.

Facism is opposed to liberalism, marxism, socialism and other "enlightened" views.

Fascism and Marxism, for the same reasons, are both opposed to liberalism (in the classical sense, which is as it was understood when Marx wrote his works and when Mussolini created Fascism).

Fascism is only opposed to international socialism. It is said that both Lenin and Mussolini said, "the Socialist International is dead" upon the outbreak of World War I.

Fascism is opposed to liberalism, but the idea that it is opposed to socialism is false; likely stemming from the rhetoric of the Italian Socialists aimed at smearing and marginalizing Mussolini around the outbreak of World War I.

There is NO social equality in fascism, fascists believe in ethnic purity

Fascism does not believe in "ethnic purity" (though that agenda was eventually imposed on Italy by the Nazi). I think you are confusing Nazism with Fascism.

Also, both Fascism and Nazism were rooted in social justice. Just because they never achieved true social justice doesn't change that fact.

the collective should work for the head of state under a fascist regime, not the collective as marxism and socialism say.

Again, you are applying a double standard here in your judging of what socialism is and what Fascism is. You seem to be defining Fascism by the results of it's policies while ignoring the rationale for those policies, the rhetoric, the platform or the intellectual lineage of Fascism.

However, in defining socialism, you are dismissing the results of it's policies, as well as the rationale behind them and focusing exclusively on the intellectual lineage of socialism (and only up to a certain point, at that).

Under both Fascism and Marxism individuals work for the collective good in theory, but in reality they work toward the ends of the state.

...one must make distinction, otherwise it is just pointless rhetoric.

One has to recognize legitimate distinctions as well as where and how distinct ideas overlap. Arbitrary distinctions that ignore any overlap in ideas give too much emphasis on false distinctions and only inject more subjectivity and confusion.

Marxism and Socialism are really not bad things, it would just be impossible for them to exist in the real world

I will agree to a point. Marxism, in theory, is not a bad thing. And if it could be enacted and work as it does in theory then there would be a very compelling argument to enact it.

However, Marxist theory is heavily flaws and those flaws are why Marxism in any for ALWAYS leads to tyranny.

You hit the most fundamental problem; it's flawed understanding of human nature. From that fatal flaw, all other flaws are ultimately derived; including the most direct flaw of equality being substituted for justice and equality being the overriding goal of Marxism and marxist derived ideologies.

and they don't blend organically with other forms of government, therefore problems usually arise (insert bad stuff here) when one does try to blend them.

Agreed. Problems arise when Marxism is mixed with other things.

However, it is not because Marxism is mixed with other forms of government that the problems arise. It is because of the inherent flaws in Marxist theory that problems arise.

The mixing of Marxism with other forms of government only plays a part in how those flaws manifest themselves, and to what degree.

If we are going to continue in this discussion, it might not be helpful for a moderator to move these last few posts into a different thread.

 

[FIND]

No, I doubt I will continue this discussion. I have said what I have to say on the matter, you are just rebutting with your previous points, and any answer I give you will be much the same. The fact is we disagree on the definitions and on our interpretation of history. Political science is not an exact science, so that is not unheard of, but like I said. I prefer to recognize the ideologies as individual ideologies to prevent blurring of the lines between them, while recognizing the similarities, to prevent movement between the ideas.

However, I will say that social justice is not unique to socialism....

And as to you saying that Marxism will always lead to tyranny.... well I won't give you that one either. Communism can only really exist as true communism in a pure democratic society or in anarchy. Every individual in the collective whole has an equally important opinion on the actions and policies of the collective, but as we know, pure democracy does not work (except in hippie colonies, just like communism and socialism), which is why the US exists as a democratic republic. But, many tyrannies use the illusion of communism or socialism to gain support for their inherently different forms of government. To say a communist republic for instance would be an oxymoron, since communism is governed by a collective, and a republic is governed by a few. Just like a socialist state where one person or a small group are reaping a majority of benefits cannot be socialism, because there is social inequality.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Tyranny leads to tyranny using marxism, much like leading a horse with a carrot.

 

[foxpaws]

The standard is a false one, in addition to the reasons explained above, because it intentionally ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology. This conveniently avoids using those peculiarities as a standard by which to judge. Socialism (as an ideological school of thought) is defined by it's unique conception of justice ("social" justice), it's overriding focus on maximizing justice (as opposed to other values, like individual liberty) and the collectivism it has to employ to achieve that goal.

Well, since shag you have now drug this into 'social justice' (because you can't place nazism/fascism on the same plane as socialism based on economic or governmental structures) I assume a'la Rawls (political), lets look at what Rawls places as the liberties individuals need as a foundation of 'social justice'.

• Freedom of thought;
• Liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;
• Political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly);
• Freedom of association;
• Freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose one's occupation); and
• Rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.

Does that look like any sort of Nazi or Fascist base of 'liberties'? Freedom of the press - freedom of religion - freedom of assembly -

Gak...

There are people that work tirelessly to deceive and play off of other's ignorance in this fashion. Foxy is one of them (even though she has a rather weak grasp of the actual ideas herself).

So shag - how does nazism support Rawls definition of 'social justice'? Or are we going by someone else's definition this week? You will need to - because neither Nazism or Fascism falls within Rawls view of 'social justice', and the view that you have espoused in the past.

Or are we actually trying to grasp at straws again...

 

[shagdrum]

I have said what I have to say on the matter, you are just rebutting with your previous points

Most (if not all) of the points I have raised have not been rebutted. They still stand as valid criticisms to the argument you are making and need to be confronted for the discussion to move forward. Specifically the points raised at the beginning of post #49 and expanded upon throughout the rest of the post have not been addressed yet.

Ignore those criticisms, or dismiss them by implying that I somehow didn't understand them by saying, "maybe I wasn't clear enough on all my points" when those points were understood is going to devolved into yelling past each other real quick. If that is going to be the case, then walking away may be the best solution.

The fact is we disagree on the definitions and on our interpretation of history.

Yes, so what is the proper understanding of these terms; specifically in this context? What is the truth? There has been a lot of distortion on this issue throughout history, especially through political rhetoric (which this time period had more then it's fair share of) and a lot of that has been further twisted and enshrined in history books. Therefore understanding the lineage of the ideas/ideologies, the viewpoints they stem from and how those ideas fit together is key to being able to distinguish misleading rhetoric from truth. If what you have been taught in the history books doesn't conform to reality, the history books are wrong.

There was a specific thought process involved in the creation of these ideologies with very specific understandings of the concepts in question. There have been great pains by many political interests throughout the decades to distort and cloud the thought process and understandings involved toward specific ends.

I prefer to recognize the ideologies as individual ideologies to prevent blurring of the lines between them, while recognizing the similarities, to prevent movement between the ideas.

And there is some wisdom in that. But after a point, it misses where those ideologies overlap, how they developed (ideological lineage), how they were applied and how well that application did or did not go. No philosophy is created brand new. It takes ideas and develops them; adds to them, sometime in new and interesting ways. The same is true of ideologies.

Godwin had a very novel take on the idea of justice that was very emotionally appealing. Marx took that as well as the ideas of other including, most notably, Hegel to develop a systematic (though ultimately flawed) methodology for historical analysis which focused on social processes. From this he made some predictions about the future and where society should and would go from which various ideological views were derived called Marxism. From these, various other forms of socialism and/or communism were derisive to the point it was at around the beginning of the 20th century.

From this vast array of Marxist/socialist thought, Fascism and Nazism were ultimately derived.

To be clear, Marx proposed no specific, coherent ideology. That was all derived from his writings which were basically systematic historical analysis focused on social causation.

The standard being employed in determining what is and is not socialism is exceedingly foolish and dangerous because it effectively removes ideology from examination all together. Ideology is ignored as a factor in governance; good or bad. This leads to a very probable repeat of the same (or similar) historical mistakes.

Unfortunately, there is a concerted effort by certain political interests to remove ideology from honest public debate all together; typically by delegitimizing and destabilizing the entire notion of ideology having any effect on policy. When ideology is removed from honest debate, all that is left is rhetoric aimed at misleading and appealing to emotions. This rhetoric can, in effect, trick people to accepting ideological principles on faith as dogma. This is a very effective tool when the ideology you are espousing would not be accepted by the majority of the public through reason; eschew all ideology then attempt to dupe people into supporting your ideology.

When an ideology is enacted, even imperfectly, numerous times and the result is consistently negative, the fundamental assumptions of the ideology should be examined as a cause.

However, ideologues often don't want to admit inherent flaws in their ideology, so excuses are made. When it comes to Marxism, the typical excuse is to say that it has never been accurately enacted (an easy excuse considering he never directly proposed any complete ideology). This is an obvious dodge which ignores how heavily flawed Marx' analysis' were. This excuse also plays off the ignorance of others because it hinges on the fact that Marx never proposed a complete ideology. Since what is and isn't Marxism is somewhat arbitrary it is ultimately a self-serving excuse to deflect any criticism of the ideology.

The standard of judging the ideology of a government by how closely it matches the theory is derived from that basic Marxist dodge of ideological criticism. It injects all the subjectivity of the Marxist excuse into the standard of judgment. Hence that standard is utterly worthless as it is without objectivity.

Not too surprising that Foxy would look to inject that standard into the discussion, as Leftist talking points are all she knows and injecting them into debates is all she looks to do.

However, I will say that social justice is not unique to socialism....

What other ideologies have that unique conception of justice?

As I have pointed out before, the dominant ideology at the time of Marx' writings was Liberalism (now known as Classical Liberalism) and it did not subscribe to the idea of social justice.

And as to you saying that Marxism will always lead to tyranny.... well I won't give you that one either. Communism can only really exist as true communism in a pure democratic society or in anarchy. Every individual in the collective whole has an equally important opinion on the actions and policies of the collective, but as we know, pure democracy does not work (except in hippie colonies, just like communism and socialism), which is why the US exists as a democratic republic. But, many tyrannies use the illusion of communism or socialism to gain support for their inherently different forms of government. To say a communist republic for instance would be an oxymoron, since communism is governed by a collective, and a republic is governed by a few. Just like a socialist state where one person or a small group are reaping a majority of benefits cannot be socialism, because there is social inequality.

Again, you haven't disproven my point; you have simply dodged it by dismissing Marxism as a possible explanation for a tyrannical society that doesn't achieve perfect social equality.

Marxism always leads to tyranny because of it's inherent conflict with reality. The theory doesn't comport with human nature (as you have noted) so when Marxism is enacted in the real world, the government established in Marxist doctrine and ruling from a Marxist point of view always ends up being tyrannical.

Weather or not a society ruled by a Marxist government enjoys more social equality or not is irrelevant. The flaws that lead to tyranny and never result in perfect social equality are endemic to Marxism, in any form.

The typical socialist argument (which is often echoed in academia) is that socialism has failed because it hasn't been properly applied in this country or that country. However, again, that is simply a red herring that doesn't comport with history.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Tyranny leads to tyranny using marxism, much like leading a horse with a carrot.

Could you explain that one? I think you may be putting the cart before the horse on that one.

 

[FIND]

Most (if not all) of the points I have raised have not been rebutted.

Yes, so what is the proper understanding of these terms; specifically in this context? What is the truth?

But after a point, it misses where those ideologies overlap, how they developed (ideological lineage), how they were applied and how well that application did or did not go.

Again, you haven't disproven my point; you have simply dodged it by dismissing Marxism as a possible explanation for a tyrannical society that doesn't achieve perfect social equality.

This is why I will not continue the discussion with you. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to insist that I have not addressed the issues or that my argument is invalid or irrelevant without good cause. You choose to duck anything that is inconvenient to your platform. If you will not give these types of things the proper credence or consideration, then it is pointless to continue discussion with you. When you can communicate openly and objectively, not just speak, then I will be happy to have further discussion with you on this point.

Also, I will restate this as it appears you have missed it any of the other times I have said it. There are similarities between many forms of government, and there are many ideologies based upon other ideologies or bastardized from another ideology. This is why it is important to have a clear distinction of the separate ideologies. This way you can understand when a line is crossed and you move from one to another. This would be akin to the US being compared with a monarchy. They are very separate ideologies, but they have many similarities

Could you explain that one? I think you may be putting the cart before the horse on that one.

I would be glad to. As I said, those with ill intentions use ideas like communism or socialism to lure in a public that may be disenfranchised or beaten down by a current system with promises of equality, saying a starving public will have everything they need. This is why communism only takes hold in countries that are in severe economic distress or social unrest.

As for social justice. Wikipedia should be a good start, it is actually not a bad article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
However, ALL ideologies that are concerned with the well-being of their citizenry practice some form of social justice. The amount, type and influence it has varies, but it is still undeniably social justice.

 

[shagdrum]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Foxy, are you really so desperate to delegitimize the fact that Fascism and Nazism are rooted on the left and derived from Marxism that you would so transparently attempt to mislead?

First; Foxy is cherry picking certain aspects of John Rawls argument for a socially just/egalitarian society, and misrepresenting them as part of his conception of social justice, which it unquestionably is not.

Second; John Rawls was born on February 21, 1921 and died on November 24, 2002. His most famous work, A Theory of Justice was published in 1971.

Considering the fact that Italian Fascism and German Nazism had fizzled out by the end of the 1940's, there is no way Rawls' ideas could have had any influence on Fascism or Nazism...unless Rawls had some flux capacitor powered Delorean that I am unaware of.

The fact that Foxy is so desperate to delegitimize the truth about Fascism/Nazism that she would so transparently play off of people's ignorance of Rawls to manipulate and move the goalposts is very instructive.

Does the truth about Fascism and Nazism scare you that much Foxy?

Stay, classy.

 

[shagdrum]

This is why I will not continue the discussion with you. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to insist that I have not addressed the issues or that my argument is invalid. If you will not give these types of things the proper credence or consideration, then it is pointless to continue discussion with you. When you can communicate openly and objectively, not just speak, then I will be happy to have further discussion with you on this point.

Where have you confronted the objections to your argument that I have raised?

Specifically, where have you confronted these objections about the standard you use to judge what is and is not socialism from post #49:

• It too narrowly defines socialism
• It paint with too broad a brush to be useful
• It is rooted in equivocation, and
• It is ultimately an arbitrary standard that ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology in order to justify dismissing a notion that is "unfavorable"

The rest of that post expands on those objections. Your response is simply to say, "maybe I wasn't clear enough on all my points" and then to simply expand on your argument with out confronting those objections which I then reiterate and further expand upon in post #51.

If you are not going to honestly confront those objections then there is no discussion taking place. It is simply competing points of view being stated ad nauseum. For the discussion to move forward you have to honestly (and hopefully respectfully) confront those objections, which you have yet to do.

 

[FIND]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Foxy, are you really so desperate to delegitimize the fact that Fascism and Nazism are rooted on the left and are derived from Marxism that you would so transparently attempt to mislead?

First; Foxy is cherry picking certain aspects of John Rawls argument for a socially just/egalitarian society, and misrepresenting them as part of his conception of social justice, which it unquestionably is not.

Second; John Rawls was born on February 21, 1921 and died on November 24, 2002. His most famous work, A Theory of Justice was published in 1971.

Considering the fact that Italian Fascism and German Nazism had fizzled out by the end of the 1940's, there is no way Rawls' ideas could have had any influence on Fascism or Nazism...unless Rawls had some flux capacitor powered Delorean that I am unaware of.

The fact that Foxy is so desperate to delegitimize the truth about Fascism/Nazism that she would so transparently play off of people's ignorance of Rawls to manipulate and move the goalposts is very instructive.

Does the truth about Fascism and Nazism scare you that much Foxy?

Stay, classy.

She did no say Rawls had any influence on italian facism or nazism. She used them as examples in contrast. Reread her post.

 

[shagdrum]

You edited the post and added more to it...

This is why I will not continue the discussion with you. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to insist that I have not addressed the issues or that my argument is invalid or irrelevant without good cause.

Because you have not addressed the objections I raised!

You will not continue this discussion because I point out the truth?!

You choose to duck anything that is inconvenient to your platform.

Such as?

If you are going to go back to throwing out accusations, please have the decency to back them up so as to allow someone to defend themselves.

If you will not give these types of things the proper credence or consideration, then it is pointless to continue discussion with you.

You really need to look in the mirror on statements like this...

Also, I will restate this as it appears you have missed it any of the other times I have said it. There are similarities between many forms of government, and there are many ideologies based upon other ideologies or bastardized from another ideology. This is why it is important to have a clear distinction of the separate ideologies.

I already confronted this point numerous times and you never confronted my objections to it:

Ignoring any and all overlap in terms/ideas/concepts and ignoring how those ideas fit together, their lineage and how they are distinct injects at least as much confusion into things.

Basically, if one don't have an accurate understanding of these various concepts, how they interact, the thought process behind them (including their lineage) then there is confusion and an opening for tricksters and propagandists to play off of the ignorance of others.

This is why attempts are made to "define down", delegitimize and destabilize concepts; it injects a lot of subjectivity that an opportunistic propagandist can exploit. Objective truth is the biggest threat to a liar.

There are people that work tirelessly to deceive and play off of other's ignorance in this fashion. Foxy is one of them (even though she has a rather weak grasp of the actual ideas herself).

One has to recognize legitimate distinctions as well as where and how distinct ideas overlap. Arbitrary distinctions that ignore any overlap in ideas give too much emphasis on false distinctions and only inject more subjectivity and confusion.

In fact, my objections to your point here still hadn't been confronted by my third post in all this and my elaboration on this point was the vast majority of post #54:

And there is some wisdom in that. But after a point, it misses where those ideologies overlap, how they developed (ideological lineage), how they were applied and how well that application did or did not go. No philosophy is created brand new. It takes ideas and develops them; adds to them, sometime in new and interesting ways. The same is true of ideologies.

Godwin had a very novel take on the idea of justice that was very emotionally appealing. Marx took that as well as the ideas of other including, most notably, Hegel to develop a systematic (though ultimately flawed) methodology for historical analysis which focused on social processes. From this he made some predictions about the future and where society should and would go from which various ideological views were derived called Marxism. From these, various other forms of socialism and/or communism were derisive to the point it was at around the beginning of the 20th century.

From this vast array of Marxist/socialist thought, Fascism and Nazism were ultimately derived.

To be clear, Marx proposed no specific, coherent ideology. That was all derived from his writings which were basically systematic historical analysis focused on social causation.

The standard being employed in determining what is and is not socialism is exceedingly foolish and dangerous because it effectively removes ideology from examination all together. Ideology is ignored as a factor in governance; good or bad. This leads to a very probable repeat of the same (or similar) historical mistakes.

Unfortunately, there is a concerted effort by certain political interests to remove ideology from honest public debate all together; typically by delegitimizing and destabilizing the entire notion of ideology having any effect on policy. When ideology is removed from honest debate, all that is left is rhetoric aimed at misleading and appealing to emotions. This rhetoric can, in effect, trick people to accepting ideological principles on faith as dogma. This is a very effective tool when the ideology you are espousing would not be accepted by the majority of the public through reason; eschew all ideology then attempt to dupe people into supporting your ideology.

When an ideology is enacted, even imperfectly, numerous times and the result is consistently negative, the fundamental assumptions of the ideology should be examined as a cause.

However, ideologues often don't want to admit inherent flaws in their ideology, so excuses are made. When it comes to Marxism, the typical excuse is to say that it has never been accurately enacted (an easy excuse considering he never directly proposed any complete ideology). This is an obvious dodge which ignores how heavily flawed Marx' analysis' were. This excuse also plays off the ignorance of others because it hinges on the fact that Marx never proposed a complete ideology. Since what is and isn't Marxism is somewhat arbitrary it is ultimately a self-serving excuse to deflect any criticism of the ideology.

The standard of judging the ideology of a government by how closely it matches the theory is derived from that basic Marxist dodge of ideological criticism. It injects all the subjectivity of the Marxist excuse into the standard of judgment. Hence that standard is utterly worthless as it is without objectivity.

Not too surprising that Foxy would look to inject that standard into the discussion, as Leftist talking points are all she knows and injecting them into debates is all she looks to do.

Simply because I didn't accept your point doesn't mean I "missed the point".

This would be akin to the US being compared with a monarchy

A monarchy is not an ideology.

As for social justice. Wikipedia should be a good start, it is actually not a bad article.

Actually, on what is arguably the most contentions and misunderstood philosophical idea of our time, wikipedia is about the worst place to start. The flawed understanding of social justice that you espouse is evidence of that.

 

[shagdrum]

There are plenty of explanations of Rawls ideas online. If you want to understand the basic criticisms of Rawls and the impact his ideas have had, this article is all you need to know. The article is too long to post in this thread, but here is the opening couple paragraphs.

Dangerous Egalitarian Dreams
John Kekes

The most celebrated public philosophers of our time—our Rousseau and Voltaire, so to speak—are John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. Prophets of a non-Marxist socialism, they provide the rationale for the domestic agenda of the left wing of the Democratic party, and they are in large measure responsible for the Left's remarkable success in occupying the moral high ground. They have convinced the nation's elites that it is a matter of simple justice for our society systematically to deprive the large majority of citizens of a sizable portion of their legally owned property to benefit a much smaller minority—an Orwellian redefinition that mocks as well as violates justice. In their egalitarian philosophical system, there's no need to debate the merits of progressive taxation, anti-poverty programs, socialized medicine, affirmative action, and welfare legislation: a society that lacks them is, by definition, not a just society.

One can't overemphasize the towering prestige these two enjoy among the liberal elites. President Clinton decorated Rawls, a retired Harvard philosophy professor, with the Medal of Freedom, and the Chronicle of Higher Education recently celebrated him as "the most distinguished moral and political philosopher of our age," depicting him on its cover among portraits of his supposed peers—Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, and Hegel. His best-known book, A Theory of Justice, has sold over 200,000 copies—an unheard-of number for a thick and turgid theoretical treatise—and it has been translated into more than 20 languages since its 1971 publication. Rawls's 1993 sequel, Political Liberalism, restates the original theory, revising a detail here and there. In philosophy departments across the land, young scholars tirelessly churn out explications of his thought...

 

[foxpaws]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Foxy, are you really so desperate to delegitimize the fact that Fascism and Nazism are rooted on the left and derived from Marxism that you would so transparently attempt to mislead?

First; Foxy is cherry picking certain aspects of John Rawls argument for a socially just/egalitarian society, and misrepresenting them as part of his conception of social justice, which it unquestionably is not.

Second; John Rawls was born on February 21, 1921 and died on November 24, 2002. His most famous work, A Theory of Justice was published in 1971.

Considering the fact that Italian Fascism and German Nazism had fizzled out by the end of the 1940's, there is no way Rawls' ideas could have had any influence on Fascism or Nazism...unless Rawls had some flux capacitor powered Delorean that I am unaware of.

The fact that Foxy is so desperate to delegitimize the truth about Fascism/Nazism that she would so transparently play off of people's ignorance of Rawls to manipulate and move the goalposts is very instructive.

Does the truth about Fascism and Nazism scare you that much Foxy?

Stay, classy.

Not even close shag, I am not misrepresenting Rawls at all - Rawls was all about -

"freedom of thought and liberty of conscience; the political liberties and freedom of association, as well as the freedoms specified by the liberty and integrity of the person; and finally, the rights and liberties covered by the rule of law." ​

It was a very big part of Rawls' Two Principles of Justice which is an integral part of his Mature Theory of Social Justice. Here is a good primer on it - if you need it shag...

Shag, I was just using your previous 'expert' by bringing in Rawls' definition of social justice - not mine - so, how do you feel that nazism and fascism did on Rawls' scorecard of social justice - I think probably a D-.

So, are we back to the church's definition of social justice? Shag, you are talking in circles - those are very much things that would be required if you are going to define social justice as you like to define them - correct? You have been the one that uses A Theory of Justice as the bible of social justice. So, what social justice are you talking about this time - I would really like to know - you jump all over the place when it comes to social justice.

You just used Social Justice to define how Nazism is just another form of socialism - so what parts shag - do you only choose a couple of parts? No, social justice as you have defined it in the past is a whole big concept that includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, that certainly nazism didn't even pretend to embrace.

Once again shag - you keep digging these holes for yourself... Hitler did not create the 'final solution' as a means of achieving social justice, unless suddenly you have some new and improved June 16th, 2010 version of social justice...

And I have never said that Nazis were on the 'right' - they are Nazis. Why must you keep trying to go left/right with this? I know - so you can create a villain on the left. I rather like Ryan's idea that you need to drop the left/right silliness, it doesn't do a very good job any longer on describing all the different avenues of 'isms'. But - wait - you were the one that posted Ryan's ideas - don't you agree with them?

And why do you continue to try to claim that nazism is socialist - when it is so clearly not. Nazism is not about Egalitarianism - and Egalitarianism is the Holy Grail of Socialism. So Nazism can't be socialist... shag - basic logic - If A ≠ B and B is a required element of C than A ≠ C.

 

[fossten]

And why do you continue to try to claim that nazism is socialist - when it is so clearly not. Nazism is not about Egalitarianism - and Egalitarianism is the Holy Grail of Socialism. So Nazism can't be socialist... shag - basic logic - If A ≠ B and B is a required element of C than A ≠ C.

So, so wrong, Vapo-rub. The Nazis introduced price and wage controls in Germany in 1936. De facto socialist. Ludwig von Mises says you're wrong, and that's good enough for me. Welcome to the ranks of 'conventional wisdom.' So much for all your blustering and blathering. I'd give you twenty bucks if you could make arguments without all the red herrings and wordiness, but I doubt you could resist the temptation.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

What you're actually doing is showering us with terms: Egalitarianism, social justice, final solution...none of which have been adequately defined or even relevantly placed. At the same time you're whining about Shag's use of 'right' and 'left' - which is quite hypocritical. So, are we to assume that only YOU get to introduce terms and define them? What you're doing is textbook red herring and textbook Alinsky. You're using ad nauseum as a way to attempt to 'win' the argument. I doubt even you know what you're talking about.

In "Creative Writing 101" they teach that it is more important to communicate your ideas clearly than to use big words and write long, rambling sentences. I guess the day you took that course it rained and the teacher didn't show up.

By the way, you're off topic.

In short, you fail, Vapo-rub.

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws hijacks the thread with a false comparison or straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

 

[fossten]

This is why I will not continue the discussion with you. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to insist that I have not addressed the issues or that my argument is invalid or irrelevant without good cause. You choose to duck anything that is inconvenient to your platform. If you will not give these types of things the proper credence or consideration, then it is pointless to continue discussion with you. When you can communicate openly and objectively, not just speak, then I will be happy to have further discussion with you on this point.

...or you could just call him stupid or asinine again.

 

[foxpaws]

So, so wrong, Vapo-rub. The Nazis introduced price and wage controls in Germany in 1936. De facto socialist. Ludwig von Mises says you're wrong, and that's good enough for me. Welcome to the ranks of 'conventional wisdom.' So much for all your blustering and blathering. I'd give you twenty bucks if you could make arguments without all the red herrings and wordiness, but I doubt you could resist the temptation.

However the nazis also allowed a corporate upper class, kept private ownership of industry, created a single labor union that was ruled by the corporations and government (not the laborers), and removed personal liberties. One tiny part of socialism does not equal the whole of socialism Foss. Hitler also wanted to conserve the German race - so he was a conservative... not. Once again - one small overlap does not equal the whole. Nazism stands on its own as separate from socialism, or any other 'ism'.

What you're actually doing is showering us with terms: Egalitarianism, social justice, final solution...none of which have been adequately defined or even relevantly placed. At the same time you're whining about Shag's use of 'right' and 'left' - which is quite hypocritical. So, are we to assume that only YOU get to introduce terms and define them? What you're doing is textbook red herring and textbook Alinsky. You're using ad nauseum as a way to attempt to 'win' the argument. I doubt even you know what you're talking about.

Shag introduced 'social justice' not I. He introduced it as a way to prove that Nazism is socialism, that they were for 'social justice'. I was just pointing out that if you go by the points that describe social justice which he claimed in earlier threads, than the Nazis would have had to have been for personal liberties such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech - they weren't. Hitler wasn't a proponent of 'social justice'.

In "Creative Writing 101" they teach that it is more important to communicate your ideas clearly than to use big words and write long, rambling sentences. I guess the day you took that course it rained and the teacher didn't show up.

I write as I talk foss - it is more approachable, and faster for me...

However by now I would have thought the sting of CW101 would have abated... that a couple of weeks cabin building would have eased that sting... I guess the truth really sticks around.

But, I did try to get back on topic - why don't we have debtor's prisons? Here is an interesting old article in Time - costs of incarceration, etc add up... plus, this man's family ended up on welfare - costing us even more. Am I willing to pay for Mastercard's mistake for allowing someone to get into debt to them for thousands of dollars? That was the banks decision, they believed someone would pay them back. If that was a bad decision, should I as a tax payer, foot the bill?

Mastercard takes those costs and levies them across all its customers - do I need to also pay for the 'revenge' factor as well?

 

[fossten]

However the nazis also allowed a corporate upper class, kept private ownership of industry, created a single labor union that was ruled by the corporations and government (not the laborers), and removed personal liberties. One tiny part of socialism does not equal the whole of socialism Foss. Hitler also wanted to conserve the German race - so he was a conservative... not. Once again - one small overlap does not equal the whole. Nazism stands on its own as separate from socialism, or any other 'ism'.

Tsk tsk, Vapo-rub, too lazy to read the Mises article I see. Just a flat dismissal and a moving of the goalposts. Not even an ad hominem attack on Mises to try to discredit him? Pathetic actually, Vapo-rub.

Furthermore, you've dismissed the de facto socialism of Germany's price and wage controls by calling them "tiny." That's hilarious, considering you can't even back that up without ignoring the FACT that socialism being discussed is ECONOMIC, and that price and wage controls are at the CORE of socialism. But I guess you don't know what de facto means, eh...

The very translation of Nazi is National Socialist. I guess that escaped you too.

Shag introduced 'social justice' not I. He introduced it as a way to prove that Nazism is socialism, that they were for 'social justice'. I was just pointing out that if you go by the points that describe social justice which he claimed in earlier threads, than the Nazis would have had to have been for personal liberties such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech - they weren't. Hitler wasn't a proponent of 'social justice'.

You've repeatedly tried to redefine social justice to suit your own ends in other threads. Your dishonesty on this topic is legendary.

I write as I talk foss - it is more approachable, and faster for me...

However by now I would have thought the sting of CW101 would have abated... that a couple of weeks cabin building would have eased that sting... I guess the truth really sticks around.

It's not effective when people don't get your point, and you'd be better served to be more introspective rather than just assuming that your method of rambling, aw-shucks incoherency is useful. And the fact that you say it's 'faster' for you denotes LAZINESS, but then again, we've pointed out your laziness repeatedly, haven't we, Vapo-rub?

And that swerves into another good point - your goal isn't to convey a clear point, but rather to confuse, deflect, distract, and otherwise distort the issue. You see this as your playground where you don't have to take a real position on anything, but can instead just nitpick and throw red herrings against the wall and see what sticks.

As far as Creative Writing 101 - Actually, you're pitifully misreading my reference. I guess you're too dense to realize that I'm rubbing your own pathetic little nose in it, given the fact that you intended it as an insult - and yet, YOU are the one feverishly striving to pretend to be knowledgeable, and consistently frustrated that you can gain zero traction with your rambling, incoherent, Alinskyite posts. Everybody here knows that you're a liar - despite your constant whining in PMs that you're being picked on. That's the truth - and we can expect you to ignore it as usual and continue to try and spew your typical plethora of nonsense, lies, and distortions all around.

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, I owe you an apology.

In my first point of post #56 I accused you if misleading in a way you were not doing. While the second point I raised still stands and, to some degree is even reinforced by a rejection of the first point, that first point was wrong. I am a little rusty on my Rawls and, while talking to (and drinking too much with) an old friend from out of town who is well versed in philosophy, it became clear how wrong I was on this.

Rawls’ theory of justice, which he doesn’t call “social” justice but is what he essentially is talking about, is made up of two principles; which you roughly articulated in your post which I was responding to. While Rawls theory on this is nothing more than rhetorical sleight-of-hand and mere sophistry that serves to redefine the concept of social justice in order to dodge it's biggest flaw (which I will get to in a minute), that doesn’t, in any way, justify my sloppiness on this.

You were not misrepresenting Rawls in the manner I claimed you were and I apologize for accusing you of doing so.

Rawls’ conception of justice, essentially, redefines social justice to include many aspects of individual liberty, from a certain point of view. The biggest problem with social justice has always been that, due to the collectivism and infringement of individual liberty necessary, social justice is utterly incompatible with individual liberty. Rawls redefinition of social justice attempts to rhetorically circumvent this problem by conceptually attaching individual liberty and egalitarianism.

However, this is a dodge that doesn’t eliminate or even confront this fundamental flaw of social justice. in fact, it enshrines that flaw in the new conception of justice by making any and all concerns for liberty secondary to concerns for equal justice.

That article I cited by the philosophy professor, John Kekes points out these flaws with Rawls conception of justice in a lot more depth:

Rawls glosses over this fatal defect and claims that his legislators would unanimously endorse what he calls the "equal liberty" and the "difference" principles. The first requires that there be maximum liberty in the society for everyone, consistent with like liberty for all—a restatement of the principle John Stuart Mill proposed in On Liberty. Rawls recognizes that the equal liberty principle would result in great economic inequalities. Differences in people's talents, education, experiences, and good or bad luck will affect their economic success. There is, therefore, a need for a second principle to determine what economic inequalities are permissible. And what that principle says, among other things, is that "economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are . . . to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged." It is, for instance, acceptable for doctors to earn outsize salaries if that is the only way people living in poverty can receive good health care. A society arranged according to these principles would thus be perpetually redistributing its citizens' property by taking from those who are better-off what does not benefit those who are worst-off.

Rawls's two principles of justice cannot deliver what they promise. The first promises extensive liberty; the second, economic equality. But, given the obvious fact of great individual differences, how people exercise their liberty will result in economic inequality. Similarly, economic equality requires curtailing individual liberty. Rawls sees this conflict, and he copes with it by allowing only as much liberty as is compatible with economic equality. He thus begins in the liberal tradition of Locke and Mill, by promising liberty, and ends, in the socialist tradition, by stifling liberty for the sake of economic equality.​

Kekes article goes into a lot more detail on the flaws in both Rawls' and Dworkin's postulations. While a very long and dense article, it is well worth taking the time to read.

Frankly, I have always found Rawls justification for his egalitarian society more interesting (and even insightful in some ways) then his rhetorical dodge in attempting to redefine social justice.

Rawls is way overrated. His writings are ultimately sophistry. He provides a unique justification that appeals to elites rooted in the Leftist faith. But his justification is built around rhetorical misdirection and extreme abstraction from reality; Rawls and his writings are the epitome of an academic being disconnected from reality and dictating what is best for society from his ivory tower.

Back to the post in question, the second point in my post still stands and is even reinforced by the fact that Rawls' conception of justice was a redefinition of social justice, and that definition could not, in any way, have even existed, let alone influenced Fascism or Nazism. So, in post #53, you are misdirecting not only by playing off of people's ignorance of Rawls, but also by equivocating in using his version of social justice when that version was not the focus of the discussion or even, in any way, applicable.

Still, that doesn't justify my sloppiness in my first point in post #56 and for that, I am sorry.

Now, I have to get back to dealing with a nasty little hangover.

 

[foxpaws]

Tsk tsk, Vapo-rub, too lazy to read the Mises article I see. Just a flat dismissal and a moving of the goalposts. Not even an ad hominem attack on Mises to try to discredit him? Pathetic actually, Vapo-rub.

Furthermore, you've dismissed the de facto socialism of Germany's price and wage controls by calling them "tiny." That's hilarious, considering you can't even back that up without ignoring the FACT that socialism being discussed is ECONOMIC, and that price and wage controls are at the CORE of socialism. But I guess you don't know what de facto means, eh...

The very translation of Nazi is National Socialist. I guess that escaped you too.

You've repeatedly tried to redefine social justice to suit your own ends in other threads. Your dishonesty on this topic is legendary.

And you Foss are a legend in your own mind...

I took shag to task on everything he presented regarding this subject in this thread... you might want to review it before you speak out of turn.

And Mises isn't 'Lord of all he speaks'. How about reading about the actual Third Reich - an excellent book on Hitler and Robert Ley's view on labor, and how they should be subjegated (opposite of socialism Foss) is Ronald Smelser's - Robert Ley: Hitler's Labor Front Leader.

Mises is a theorist - we don't need that when we have the actual Reich to review. Nazism is not socialism. There is no way that is true. The economic structure, the political structure nor the social structure is socialist.

Nazism is nazism. Fascism taken to some bizarre extreme. So bizarre it is no longer even totally fascism.

As far as Creative Writing 101 - Actually, you're pitifully misreading my reference. I guess you're too dense to realize that I'm rubbing your own pathetic little nose in it, given the fact that you intended it as an insult - and yet, YOU are the one feverishly striving to pretend to be knowledgeable, and consistently frustrated that you can gain zero traction with your rambling, incoherent, Alinskyite posts. Everybody here knows that you're a liar - despite your constant whining in PMs that you're being picked on. That's the truth - and we can expect you to ignore it as usual and continue to try and spew your typical plethora of nonsense, lies, and distortions all around.

Ah, this from a man who must conform... Whose last creative thought must have happened so long ago that it is lost somewhere in the annuals of time, because I have yet to see evidence of it.

However, did you know that in the UAE failure to pay debts is still a criminal offense and jail time can be doled out. Even check bouncing has lead to time in prison.

 

[FIND]

...or you could just call him stupid or asinine again.

hahaha dur dur dur

Why respond if he chooses to ignore what I write anyways, and write it off saying that history is obviously wrong, as he has done in many other threads. Not that he backs anything up with scholarly research, just a blog that has about as much credibility as anything else on the internet. But yeah, he agrees with you, so he must be right, an accomplished debater, and a genius political mind.

 

[shagdrum]

And Mises isn't 'Lord of all he speaks'.

That is not what fossten is saying and in no way justifies your ignoring Mises' arguments.

 

[shagdrum]

Why respond if he chooses to ignore what I write anyways

Examples?

and write it off saying that history is obviously wrong, as he has done in many other threads.

Where?

I have said the exact opposite; that if the history books don't comport with reality (historical truth) then the history books are wrong.

Where have I said that history is wrong?

Not that he backs anything up with scholarly research, just a blog that has about as much credibility as anything else on the internet.

So, all the historical quotes I cited in my posts, all the historical facts I cite are simply blogs and not in any way "scholarly" research?

If you are going to make accusations, it is simply common decency to at least give specific examples and make the accusation in such a way that it is actually disprovable.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, I owe you an apology.

In my first point of post #56 I accused you if misleading in a way you were not doing. While the second point I raised still stands and, to some degree is even reinforced by a rejection of the first point, that first point was wrong. I am a little rusty on my Rawls and, while talking to (and drinking too much with) an old friend from out of town who is well versed in philosophy, it became clear how wrong I was on this.

Now, I have to get back to dealing with a nasty little hangover.

Rawls was a theorist - quite often erroneous, but, as you said, occasionally insightful. I think his The Law of Peoples is interesting. I certainly don't claim to understand it all - but the idea that justice as fairness enforced by reasonable societies can be stable was good food for thought...

Speaking of food...

V8 juice with a splash of vodka - along with a big steak - works on even big hangovers - maybe on a little one - tomato juice, vodka and a hamburger...

I would imagine your conversation was fun...

And I agree that social justice - as you usually define it - is flawed, and bad.

However, I will stand by my guns that Hitler and 'social justice' (by any definition) were never in the same room at the same time...

 

[shagdrum]

Rawls was a theorist - quite often erroneous, but, as you said, occasionally insightful. I think his The Law of Peoples is interesting. I certainly don't claim to understand it all - but the idea that justice as fairness enforced by reasonable societies can be stable was good food for thought...

Speaking of food...

V8 juice with a splash of vodka - along with a big steak - works on even big hangovers - maybe on a little one - tomato juice, vodka and a hamburger...

I would imagine your conversation was fun...

And I agree that social justice - as you usually define it - is flawed, and bad.

However, I will stand by my guns that Hitler and 'social justice' (by any definition) were never in the same room at the same time...

Fair enough. Thanks for the advice.

 

[foxpaws]

That is not what fossten is saying and in no way justifies your ignoring Mises' arguments, which you clearly are doing..

I am not - but what I say is look at the Reich - it is Nazism in action - I can argue that nazism isn't socialism with hard facts from the Third Reich, its laws, its policies, the results of those laws and policies, along with the society it cast and supported and the economic system which it created. If you take the actual Third Reich - it wasn't socialist.

It may have professed to be, or promised the voters it would be, but when it finally became the 'power' in Germany it became fascist - and then it became fascism on steroids - so far removed from anything else that it gets its own 'ism'...

The Mises article goes with the economic idea that since Nazism wasn't capitalist (which I never claimed it was) than it must be socialist. He has a 'new' form of socialism which isn't based on Russia or I guess Marx - but on this 'Nazi' or 'German' socialist ideal. Why is he trying to pigeonhole Nazism into socialism? He can't really do it, so he gives his viewpoint a disclaimer that it is a morphed socialism - different than standard socialism, based on a Nazi platform. Unlike Reisman, I don't believe that it is an either/or situation - here we have a new economic model - closely related to fascism - but in actuality some weird conglomeration.

It is nazism - the caste system alone removes it from socialism. I guess in some weird world you could say that it was a socialist model that removed labor having control of production and allowed and encouraged a tiered economic system. Yes, it was guided, and in some instances controlled by the state - but you still have wealthy factory owners and poor factory workers - very wrong by any socialist model... I think the overlapping of very heavy handed government control, but with the structure of private business still intact, profits going to owners and not the workers, innovation encouraged on both as a nationalist pride ideal as well as a money making proposition morphs it into a totally different economic system.

Private property rights were conditional upon how it fitted into the Nazi world take over plan. If your company supported the Nazi plan - you got to keep it - keep the profits (not equally distribute them among all the laborers), and hopefully innovate more cool stuff for the Nazis to be able to rule the world. Yes, under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets were stymied, but Hitler wasn't against private property - he wanted it regulated, but he also knew that the best innovation had a profit motive behind it...

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".​

The economy was certainly directed by the state towards the goal of total world domination, but it encouraged private ownership, kept the profit motive intact, and fostered a tiered economic society.

It was Nazism. Not capitalism, not socialism. Some weird hybrid of them both, and therefore neither.

 

[fossten]

And you Foss are a legend in your own mind...

I took shag to task on everything he presented regarding this subject in this thread... you might want to review it before you speak out of turn.

And Mises isn't 'Lord of all he speaks'. How about reading about the actual Third Reich - an excellent book on Hitler and Robert Ley's view on labor, and how they should be subjegated (opposite of socialism Foss) is Ronald Smelser's - Robert Ley: Hitler's Labor Front Leader.

Tsk tsk, Vapo-rub, there you go again, using hyperbole and red herrings like a bull in a china shop. Please show me where I said what you put in quotations. Why, you're actually MISQUOTING me for effect! Those are desperate words...

For all your vaunted - errrrrrrrr - self-glossed "Creative Writing" ability, you certainly stumble about blindly and awkwardly most of the time. You have no deft touch, no finesse. Just throw out book titles as though by doing so you gain instant credibility. Your logic is so flawed it's laughable.

Mises is a theorist - we don't need that when we have the actual Reich to review. Nazism is not socialism. There is no way that is true. The economic structure, the political structure nor the social structure is socialist.

Nazism is nazism. Fascism taken to some bizarre extreme. So bizarre it is no longer even totally fascism.

Once again, you fail to address any specific point I raised. It's your standard, tired, old (did I say old? ) tactic - ignore what your 'opponent' says and just plug away with your ad nauseum argument. War of attrition until everybody gets fed up and leaves the thread, and then claim victory, right Vapo-rub?

Ah, this from a man who must conform... Whose last creative thought must have happened so long ago that it is lost somewhere in the annuals of time, because I have yet to see evidence of it.

Awww, now I KNOW I'm getting under your prickly, scaly, itchy skin, Vapo-rub. You're angry. Would you like a tissue? I understand; after all, your last recorded attempt at civility involved you trying to hook up with me online. Well, you know what they say about a woman scorned...

Might I suggest alcohol, in copious amounts, and maybe some introspection for once in your life. You're so quick to attack, you fail to see your own self-immolation. But then again, that's the mark of a cornered animal: lashing out at everyone else. More's the pity.

If anybody is exhibiting groupthink here, Vapo-rub, it's you. You doggedly attack everyone's statements without so much as addressing any of their points, yet you fail to take a position on your own. It's the ultimate in cowardice. As I said, this is just a playground to you; you have no interest in learning anything, no interest in being honest, no interest in discussing. You think you're showing off with your long-winded screeds, but in actuality your lack of clarity and conviction denotes a spinning moral compass and a rudderless ship, not a learned philosophical foundation. In other words, you have no principles on which you stand, so you are forced to pick nits with others.

By the way, Vapo-rub, what is 'annuals of time?' If you're going to attempt to be creative, you might at least double check your prose for...well...stupidity.

 

[foxpaws]

If anybody is exhibiting groupthink here, Vapo-rub, it's you. You doggedly attack everyone's statements without so much as addressing any of their points, yet you fail to take a position on your own. It's the ultimate in cowardice. As I said, this is just a playground to you; you have no interest in learning anything, no interest in being honest, no interest in discussing. You think you're showing off with your long-winded screeds, but in actuality your lack of clarity and conviction denotes a spinning moral compass and a rudderless ship, not a learned philosophical foundation. In other words, you have no principles on which you stand, so you are forced to pick nits with others.

By the way, Vapo-rub, what is 'annuals of time?' If you're going to attempt to be creative, you might at least double check your prose for...well...stupidity.

Well, I do admit to knowing odd people - Annuals of Time is the title of a book... You wouldn't know it - I think it was only given to acquaintances... And it was quite a while ago. It was sort of an 'in' joke. I happen to know someone who is marginally following this... He'll enjoy the reference.

My moral compass is fine - and I think I found the rudder last week...

Also I have found I didn't miss your personal attacks while you were 'gone' David.