|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,480 Year: 3,737/9,624 Month: 608/974 Week: 221/276 Day: 61/34 Hour: 4/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
More recent example of how ALL communist manifestations in history resemble more like theocracies than anything else.
Portrait of Kim Jong-ils Son Ready for Public Distribution
quote: quote: Does this sound familiar to anyone? Thou shalt not say god's name in vain...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
More recent example of how ALL communist manifestations in history resemble more like theocracies than anything else. I wouldn't call the North Korean government(Juche socialist) communist in any way. It does resemble a theocracy, what with Kim Il-sung being declared Eternal President when he died, but it clearly is a facist movement. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
I wouldn't call the North Korean government(Juche socialist) communist in any way. It does resemble a theocracy, what with Kim Il-sung being declared Eternal President when he died, but it clearly is a facist movement. There is a strong tendency to associate "totalitarianism" with "communism," even though the two don't necessarily need to overlap in all cases. Granted, all of the communist regimes that have existed so far have been totalitarian. But that;s not the way it has to be. And obviously not all totalitarian states are communist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I would venture to say that have not been any communist States. All there have been are totalitarian States in the guise of communism.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
I would venture to say that have not been any communist States. All there have been are totalitarian States in the guise of communism. That sounds a bit too close to a No True Scotsman to me. Just because they didn't implement it well doesn't mean the USSR wasn;t communist, for example. But certainly it would be accurate to say that no communist state to date has really lived up to the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Not at all a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Here is a a definition of that fallacy.No true Scotsman - Wikipedia I would have to be a communist in order for this to be that fallacy and also I would have to be making an unfounded comment. My comment is based upon historical and political accuracy.If there was any hint of communism in the USSR it was in the very early days. Here is a qucik definition of communism
quote: quote:Source All supposed communist states have gotten stuck in the dictatorship part. They never even transitioned to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is an integral part of Marxist theory.
Dictatorship of the proletariat quote: The communist states just modified the classes. The party became the penultimate class. Support for m the proletariat was not needed and the proletariat was harshly suppressed. Communist states then became more akin to a Theocracy than any other. This is shown by the cult of personality for Stalin, Mao, Castro, and whoever the latest nut job is in North Korea. This was continued by the party leaders in both USSR and China. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Just because they didn't implement it well doesn't mean the USSR wasn;t communist The USSR was a parliamentary-dictatorship. Never communist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
If there was any hint of communism in the USSR it was in the very early days. The same happened in Cuba. In it's very early days, the revolution may have resemble a commuinst movement. But as anyone who has studied cuban history knows, Castro did not want communism as the form of government for Cuba (according to those close to him). As a student, Castro was a member of el Partido Orthodoxo, they aimed to:
quote: More so, Castro was a supporter of Gerardo Machado, Cuba's 5th president.
quote: When this happened, students(which Castro lead) and labor activist formed a revolution that lead to the eventual uprising of Castro. This is partly the reason Castro wanted nothing to do with the US, because he faulted them for not only getting involved in Cuban politics, but for aiding in the over throw of Machado. Machado's vision, like that of Castro's, was:
quote: This is why everyone loved Castro in the early days. It was due to necessity that Castro joined the "self-proclaimed" communist party of Russia. Curretly, Castro serves as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba. A name that stuck, even though Cuba is far from being a communist state. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Part of this rewriting of history is to remove Jefferson as a contributing factor to the enlightenment and replace him with Aquinas.
There is more fun, such as minimizing any contribution of minority groups to the history of the US. Case in point, the conservatives on the school board voted to remove any mention of Hispanics fighting for Texas at the Alamo. Even the 7th Day Adventist who works for me was disturbed by this insistence to essentially lie through omission about history. I think this angle constitutes the most effective way to change the school board in Texas. It is not so much to point out the disparagement of evolution, critical thinking, or science in general; it is to point out the disparagement of any contribution Hispanics or indeed even in some cases blacks have made to the history of either Texas or the US. When the electorate becomes majority Hispanic in 10 years, I think we are gradually going to see a lot less ignorant white racists in office around here. Edited by anglagard, : Replace 'best' with the superior term 'most effective' The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
One of the problems you are seeing there is the "soc cons" or social conservatives are taking over where they can.
The traditional conservatives, who advocate small government and fiscal responsibility, have been pushed aside. These are the folks who could also be called "classic liberals." The soc cons are giving the real conservatives a bad name; they believe in neither small government nor fiscal responsibility. They want the government to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of us. But we had The Enlightenment. We can tell them and their shamans to go jump. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Picking up on old unanswered posts.
Similarly, if I suggest that what is often given as "the scientific method" is merely a "Just So" story, I am not thereby questioning whether there is such a thing as science. If science isn't dependent upon it's method then what is it characterised by? What makes science different from any other method of drawing conclusions? I think you should have a read of The Scientific Method For Beginners
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
I don't think that's what nwr is saying at all.
I think he/she is saying that "the scientific method" is sometimes used as an explanation without elaboration. Those three words, "the scientific method," become a replacement for an actual explanation. For instance, if you ask me "what holds the planets in their orbit?" and I reply "gravity," I haven't really answered your question. You have no greater understanding of why the planets maintain their orbits than if I had said "magic" instead. Functionally, "answers" like this are more like "passwords." A teacher asks us a question, and we respond with a word or phrase in response. If we have guessed the correct password, we are told we are correct. Unfortunately, this carries on long after we finish school, and we substitute regurgitated "passwords" for actual explanations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Rahvin writes: I don't think that's what nwr is saying at all. It may just be me but Nwr seems to say a lot of stuff where working out what he actually means or what position he is taking requires a lot more work than it should.
Nwr writes: I certainly agree that science attempts to achieve reliable understanding and knowledge. But it does not do so by overcoming opinions, emotions and bias. You might even say that science is itself biased in favor of empirical evidence as opposed to ancient traditions. Nwr writes: There is probably no such thing as "the scientific method" either...... Nwr writes: Similarly, if I suggest that what is often given as "the scientific method" is merely a "Just So" story, I am not thereby questioning whether there is such a thing as science. So what is he saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Rahvin writes:
I'm saying that while there are some broad characterizations that can be given of science, there isn't anything that could be codified precisely enough to be considered a method.I think he/she is saying that "the scientific method" is sometimes used as an explanation without elaboration. Those three words, "the scientific method," become a replacement for an actual explanation. If one closely examines the history of science, there are plenty of examples that don't fit what is often presented as "the scientific method". I won't further elaborate, nor provide references, for if I do then Straggler will only accuse me of namedropping. I participate at evcforum because I enjoy thoughtful discussions where the parties to the discussion can learn from one another. After several failed attempts, I have to conclude that such thoughtful discussion is impossible between me and Straggler. The attempts to discuss usually finish up more like street brawls, and I have no interest in participation in those. I guess it's a personality conflict of some kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I won't further elaborate, nor provide references, for if I do then Straggler will only accuse me of namedropping.
But like many threads you participate in, unless you tell us we won't have a clue what you mean. How about a little elaboration or references so that we know what you mean. Debating with you is like trying to nail down gelatin. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024