Well, in the first place, the statement is false as soon as it is written:
"The basic hypocracy of all who espouse communism is that they assume that human nature is somehow different for one economic system than it is for another."
Now, the Marquis has acknowledged the problem with the use of the word "all", and that is a start.
A strawman, tiassa, is an argument presented in order to deliberately misrepresent the position of another.
I have not done that. The opening poster, and another later, have both displayed a willing lack of regard to any particular points brought up against their own beliefs. I have brought up that capitalism
as a theoretical system is as much misrepresented by its practise as communism is, and have been mostly ignored. The statement in and of itself
also acknowledges that flaw within theoretical capitalism. So why would you, in particular, take offence? You understand that as well as I do. I'll also mention that I was the first to bring it up, with due apology to any who did before me that I missed.
Yet you defend them.
The only concession I will make (have made) is to replace the "all" with something more along the lines of "many of those". To reinforce it, I have added that the remark remains true with particular reference to the op, who while not a
specific target of it, remains an accurate representation. Along with his little me-too.
You, I'll allow, have so far been exempt from that generalisation. You'll also notice you are, by and large, exempt from that "willfully dysfunctional and disruptive outlook". Now I'm sure you'll acknowledge that there are more than one who retain an exemption, and that it is a particular type who are my usual focus. Now, I understand that your particular outlook does not allow you much freedom with regard to that type of consideration, and I do not ask it for myself - and in truth, from most, I don't even expect it to
be a consideration.. You may malign me as much as you wish - just don't misrepresent me. To
that, I take exception.
All of the quotes you've asked me to respond to have been from
your posts and not from the posts made by the targets of that very same disruptive outlook. This should indicate to you that there is little you've said that I disagree with, and that I understand you are not a "proponent of communism". The only real point at which we may diverge is when considering the result of that which you seek; but that is irrelevant within the confines of this thread.
Yet you defend them.
But, additionally, the statement declares hypocrisy of the commonly recognized problem that communist institutions fail to account for human nature; he makes it an ethical issue of will.
But it is, Tiassa. It is. Those whom I have addressed have clearly displayed that this is the case
for them. I have attacked a particular point because it has been offered as a Briton might, displaying his arse for the Romans. I'd imagine even his own side might have been tempted to take a shot, were it not for the fact that they fought for the same cause.
and so, you defend them.
Well, the first answer to that is to point him to what is already on the record:
All of which I read.
The most memorable quotes being "You cannot elevate the form—e.g., communism—above its purpose." (Incidentally something I wanted to give voice to but lacked the words for) - and "stasis is death". I'm given to wonder how much you've considered that last, in particular, but again am confined within a thread.
In other words, there is plenty along this line for The Marquis to consider. But he does not wish to.
I
protest. Consideration of a point, either here or sometime in the past, does not automatically confer any particular desire to respond to it, particularly in those cases where ones finds himself in agreement with most of it.
You want me to argue with your above posts? About what? I disagree with your direction and sometimes deplore your intent, Tiassa... not your foundation.
Therefore he raises a straw-man to reset the argument to a point he is more familiar with, and then asks anew for what already awaits his, or anybody else's consideration.
And once again, I did not consider my reponses to be in any way directed at you. That, in itself, refutes the "straw man" argument, if only you were to read and respond to the posts you defend with as much acrimony as you read mine. You might actually be worth reading if that were the case.
I swear, Tiassa, there are times you give the impression your ego is as large as mine. If only it were directed to something more worthy. Time for truth, lad. Do you seriously believe, in your soul, those you defend are truly worthy of it?
The effective message here is that he does not think the considerations on record are correct, but sees no need to tell anyone why.
Guilty as charged, in light of the brevity with which I would normally respond to something I do not like.
In tihis case, however, you think I have not responded because I do not agree with you. I have not responded, Tiassa, because I do. When are you going to learn to separate yourself from the depressingly average you elevate beyond the capability they display?
Rather, he just wants to start over and demand everyone repeat themselves.
Incorrect. I wanted answers not from you, but from those I was addressing, for whom you nor anyone else appear to have
no impact upon whatsoever.
... it is also a component of a willfully dysfunctional and disruptive outlook.
Without which you'd all be bored to death. With a few exceptions, the interesting have gone and those remain show only a shadow of
some of the intelligence once displayed on this site.
You've gotten rid of the players, and made it about the cheers from crowds in the stands. The game is hardly worth watching any more, much less playing.
It is essentially an attempt to make something true through excessive repetition.
Umm. Well I've taken a look at that.
The only real question I have for you is why you have taken me to task for it, rather than those you address with so much more consideration, in spite of them being so clearly.... stupid.
You know, Tiassa, I think it's possible you are aware of the root cause of the decline in this place better than most. I'm only guessing, here, and I certainly don't expect you to about-face on your own views so much as to admit it outright. At best, you'll recouch it so as to make it seem more in agreement with your own philosophy.
What a terrible position you must find yourself in, to be an arbiter over so much potential wasted on the depressingly mediocre - and much of that is the result of policy brought about by ideals you support.
The truth is, Tiassa, that this place is, in itself, and in its history, quite relevant to this discussion from the first post. The moment you tried to make it belong to everyone, and punished those who didn't follow the norm, you began to lose control of it. You have made bad examples of
intelligent individuals, embraced and defended mediocrity, and the result stands before you.
I honestly don't know how it feels, you know. To be you, Spookz, James R... those like you who have used the many as weapons to outweigh the few who stood against you, and now stand crowned over the schoolyard you've created. I don't know why you all appear to be so eager to win; as soon as you do, something dies.
The truth about it all, Tiassa, is that it is the contest which gives meaning, not the outcome.
But I do enjoy observing it.
