Using basic terms incorrectly...

[BotanyBoy]

It is pointless trying to educate you. You are just too stupid.

So you can't tell me what qualifiers are there on the government control over the means that make it socialist or not...??

 

[oggbashan]

Oh...this ought to be good, tell us how only fluffy warm altruistic government control over the means is socialism.

...

Have any of my posts suggested that I advocate socialism?

Using emotive terminology in an argument about definitions is a sign of your own bias that you are trying to push on to others.

 

[oggbashan]

So you can't tell me what qualifiers are there on the government control over the means that make it socialist or not...??

They are definitions of socialism; NOT definitions of ALL government controls.

But you are too stupid, despite having been told many times, to understand that.

If socialism is the four-legged dog; government controls are animals with four legs that might or MIGHT NOT BE dogs.

 

[oggbashan]

I'll try one last time to show the flaw in your logic:

Christianity advocates living by a moral code.

Does that make all religions that advocate living by a moral code Christian?

No. It doesn't.

It's the same with the definition of socialism.

If socialism advocates governmental control that doesn't make every system that includes governmental controls socialist. But that's what you keep saying is true. It isn't.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Where FFS does it say control in that sentence?

It says “ownership and administration”.

But yes a socialist is one who advocates socialism and socialism advocates……government ownership.

I have no beef with them, they are right.

You're the one who looks at the definition and only sees "Government onwership" and repeatedly ignoring the rest of the definition or thinking at all about what it means.
No it's not and I didn't make anything up.

And yet I have had no need to use a qualifier once in this thread; whereas you are constantly imploring us to use your “critical thinking” But “look past” But “look beyond” But “regulation=ownership,” “ think about “ where you then drift off in to an explanation that isn’t written, at all, in any of the definitions.

Why do you think you have to do that? Do you really think the writers were incapable of writing that if it was correct?

And for the 3rd time answering that's a loaded question given the nature of the modern world and it's a mixed economy.

Bullshit, the reason why you can’t is because it is un-workable and doesn't tell us what Socialism is and isn’t in any of the definitions anywhere. Which is why I've been telling you it is worthless.

I and everyone else who reads the definitions can do it quite easily because the definition is exact and doesn't require your, my or anyone else interpretation/modification and associated bullshit that you keep insisting we accept. That is the intent of definitions, you know that?

Effectively you're insisting that we ignore the definition and listen to you and for that you get a big FUCK OFF!

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I'll try one last time to show the flaw in your logic:

Christianity advocates living by a moral code.

Does that make all religions that advocate living by a moral code Christian?

No. It doesn't.

It's the same with the definition of socialism.

If socialism advocates governmental control that doesn't make every system that includes governmental controls socialist. But that's what you keep saying is true. It isn't.

Ya know I don't think that's quite what he's trying to say.

I think what he's trying to say is.....from his completely unregulated and uncontrolled Capitalist utopia, each and every regulation/control on business makes it a little less Capitalist and a little more socialist.

And this is from any and all regulations which effect business, even ones that have nothing what-so-ever to do with the core tenets of Socialism.

The problem then is, no one can ever really know what or when a state stops being Capitalist and becomes, say, a mixed economy, or when a mixed economy becomes Socialist.

And, indeed, there never has been or ever will be a Capitalist society, whilst at the same time ignoring the interaction between Capitalist and government.

The whole thought process is off the bizarro scale especially when you have the definitions right in front of you.

Woof!

 

[oggbashan]

What he seems to be TRYING to say fits the logical flaw I have repeatedly pointed out.

As for what he MEANS? I don't think he knows except perhaps that unregulated capitalism is wonderful and any tiny part of socialism is evil.

What he has proved, over and over again, is that his understanding is very limited.

 

[cowslinger64]

What he seems to be TRYING to say fits the logical flaw I have repeatedly pointed out.

As for what he MEANS? I don't think he knows except perhaps that unregulated capitalism is wonderful and any tiny part of socialism is evil.

What he has proved, over and over again, is that his understanding is very limited.

He claims to be a millionaire selling cow shit. He has enough in his head to actually be that kind of millionaire.

I've never seen anyone move the goal posts more on a message board. He's worse than vette and miles.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Where FFS does it say control in that sentence?

It says “ownership and administration”.

Woof!

Control is ownership. If I come take your car and I control it indefinitely would you still consider yourself the owner?

How about I come throw you and all your shit out of your house and reside in it as long as I want doing what I want with it....who owns the house?

And no it doesn't, you are zoned in on ownership again and ignoring the rest of the definition.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ya know I don't think that's quite what he's trying to say.

I think what he's trying to say is.....from his completely unregulated and uncontrolled Capitalist utopia, each and every regulation/control on business makes it a little less Capitalist and a little more socialist.

Woof!

Very close!!! Minus the whole " from his completely unregulated and uncontrolled capitalist utopia" ascription.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What he seems to be TRYING to say fits the logical flaw I have repeatedly pointed out.

As for what he MEANS? I don't think he knows except perhaps that unregulated capitalism is wonderful and any tiny part of socialism is evil.

No, and no.....not at all in either case.

Just that any tiny government controls over the means is still socialist in nature.

He claims to be a millionaire selling cow shit. He has enough in his head to actually be that kind of millionaire.

I've never seen anyone move the goal posts more on a message board. He's worse than vette and miles.

Sorry you suck at making money.

And I didn't move the goalpost highspeed I've been saying the same shit since the start.

 

[phrodeau]

I agree that BotanyBoy has been saying shit since the start.

 

[oggbashan]

I agree that BotanyBoy has been saying shit since the start.

So do I.

 

[cowslinger64]

No, and no.....not at all in either case.

Just that any tiny government controls over the means is still socialist in nature.



Sorry you suck at making money.

And I didn't move the goalpost highspeed I've been saying the same shit since the start.

Yes, we are in agreement. The same shit, with different words.

anyone can make bullshit money like you.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Control is ownership. If I come take your car and I control it indefinitely would you still consider yourself the owner?

How about I come throw you and all your shit out of your house and reside in it as long as I want doing what I want with it....who owns the house?

And no it doesn't, you are zoned in on ownership again and ignoring the rest of the definition.

I’m not, I’m zoned in on what was actually written and not what you tell me it means, unless you can show us where it is written.

We’re also waiting for you to show us ……

What you need to do is give us an authoritative definition of at what point our capitalist society ceases to be a Capitalist society and becomes a Socialist one. If you can’t your theory doesn’t have any validity and is worthless in determining what kind of society we have.

Why so coy? Show us.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Very close!!! Minus the whole " from his completely unregulated and uncontrolled capitalist utopia" ascription.

Ooooooh sorry, see what happens when we start leaving out, or putting in words in a sentence.

Let’s say we live in a society that has no control and no regulation at all over the means of production, you’re calling this Capitalism, right?

To which you replied….

That would be a pure free market economy yes.

I wonder if the guys who wrote the dictionaries would feel equally aggrieved at you inserting “control” in their sentences and gleefully missing out ownership. Hmmmmm!

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, we are in agreement. The same shit, with different words.

anyone can make bullshit money like you.

No they can't, it's tightly controlled licence.

I’m not

You've repeatedly ignored everything in the definition except "government ownership" and refuse to accept the rest of the definition.



You can't even answer the questions about ownership either...because the answer would back me up.

If I take your car from you, drive it, use it for my own gain indefinitely, park it at my house and deny you access to it except to service/maintenance it......who owns that car??



Ownership =/= a 'Department of' sign....Ownership is control.

 

[richard_daily]

Control is ownership. If I come take your car and I control it indefinitely would you still consider yourself the owner?

How about I come throw you and all your shit out of your house and reside in it as long as I want doing what I want with it....who owns the house?

And no it doesn't, you are zoned in on ownership again and ignoring the rest of the definition.

So because someone COULD take your car, that's "ownership".

So you think ALL government is socialism.

 

[Hypoxia]

So because someone COULD take your car, that's "ownership".

So you think ALL government is socialism.

Are sales taxes socialist?
Is asset forfeiture socialist?
Is eminent domain socialist?
Are land zoning codes socialist?
Are anti-pollution laws socialist?
Are public parks socialist?
Is the US Army socialist?

 

[richard_daily]

Are sales taxes socialist?
Is asset forfeiture socialist?
Is eminent domain socialist?
Are land zoning codes socialist?
Are anti-pollution laws socialist?
Are public parks socialist?
Is the US Army socialist?

You'd have to ask botony boy. I'm a bit better with basic definitions than to make that mistake.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So because someone COULD take your car, that's "ownership".

No.

I'm asking a question.

If I take your car from you by force, drive it, use it for my own gain indefinitely, park it at my house and deny you access to it except to maintenance it and deal with the upkeep on it. You don't get a say so in the matter, if you want to even see it you gotta come ask my permission.

Who owns that car??

So you think ALL government is socialism.

For the umpteenth time...no.

I think any political theory that advocates government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services is socialism.

I think that laws that control the means, are socialist in nature, I think the people and parties who push those laws are socialist. What kind of socialist is just a matter of who's stealing from who and what sales pitch it was sold on.

 

[richard_daily]

No.

I'm asking a question.

If I take your car from you by force, drive it, use it for my own gain indefinitely, park it at my house and deny you access to it except to maintenance it and deal with the upkeep on it. You don't get a say so in the matter, if you want to even see it you gotta come ask my permission.

Who owns that car??



For the umpteenth time...no.

I think any political theory that advocates government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services is socialism.

I think that laws that control the means, are socialist in nature, I think the people and parties who push those laws are socialist. What kind of socialist is just a matter of who's stealing from who and what sales pitch it was sold on.

So in your example of the car ownership... what are you attempting to imply?

Is government regulation, socialism?

yes or no?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

You can't even answer the questions about ownership either...because the answer would back me up.

If I take your car from you, drive it, use it for my own gain indefinitely, park it at my house and deny you access to it except to service/maintenance it......who owns that car??

Oh I can, it’s just that the question is asinine and not even relevant to what we are discussing.

If you took my car I have a number of options:

Refuse to service/maintain it.
Refuse to return it during service/maintenance
I could legally, forcibly, take it back
Pay a 3rd party to take it back
Take you to court to gain its return
Sell it to a 3rd party and let them deal with it by any of the means above or how they saw fit.
You could never include it in a list of assets or use it as collateral for another purchase or credit.
You could never sell it.......because you don't own it. I OWN IT!

Tell you what, go to a hire company today and hire a car; control the hell out of the mofo for as long as you can without paying for it and see what happens and who OWNS IT.

You've repeatedly ignored everything in the definition except "government ownership" and refuse to accept the rest of the definition.
Ownership =/= a 'Department of' sign....Ownership is control.

I’m not I’m waiting for you to show us where it says any such thing which doesn’t require you to say “yeah but bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Why won’t you?

We’re also waiting for you to show us……

What you need to do is give us an authoritative definition of at what point our capitalist society ceases to be a Capitalist society and becomes a Socialist one. If you can’t your theory doesn’t have any validity and is worthless in determining what kind of society we have.

And you can’t do that either.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

So in your example of the car ownership... what are you attempting to imply?

Is government regulation, socialism?

yes or no?

Answer the question....

Oh I can, it’s just that the question is asinine and not even relevant to what we are discussing.

If you took my car I have a number of options:

No you don't....this is government regulation, control and administration buddy.

You better take care of that car, pay for that car and you only get to use the car when and how I approve of or you're going to fucking prison.

Who owns the car??

 

[richard_daily]

No you don't....this is government regulation, control and administration buddy.

You better take care of that car, pay for that car and you only get to use the car when and how I approve of or you're going to fucking prison.

Who owns the car??

So you believe that all government regulation is socialism.