Using basic terms incorrectly...

[oggbashan]

Repeated since he keeps repeating himself.

BotanyBoy's statements only mean:

It is so because I say so and I will keep saying it until you believe.

We don't accept your twisted interpretation of the definitions. You can keep repeating as much as you like. It does not make your statements true.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Repeated since he keeps repeating himself.

You're continuing to just make shit up at this point, because we moved past that some time ago. I clearly didn't repeat myself, just denied your lies and bullshiting about what you think I think.

Can you even answer the simple question as to what you think the American dream is?

Or are you just going to engage in more ascription, wild fantasies and maybe some name calling?

 

[oggbashan]

You're continuing to just make shit up at this point.

I clearly didn't repeat myself.

Can you even answer the simple question as to what you think the American dream is?

Or are you just going to engage in more ascription, wild fantasies and maybe some name calling?

You are diverting again. You don't answer questions. You don't accept answers when your questions are answered and your faulty logic is pointed out over and over again.

YOU are the one constantly engaging in more ascription, wild fantasies and maybe some name calling.

Your fantasies about what socialism is are off the scale.

What is the American Dream? There are whole libraries about it. What it means to different people? That is America's problem. The division between those who believe in one version of America and those who believe in another has got wider and has created hatred where there was just disagreement before.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You are diverting again. You don't answer questions. You don't accept answers when your questions are answered and your faulty logic is pointed out over and over again.

YOU are the one constantly engaging in more ascription, wild fantasies and maybe some name calling.

Your fantasies about what socialism is are off the scale.

Fine, you don't want to hear what I have to say on the subject, we've already agreed on that and moved on.

What is the American Dream? There are whole libraries about it.

I didn't ask you if there were libraries about it.

I asked you what YOU think it is.

Since you know that socialism is not the enemy of that dream I figured you'd at least be able to toss out a rough summary.

What it means to different people? That is America's problem. The division between those who believe in one version of America and those who believe in another has got wider and has created hatred where there was just disagreement before.

That's because both sides have gotten honest and are trying to control one another via government force...they don't even try to hide it or care how anymore.

Fuck the other team, troll them to the fullest extent of what the law allows, is all that maters to either side.

 

[richard_daily]

Ummmm to prevent things like bhopal disaster, for example.

Woof!

Or you know.... three mile island, or Chernobyl, or faulty airbags...

apparently, in a "non socialist utopia" Chernobyl would have been prevented by...

by what exactly?

The free market would fix it how?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I just said I thought they used that word because it covers everything.

Are we going to have to go through the whole dictionary for you?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ownership

The act, state, or right of possessing something.
‘the ownership of land’
‘the rise in car ownership’

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ownership.html

The ultimate and exclusive right conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, sell, use, give away, or even destroy an item of property.
Ownership may be corporeal (title to a tangible object such as a house) or incorporeal (title to an intangible object, such as a copyright, or a right to recover debt). Possession (as in tenancy) does not necessarily mean ownership because it does not automatically transfer title.

It's not stealing when the government does it!!!

In your bizarre, irrelevant, scenario and assuming I can’t sell the property and they have paid me nothing for it, it is.

So control is ownership, is it not?

Control IS ownership, but the things that you are claiming to be control quite simply, is not.

A regulation is not control over something. You are messing up the definitions of control there.

control (kən-trōlˈ)►

v.
To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
v.
To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.
v.
To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.


You're conflating those terms and one type of control for another.

You are absolutely only using a part of the dictionary definition for socialism, as has been pointed out to you at least a dozen times in this thread. It's clearly been laid out, and you've just refused to accept it. Everyone else is wrong, except you.

You are so completely sure of yourself, that logic and reason are having no effect on you.

It's similar to our orange president... and look at all the problems he's having. You have a lot less control than he does. And he's having a lot of emotional outbursts too. I can understand why yours would be even greater.

Depends on the regulations, because you can own through regulations without ever hanging your "Department of _____" sign on the door.

See quotes above

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

To do what?

If regulation isn't control as you say.... then regulation is totally 100% meaningless bullshit that does NOTHING. It's just some old fucks writing rules for themselves to jerk off over.

Regulation only amounts to fuck all if it's controlling peoples behavior, coercing them do certain things a certain way or face penalties under the law.

Stop people dying due to negligence or unscrupulous behaviour, you idiot.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Or you know.... three mile island, or Chernobyl, or faulty airbags...

apparently, in a "non socialist utopia" Chernobyl would have been prevented by...

by what exactly?

The free market would fix it how?

The truly laughable thing is any regulation/control on business that would have prevented those kinda things happening is one step along his socialist scale.

Yeah it's really that fucked up.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Ya know something just occurred to me…..

I just said I thought they used that word because it covers everything.

Yeah you did, didn’tcha and you were wrong.

This whole thread is full of your thoughts, your “critical thinking” But “look past” But “look beyond” But “regulation=ownership,” But“ think about “ etc and each and every one has been proven wrong.

Don’t you think it might be a good idea to stop gazing dreamily outta the window "thinking" and actually read up on some of this?

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

In your bizarre, irrelevant, scenario and assuming I can’t sell the property and they have paid me nothing for it, it is.

Why would they pay you for it? You get to hold the title.....you own it buddy!!!

They just control it, totally not the same thing right?

Stop people dying due to negligence or unscrupulous behaviour, you idiot.

Woof!

That doesn't make regulations not a method of control, you idiot.

This is the moronic statement you're trying to back up here..

A regulation is not control over something.

Ya know something just occurred to me…..

Yeah you did, didn’tcha and you were wrong.

If I'm wrong then how come in the scenario we are discussing in which the government is merely controlling your property you think government stole the property from you??



Control isn't ownership right? So the government isn't stealing....

 

[BotanyBoy]

Or you know.... three mile island, or Chernobyl, or faulty airbags...

apparently, in a "non socialist utopia" Chernobyl would have been prevented by...

by what exactly?

The free market would fix it how?

I never said the free market would prevent it or anything.

And none of that shit has anything to do with weather or not a regulation is control or just meaningless words on some government document that's wholly ignored because it's meaningless.

 

[richard_daily]

I never said the free market would prevent it or anything.

And none of that shit has anything to do with weather or not a regulation is control or just meaningless words on some government document that's wholly ignored because it's meaningless.

In your personal opinion... how would the free market prevent companies from doing serious harm such as what happened in Chernobyl, without regulations?

 

[BotanyBoy]

In your personal opinion... how would the free market prevent companies from doing serious harm such as what happened in Chernobyl, without regulations?

You're assuming I think that it would.

I don't think the free market would prevent any companies from doing serious harm.

Not any more than uber regulations did in preventing a socialist left wing state like the Soviet Union from doing serious harm, like in Chernobyl.

Because shit happens.

 

[richard_daily]

You're assuming I think that it would.

I don't think the free market would prevent any companies from doing serious harm.

Not any more than uber regulations did in preventing a socialist left wing state like the Soviet Union from doing serious harm, like in Chernobyl.

Because shit happens.

Since you can't (or won't) comprehend what socialism actually is, from now on, when I am talking about what you think socialism is, I'll just put it in quotes.

You do realize that of the two agencies that overlooked nuclear power plants, the soviet union took part in neither... so what "regulations" did "socialist left swing" soviet union take part in?

Do you consider The International Atomic Energy Agency to be a "socialist" entity too?

Should they be disbanded?

What "socialism" is good in your eyes?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Since you can't (or won't) comprehend what socialism actually is,

I comprehend just fine, I'm just looking at it from a liberal capitalist POV instead of a defensive reactionary (and likely socialist) one.

from now on, when I am talking about what you think socialism is, I'll just put it in quotes.

You don't seem to have a clue as to what I think socialism is, you seem more intent on ascription than anything.

Do you consider The International Atomic Energy Agency to be a "socialist" entity too?

No.

Should they be disbanded?

I don't see any reason why.

What "socialism" is good in your eyes?

UHC is a good one

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Why would they pay you for it? You get to hold the title.....you own it buddy!!!

They just control it, totally not the same thing right?



That doesn't make regulations not a method of control, you idiot.

This is the moronic statement you're trying to back up here..






If I'm wrong then how come in the scenario we are discussing in which the government is merely controlling your property you think government stole the property from you??



Control isn't ownership right? So the government isn't stealing....

I really don’t see what you think you’ve proved here other than the government have assumed de facto ownership and control of my property for no compensation; this is no different than if someone takes anything from anyone. You’ve also not understood the hire car example over the page or the definition of control.

Where the hire company has control through ownership.

You as the person who hired the car have control of the car and the government has control over both through regulation.

All have a different form of control depending in which context it’s being used.

If you’re trying to say that due to an amount of regulation/ control, at some point, I have effectively lost ownership AND Control and the government is the de facto owner in control, then we’ve just fallen down same the logical rabbit hole we were in, just over the page.

Then what you need to do is give us an authoritative definition of under which regulation or number thereof I cease effective ownership/control of my property and the government becomes the de facto owner with control. If you can’t your theory doesn’t have any validity and is worthless in determining who has ownership.

Show us where or how we can empirically evaluate this.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

You don't seem to have a clue as to what I think socialism is, you seem more intent on ascription than anything.

Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to lay it out for us then; exactly what you think Socialism is from the definitions.

Because so far all you’ve given us is an utter determination to deny socialism his ownership of major heavy industries and equally determined to prove that socialism is due to some sliding scale of regulating control.

So what is it, referencing the authoritative definitions?

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

I really don’t see what you think you’ve proved here other than the government have assumed de facto ownership and control of my property for no compensation; this is no different than if someone takes anything from anyone.

That ownership is more than just a title....it's control.

If you don't have control then you're just a slave holding a piece of paper, you don't actually own shit.

Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to lay it out for us then; exactly what you think Socialism is from the definitions.

Exactly what the definitions say it is.

Because so far all you’ve given us is an utter determination to deny socialism his ownership of major heavy industries

No I haven't, I'm saying that people/policies/parties can be of a socialist nature and promote socialism without official government ownership of major heavy industries already in place. That you don't have to have a "Department of _____" sign on the door for the government to be the effective owner over an entire market.

and equally determined to prove that socialism is due to some sliding scale of regulating control.

Because socialist can push socialist policy in a political/economic environment that isn't already a full on totalitarian Marxist-Leninist style socialist state.

So what is it, referencing the authoritative definitions?

Woof!

Exactly what they say it is.

Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

You just have to stop ignoring that part of the definition and realize it's not saying you have to have a state of total ownership for there to be socialist doing socialist shit in a government/party/society.

 

[Que]

That ownership is more than just a title....it's control.

If you don't have control then you're just a slave holding a piece of paper, you don't actually own shit.



Exactly what the definitions say it is.



No I haven't, I'm saying that people/policies/parties can be of a socialist nature and promote socialism without official government ownership of major heavy industries already in place. That you don't have to have a "Department of _____" sign on the door for the government to be the effective owner over an entire market.



Because socialist can push socialist policy in a political/economic environment that isn't already a full on totalitarian Marxist-Leninist style socialist state.



Exactly what they say it is.

Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

You just have to stop ignoring that part of the definition and realize it's not saying you have to have a state of total ownership for there to be socialist doing socialist shit in a government/party/society.

The problem you're having is they don't understand the concept of socialism by a thousand cuts.

- Because each and every one of those little paper cuts are things that they advicate and believe are reasonable, proper, and in fact necessary for the greater good.

The idea that the individual is supreme and the greater good is subservient to the needs of the individuals not the collective is a foreign concept.

Government control and ownership of our educational system has been very helpful in this regard.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

That ownership is more than just a title....it's control.

If you don't have control then you're just a slave holding a piece of paper, you don't actually own shit.

Of course; ownership is the right of possessing something over which you have authoritative control.

But, that’s still not the same as regulating controls which are an adjustment to a requirement.

Exactly what the definitions say it is.

Which is…..

Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership

.
Right?

No I haven't, I'm saying that people/policies/parties can be of a socialist nature and promote socialism without official government ownership of major heavy industries already in place.

Of course, no one has said anything else; that’s why my first post on this topic was…….

(snip)….. to mean anything, socialism has to be a desire for the means by which society produces things to be held in common, by the whole of that society (snip)….

Anyone or group who “promotes” or has a “desire” for social ownership is a socialist. That’s exactly what I said; which you then attempted to alter in to your sliding scale of regulation and by the looks of things still are.

That Because socialist can push socialist policy in a political/economic environment that isn't already a full on totalitarian Marxist-Leninist style socialist state.

Of course; if at least part of that policy "promotes" state/collective/cooperative ownership of the means of production and/or redistribution of wealth, yes. If not, then no.

I think you could make an argument that promoting universal single payer healthcare could accurately be termed socialist and I don’t think there’s anything to dispute.
You promoting single payer makes you a socialist in many of your countrymen’s minds. Are you a socialist?

Exactly what they say it is.

Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

You just have to stop ignoring that part of the definition and realize it's not saying you have to have a state of total ownership for there to be socialist doing socialist shit in a government/party/society.

And tell us, from this definition, what do these “various economic and political theories” HAVE to “advocate” for it/them to be socialist?

It’s just the next four words…..come on you can do it, tell us what they are?

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Of course; ownership is the right of possessing something over which you have authoritative control.

HOLY SHIT YOU FINALLY GOT IT!!!

But, that’s still not the same as regulating controls which are an adjustment to a requirement.

Bullshit....authoritative control is authoritative control.

What kind of control is irrelevant.

And tell us, from this definition, what do these “various economic and political theories” HAVE to “advocate” for it/them to be socialist?

It’s just the next four words…..come on you can do it, tell us what they are?

Woof!

Ownership....which is control.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The problem you're having is they don't understand the concept of socialism by a thousand cuts.

- Because each and every one of those little paper cuts are things that they advicate and believe are reasonable, proper, and in fact necessary for the greater good.

Well they seem to think it's either totalitarian Marxist-Leninist socialism....or there is nothing socialist at all about government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.

20,000 pages of government regulations telling you how to run your bidnizz from top to bottom? 8 bureaucracies you need to jump through hoops for before you can open a lemonade stand or we'll SWAT team you like a cocaine kingpin for stepping on Jamba Juice turf?

That's just public safety!

TOTALLY FREE MARKET CAPITALISM BRUH!!!

The idea that the individual is supreme and the greater good is subservient to the needs of the individuals not the collective is a foreign concept.

http://i.imgur.com/aFhWSah.gif

Government control and ownership of our educational system has been very helpful in this regard.

Indeed....

 

[richard_daily]

Well they seem to think it's either totalitarian Marxist-Leninist socialism....or there is nothing socialist at all about government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.

20,000 pages of government regulations telling you how to run your bidnizz from top to bottom? 8 bureaucracies you need to jump through hoops for before you can open a lemonade stand or we'll SWAT team you like a cocaine kingpin for stepping on Jamba Juice turf?

That's just public safety!

TOTALLY FREE MARKET CAPITALISM BRUH!!!



http://i.imgur.com/aFhWSah.gif

Indeed....

You're catastrophizing and making shit up. You don't need to jump through hoops before opening a lemonade stand, and no one is SWAT teaming you. If that's your baseline, you're basically just inventing your entire argument, lock, stock, and barrel.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're catastrophizing and making shit up.

What did I make up exactly?

You don't need to jump through hoops before opening a lemonade stand, and no one is SWAT teaming you.

LOL reality check bubba....you can't just open a lemonade stand. Or any business for that matter.

There have been quite a few lemonade stands and lawn boys shut down by police intervention. Gotta have operational permits state, county and or municipal, food handlers licences and insurance at a bare minimum in pretty much every state.

Where have you been since 1980??

20/20 had NYPD shutting their lemonade stand down in less than an hour. California isn't any better, shooting farmers for feeding homeless people and shit, treating them and their families like violent criminals because they aren't distributing their products through only of the handful of state approved facilities.

If that's your baseline, you're basically just inventing your entire argument, lock, stock, and barrel.

Inventing my entire argument?

Are you saying the US has an unregulated free market and people can just open up whatever bidnizz they want?

LOL you can be willfully ignorant all you want, but anyone who's looked into opening any kind of business for themselves knows better. There are consultants out there in every industry who make a living navigating the government minefield for people who have more money than time to figure the shit out.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

HOLY SHIT YOU FINALLY GOT IT!!!



Bullshit....authoritative control is authoritative control.
What kind of control is irrelevant.



Ownership....which is control

So you don’t understand the definition of control either! What kind of control is irrelevant is it?

As you drive your hire car away from the lot you are in control; does that mean you can sell it, drive it as fast as you wish, paint it another colour? So is this control as same as the control of ownership?

The state is controlling/regulating what speed you drive, the condition of the tyres, and many other parameters; does that mean they can sell it, rent it to someone else, paint it another colour? So is this control as same as the control of ownership?

Of course not and it would be silly to suggest it; which is why ownership is an important part in the definition and regulation irrelevant except to you and your wish to make it whatever you don't like.

Woof!