you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Worse than capitalism despite being more well intentioned.

Cs Lewis nailed it while talking about religion:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Ask yourself, do you really want the people of .ml holding power over every facet of your life?

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    OP asked about communism, not marxism-leninism specifically

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    If you're trying to say true communism hasn't been tried please let me stop you because that's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

    Everyone who's ever instituted a flavor of communism would call their preferred flavor "true communism."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself. I'm not talking about a "truer" or "purer" form of communism which marxist leninists failed to realise, because the definition I'm working with - of communism as a classless, stateless, moneyless society (and the ideas and ideologies branching from that definition) - encompasses far more than that specific ideology. This isn't even a defence of communism - if anything, I'm pointing out there are other facets of communism that would make for a more interesting discussion than rehashing how bad the soviets were for the millionth time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    "Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself."

    What fallacy is that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Hey, idk all the names people have made up to categorise fallacies, but I do know you misapplied the no true scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, or at least a misunderstanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I think you're just angry that I preempted you with an argument you can't refute.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I guess it's easy to convince yourself of that when you haven't really engaged with what I said, lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Says the guy who cried fallacy but couldn't name what it is.

    You're not a serious person, I engaged with what you said and you couldn't respond with shit. You are obviously just pissed that I preempted what you were going to say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Lol what? Are you a troll? Or a bot?

    Fallacy is just faulty reasoning, I don't need to know all the ins and outs of how philosophers/logicians categorise them to know how to point out faulty reasoning. Knowing how to reason about things is far more important than throwing around buzzwords.

    You accuse me of not being studious, yet you refuse to actually engage with what I say - you know what kind of fallacy that is? An ad hominem. Even a supposed ignoramus like me knows that. I wonder what that makes you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments