Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 5:38 am to make sure we are all on the same page, Australia, England, Germany have effective national health schemes and none of these nations are even remotely communist.

We are indeed all on the same page on this point.

The point was that, of the various ways to run a national health system, leftists tend to favour the more centralised options.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 2:07 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 5:38 am to make sure we are all on the same page, Australia, England, Germany have effective national health schemes and none of these nations are even remotely communist.

We are indeed all on the same page on this point.

The point was that, of the various ways to run a national health system, leftists tend to favour the more centralised options.

I don't see much point of talking about "leftists", given that there are only a handful of left wing nations, most of which are in Scandinavia, and now they are under threat from Mother Russia.

China and Russia are not actually Communist societies, they are extreme right wing capitalist authoritarian states, and working towards totalitarianism. NK, of course, is already a totalitarian state. Totalitarianism transcends left/right divide, being based on a cult of personality and a single man's desires, be it Kim, Xi, Putin or others who admire and hope to emulate their power.

The left looks dead to me, its corpse twitching with a few trivial PC complaints from some young idealists from the far left, who are soon to be silenced. The political centre is also in deep trouble, being kept alive by a cowed minority who see pragmatism in politics as more effective than ideology. I suspect they will also be silenced.

We have seen all this before, in the 1940s. Centrists and lefties had best enjoy their free speech now because their opinions will soon incur painful costs. Ideologists are taking over and we know that every single time a an extreme ideologue takes control of a nation, that society becomes weaker, dumber and sadder until the system collapses under its own hubris. They always look good at first - getting things done and appearing dynamic - but then the consequences of their ill-conceived polices take hold and there is a spiral downward.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 8:49 pm

Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 2:07 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 5:38 am to make sure we are all on the same page, Australia, England, Germany have effective national health schemes and none of these nations are even remotely communist.

We are indeed all on the same page on this point.

The point was that, of the various ways to run a national health system, leftists tend to favour the more centralised options.

I don't see much point of talking about "leftists", given that there are only a handful of left wing nations, most of which are in Scandinavia, and now they are under threat from Mother Russia.

China and Russia are not actually Communist societies, they are extreme right wing capitalist authoritarian states, and working towards totalitarianism. NK, of course, is already a totalitarian state. Totalitarianism transcends left/right divide, being based on a cult of personality and a single man's desires, be it Kim, Xi, Putin or others who admire and hope to emulate their power.

The left looks dead to me, its corpse twitching with a few trivial PC complaints from some young idealists from the far left, who are soon to be silenced. The political centre is also in deep trouble, being kept alive by a cowed minority who see pragmatism in politics as more effective than ideology. I suspect they will also be silenced.

We have seen all this before, in the 1940s. Centrists and lefties had best enjoy their free speech now because their opinions will soon incur painful costs. Ideologists are taking over and we know that every single time an extreme ideologue takes control of a nation, that society becomes weaker, dumber and sadder until the system collapses under its own hubris. They always look good at first - getting things done and appearing dynamic - but then the consequences of their ill-conceived policies take hold and there is a spiral downward.

Once again this is so at odds with the perception of a clear 'left-shift' happening everywhere as a result of soft living giving wide-eyed optimism to lazy intellects. China, Russia & NK are remnants of what was once a conservative world. They are relics of the past facing extinction in the next few years. The Russians are presently fighting a last stand in an attempt to secure their country from the Left, NATO is that face in this instance.

The left will be silenced, are you kidding. It is the Right that is being silenced. It was the most powerful conservative leader in the world at the time that was censored by the Left dominated social networking media while attempting his January 6th insurrection.

The Left is an emerging monster, a Hydra of which feminism is its most horrific head. It will crush all opposition in its attempts to eliminate any perceptions of patriarchy. Putin's was a rebound, a temporary return to conservative rule, as a consequence he now has limited time being eventually replaced by a most probably yet unknown, but most certainly female, Gorbachev.

Gregory A wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 10:15 pmt was the most powerful conservative leader in the world at the time that was censored by the Left dominated social networking media while attempting his January 6th insurrection.

Er, no. Trump was banned from Twitter for repeatedly breaching the rules of the platform. That is not silencing or censoring, that is administering according to an organisation's rules.

Today's world is so out of touch with reality, that not being able to make multiple Tweets per day is being seen as silencing. No President in US history has ever had such a platform for communication, and even more so given that Fox was basically his personal media outlet, allowing him unlimited coverage and interviewers giving him the royal Dorothy Dix treatment.

There were also numerous other outlets he used, and could use, that politicians have always used. Yes, they deal with hostile interviews, but this has always been the case - unless a "leader" cannot deal with any challenge to his opinion.

Never mind, it seems likely that Trump can lead the US to become the single party authoritarian state, which is what his followers want.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 10:38 pm

Gregory A wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 10:15 pmt was the most powerful conservative leader in the world at the time that was censored by the Left dominated social networking media while attempting his January 6th insurrection.

Er, no. Trump was banned from Twitter for repeatedly breaching the rules of the platform. That is not silencing or censoring, that is administering according to an organisation's rules.

Today's world is so out of touch with reality, that not being able to make multiple Tweets per day is being seen as silencing. No President in US history has ever had such a platform for communication, and even more so given that Fox was basically his personal media outlet, allowing him unlimited coverage and interviewers giving him the royal Dorothy Dix treatment.

There were also numerous other outlets he used, and could use, that politicians have always used. Yes, they deal with hostile interviews, but this has always been the case - unless a "leader" cannot deal with any challenge to his opinion.

Never mind, it seems likely that Trump can lead the US to become the single party authoritarian state, which is what his followers want.

I can't believe anyone is still resorting to technicalities as a defense in the face of what was one of the most overbearingly blatant political censorships in history. No algorithm would pick up what were the charges, instead his posts would have been monitored by Twitter, and being flagged by his opponents.

Inciting Violence? If that's not a 'trumped' up charge. Regardless media should not censor politicians. If Trump was involved in criminality then that is for the law to take care of. That didn't happen of course because there was no incitement of violence. And as you well know, the USA owes its existence to insurrection and still has as part of its constitution the right of a militia to bear arms. And the massive fail that January 6 represents, with its one home loss, led by the most powerful person in the world at the time should tell you how weak the Right actually is.

Communism has always been a flawed concept brought into existence by laidback middle-class academic types pimping the plight of the working class in the same way feminism pimps the plight of women in its quest for power.

And I should add that as a result of left-shift, the movement of the modern media to the left in this instance, tracking the outlook of its customers as a result of younger management and the need for financial survival, has left FOX a pillar of free speech, a non-sustainable balance existing, forcing itself too, to shift to the left in time. The Right completely losing its voice over the next decade. A necessary precursor to feminism's rule.

If anyone else had flouted Twitter's terms of service so blatantly, they would have been kicked off much sooner.

Yes, Trump did pointlessly create numerous public health risks by using COVID to play political games. His irresponsible behaviour greatly increased COVID deaths, probably by hundred of thousands. And yes, Trump certainly incited violence, and it was highly effective too. The world saw his goons take over the Capitol after he fired them up with cynical lies at the rally. They were looking to hang Pence and kill Pelosi, and of course, they actually did kill a police officer.

If Trump wants unfettered access to social media, without having to comply to a company's policies, then he can create his own. As things turn out, he has a platform designed only for him, but few want to use it, not even him. He's only posted on it once.

Companies have the right to draft their own policies and to administer them. End of story. It's up to users of services to work within the rules. This is known as taking responsibility for one's actions.

Your arguments against Communism rely solely on ad hominems and slippery slope arguments. There's no content to refute or endorse.

Correction: Nancy Pelosi, a feminist in democrats clothing. They are both on the same side regardless.

More ad hominem attacks. Noted.

FACT: Twitter had policies about posting and Trump broke them every day - hundred of times - before the Board acted. You just think his already-special treatment should be without limits.

Of course Trump was aware that he had to muddy the waters with mixed messages - "peacefully" - to avoid being easily prosecuted for incitement. His supporters knew the game he was playing and could read between the lines. I saw Trump supporters discuss these things all the time on message boards. His fans just figured he was terribly clever to cover his tracks.

If Trump had not incited the mob, they would not have left the rally to storm the Capitol. Indisputable. Further evidence is Trump's seven hours of phone logs during the insurrection he incited that is somehow "missing".

QED.

Look, we get the message. Now could you please stop hijacking this thread now and find another place to spruik Trump's conspiracy theories? Thank you.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 7:56 am At the extremes, the original ideology tends to disappear, leaving only authoritarianism in its wake.

Fair point. If an ideology is "extreme", I.e. a long way from what the majority want, then it's going to have to be imposed strongly or fail.

But arguably communism - the absence of private property - will always be a long way from what the majority want. It's human nature to want control over one's immediate surroundings, and that means having stuff of one's own that is safe from being messed up by other people.

People vote for extremist parties when they lose hope that things will get better under the moderate parties.

Gregory A wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 2:30 am Incredible arrogance on display here. What you're saying is just at the moment of the insurrection Twitter decided that Trump was in violation of the rules. One hell of a coincidence there.

Wasn't attention focussed more on Trump immediately after he led a failed coup attempt to derail the democratic system then in place in his country of the USA?

Gregory A wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 7:42 am Fact: An ad-hom uses psychology to undermine an opponent's position.

An ad hominem attack targets the messenger, not the message, and for that reason it is recognised as logically invalid. Of course, ad hominem attacks are used to undermine an opponent's position, as you say. But anyone who resorts to ad hominem attacks has surely run out of arguments to support their own position?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 12th, 2022, 7:56 am At the extremes, the original ideology tends to disappear, leaving only authoritarianism in its wake.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 4:01 am Fair point. If an ideology is "extreme", I.e. a long way from what the majority want, then it's going to have to be imposed strongly or fail. But arguably communism - the absence of private property - will always be a long way from what the majority want.

I don't think extremism can be defined as "a long way from what the majority want", although that may also be the case. Extreme describes something on the edges of the collected beliefs and opinions of all. Communism, and most other political systems too, are (in their non-extreme forms) pretty much what the majority want. The majority tends to favour a middle-path approach, in general.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 11:10 am

Gregory A wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 7:42 am Fact: An ad-hom uses psychology to undermine an opponent's position.

An ad hominem attack targets the messenger, not the message, and for that reason it is recognised as logically invalid. Of course, ad hominem attacks are used to undermine an opponent's position, as you say. But anyone who resorts to ad hominem attacks has surely run out of arguments to support their own position?

Exactly right.

If one rests one's entire argument two logical fallacies - starting with an extreme slippery slope claim and then relying only on ad hominem attacks if anyone disagrees - then one is not engaging in philosophy, but the opposite. It was emotionally-based ideas and manipulation by power figures that brought about philosophy as an antidote, a way of parsing reliable and unreliable claims, and identifying why those claims lack merit.

I love science but its tendency to reject philosophy results in a loss of philosophical skills, such as constructing justifiable arguments and validly backing them up. Now it's just a game of undermining others, leading to division and demonisation of "the other side" that is undermining democracy. Authoritarians can only prosper when informed analysis are sidelined, which is why every dictator immediately targets academics.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 8:16 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 11:10 am

Gregory A wrote: ↑April 13th, 2022, 7:42 am Fact: An ad-hom uses psychology to undermine an opponent's position.

An ad hominem attack targets the messenger, not the message, and for that reason it is recognised as logically invalid. Of course, ad hominem attacks are used to undermine an opponent's position, as you say. But anyone who resorts to ad hominem attacks has surely run out of arguments to support their own position?

Exactly right.

If one rests one's entire argument to logical fallacies - starting with an extreme slippery slope claim and then relying only on ad hominem attacks if anyone disagrees - then one is not engaging in philosophy, but the opposite. It was emotionally-based ideas and manipulation by power figures that brought about philosophy as an antidote, a way of parsing reliable and unreliable claims, and identifying why those claims lack merit.

I love science but its tendency to reject philosophy results in a loss of philosophical skills, such as constructing justifiable arguments and validly backing them up. Now it's just a game of undermining others, leading to division and demonisation of "the other side" that is undermining democracy. Authoritarians can only prosper when informed analysis are sidelined, which is why every dictator immediately targets academics.

That's mostly right despite the hypocrisy contained in the last paragraph. But what it implies is wrong because it is directed, be it indirectly at me.

Disagrees? Is not any type of logical argument. It is arrogance in one word.

And, as I've pointed out to you before, an argument is stronger in all instances than its outright dismissal. The claim that the sun rises in the morning remains valid regardless of any dismissals that aren't substantiated. Arrogance not winning any arguments.

Academics are a product of a particular lifestyle. It is this lifestyle that cultures leftist leanings. A situation that formal education can not deal with.
Life in the real world gives a more realistic outlook culturing conservative understandings as it does.

The environment that fosters conservative values a hard one and the reason why workers and business people under constant threat of unemployment or bankruptcy and regular financial pressures have no time for philosophy much other that is than Darwin's Theory, Survival of the Fittest which may be the ultimate, if so only, philosophy.

And without yourself resorting to technicalities your above post adds to the post above it making your reply a reply to mine. As I'd said if you want to keep this up I will exercise my right to defend my position from what in this instance is an indirect attack still.