Not when you consider the cost to replace a battery in a Tesla. Sure, it may only cost a few dollars to charge the car, but when the battery fails - you're looking at $10k to replace it.
Lithium is collected by strip mining - which is very environmentally damaging.
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
2 replies
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
democrats don't disable comments.
you guys do.
[deleted]
1 up, 3y
Don’t apologize for it. It’s because of trolls like you that I do.
They were actually doing the same thing (along with forced slavery, murder and rape) to those Russian communities (such as my grandmother's people)which resisted their commune farming practices and/or had royal blood somewhere in their lineage. The Bolsheviks were horrible, savage monsters.
https://i.imgflip.com/5vu3n0.jpg
i never made a racist comment. you were acting like you were on drugs, i asked you if you wee, you denied it, i asked about alcohol since many people don't consider it a drug, then you pulled the race card.
A bunch of my comments got deleted because you, or your PeeToo buddies, flagged them, so here’s a re-post without the oFfEnSiVe emojis I’ve been using:
Liar. You asked if I was in rehab because I hadn’t made any rebuttals to your BS.
This was AFTER you directed a slightly racial slur towards me after finding out I was Native. It got deleted by a mod for racism, as did the rehab comment.
I’ve never seen you accuse others of this just because they haven’t interacted with you for a while, so why is it just me?
And how many comments have you had deleted for racism?
I know it’s more than just one or two.
Like I said, please, PLEASE, keep being a racist and implying that I’m a drunk, or a druggie (even though I’ve told you I’m clean), because I’d love to see your account deleted.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
2 replies
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
2 replies
your party insists racism no longer exists, not mine.
Ahhh changing the topic! Right, right. But you are the one that brought up socialism and communism and it does has things in common with facism. Don't like being wrong much uh? Did I made you change your view of communism after I exposed it? Nope, I did't think so.
Fascism is completely different. I don't support Communism, part of my family used to live in the USSR! I HATE true communism. Liberals aren't Communist. Fascists aren't Communists. Both extremes are bad. You just hide that your wing has an extreme.
Mexico, for example, is industrialized and also has free healthcare - but you have no choice. No choice in doctor, no choice in treatment. You get what you get, or you get nothing at all.
England has a very strange practice of prolonging and even supporting heroin addiction rather than rehab. The government actually prescribes it to addicts. That isn't a healthcare system I'd look at as a good example.
Other nations with free healthcare also have astronomical taxes....50% and more.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
free gov heroin for users who would otherwise commit crimes to get it from gangs is smart if they refuse rehab and don't commit crimes to get heroin from gangs.
Yeah, Florida has Disney World so those rides qualify as bringing them to par with the modern world.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
And I bought my gaming PC and Robux.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
Imagine comparing red states to Sub-Saharan Africa. There are lots of factories down here, lots of Walmarts, lots of stuff you could find in a blue state.
[deleted]
1 up, 3y
northwest canada - if he went west enough he'd be in russia.
Try again. Fascists are just socialists that are more honest. Instead of saying the people rule, they honestly say the government and corporations rule, which is the case for both. Also totalitarian government is on the far left, whereas no government and anarchy is on the far right of the political spectrum. The most effective governments fall center right with minimal government.
Do you not understand basic logic and the political spectrum? What are you talking about with A++++++++? That's nonsense. The US government used to be mid right of center, lately though its closer to left of center.
"you have degraded. How much more insane did you get in my 3 months of absence???!!!!"
Are you not counting China or something? Please do some research.
This has been explained before. On the political spectrum right means less or no government and left means more government, now how much government do you have in Fascism?
I am pretty far left-libertarian, in the middle of the left and libertarian axis'. I know a moderate Conservative when I see one. That's the Conservative Parties in Europe.
“No one has the right to use someone else's body without their consent. If a woman doesn't consent to a pregnancy, she is not obligated to use her body for it.”
She ‘consented’ when she agreed to have sex. Just because she only did it for the pleasure doesn’t mean she gets to murder a baby.
Don’t bother bringing up rape because I agree that abortion should be allowed when that is the case.
It’s EXACTLY what it means, unless you’re a leftist. Then it means whatever you want it to mean as long as it isn’t applied to you.
(Fascism: a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition)
“It's more than a few. It's even part of the Republican Party platform, if I'm not mistaken”
Where did I mention Republicans? Most conservatives vote Republican because they hate the Democrat’s policies, not because they agree with the entire Republican platform.
“Again, there are many conservatives who want to regulate and control that”
I’ve never even heard of anyone beyond a few extremists even mention that stuff. If you want to have a quickie at your next truck stop with some random guy, go right ahead. I don’t care.
Just because I don’t approve of it, doesn’t mean I want to make consensual activities between two (or more) adults illegal.
“ Of course you leave out the parts of the definition that mention nationalism and that fascism is a right wing ideology. The definition you gave is closer to totalitarianism or authoritarianism, not fascism specifically”
EVERY person who calls it a ‘right-wing ideology’ is has a left-wing ideology, so show me some unbiased proof that it’s solely right-wing.
Despite the massive landmass Canada has a population of 38,246,108. In contrast, the United States has a population of 331,449,281. 75 million Americans voted for Donald Trump, that’s far more people than the entire population of your country. I’m not going even going to go over the small countries of Europe you cited. So don’t be dictating to us about shit.
Europe Population: 748,278,998 according to worldometer.
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
I was talking about individual countries of Europe, genius. I was in particularly pointing to the UK and the countries of Scandinavia, which are always being cited by American leftists.
You are correct that "liberals" on the left are not "communists" on the left. However, it is clear that today's American left is moving more and more toward the extreme, away from traditional "liberal politics" to more authoritarian, radical leftism. This should scare everyone given the murderous track record of the left in the twentieth century (some 70-100 million dead under leftist rule).
Of course not. In my previous post I explained that liberals were separate from more radical leftists. It is this latter group that is increasing in number and influence, and is therefore the real danger.
"conservatives in the democrat party broke off and formed the confederacy.
the democrat party that remained in the union fought against the conservative confederates who seceded."
The reality is that the Democrats were in favor of slavery. The victory of the Union made it so that Republicans were able to dominate Congress because the Democrats were quashed.
You were the one who chose this poor strategy in your argument, so you need to accept the ramifications. I would suggest that you not use this strategy in the future because it's a poor strategy. Political groups that exist today are clearly different from those that existed 160 years ago.
Are you referring to the U.S. Civil War that happened 160 years ago, and are you trying to smear modern-day conservatives by vicariously linking them to slaveholders? If so, be very careful with such a tactic. Not only is it intellectually weak, but it's actually self-destructive. If I applied the same tactic, I could simply point out that the slaveholders in the South were part of the Democratic Party.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
conservatives in the democrat party broke off and formed the confederacy.
the democrat party that remained in the union fought against the conservative confederates who seceded.
No, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. Combined with Mao Zedong, Pol-Pot, Castro, Enver Hoxha, Tito, and others, you got a figure pushing a billion people. Your communist ideology has killed more people than any type of government in the history of the world.
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
LOL actually communist China caused that disease to spread you moron.
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
What does that have to do…oh heck, I shouldn’t be wasting my time with a troll like you. Get lost.
The difference is any Christian leader who kills isn’t a real Christian. The Bible specifically forbids it. Killing is a part of Marxism
https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
2 replies
[deleted]
4 ups, 3y,
1 reply
I know exactly what the Bible says, Mao. I know what Jesus taught. I’m not having this debate with a murderous communist like you.
"No, slaveholders in the South were not part of the Democratic Party. They were slaveholders in the South, that's what made them slaveholders in the South."
Please read up on the history of the Democratic Party and you will see that they supported slavery in the South.
Eh? I never claimed citing myself was "proof". I'm merely doing it because the argument isn't progressing to new ground and I can rely on my past statements.
They're correct. I'll note here that you haven't actually shown anything that I have presented to be false.
With that said, I saw you had written an earlier post which relies on the No True Scotsman fallacy. It occurred in your defense of Communism when you made the claim that "Communist countries have all been hijacked by Authoritarian types from inception, which is why all have been in effect the opposite of Marxism, with China coming the closest decades ago, and barely at that".
I have cited my own previous comments to counter your line of argumentation, which is consists of retorts like, "Um, still no". Since you weren't adding any new ideas to the conversation, I can safely refer to my earlier statements.
Your other argumentation consists of ad hominem attacks, such as the groundless claim, "You know nothing of history". It's hard to argue with such pure opinion-based argumentation, but it is what it is.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
Democrats used to be the conservatives, now they’re the liberals. Either way, they’ve always been the retards.
[deleted]
4 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Because communism is a utopian fairy tale story you massive moron.
"Not even close"? Our path is much more in the direction of what China is doing with its iron grip on people's lives.
It's sad that the left has given up its past goals of individual liberty and freedom in favor of using the government to push leftist social objectives by force. The fact that citizenry supports governments that do this is perhaps even sadder.
"That's the spirit, keep lobbing the same tired robotic lies.
Your childish repetitive nonsense begins to bore me a lot?"
Refer to my other statements. When you write replies like that, you're not advancing any actual points of discussion, so there's nothing for me to add.
Do you realize you are falling prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy? Do you not care?
Communism *IS* authoritarianism. You can't possibly claim that Communist regimes around the world, all of which have been authoritarian, aren't actually Communist because they're authoritarian. That's simply a completely unconvincing argument.
"Further, those numbers are a guesstimate at best, and grossly exaggerated propaganda (100,000,000 exact! Nice round number!) at worst, and lump death from anything from firing squads to famines that may have been caused by bad state policy or simply not averted by effective planning.
How many were caused by decisions made by worker referendum? None. How many were caused or compounded by dictators? Nearly all. That's not Communism. That's what Autocrats do."
In my experience debating Communist apologizers like yourself, I hear that exact claim - "That number isn't right!". Even though you can check historians' figures for yourself, you aren't going to believe it.
So naturally, my question to them, which I will now ask of you, is this: what *was* the death toll under Communism? Please, provide some actually concrete numbers. Give a range if you want, but you *must* provide some numbers since you so clearly are disputing the numbers that I provided.
When you provide the numbers, which will undoubtedly still be massive in scale, I will then point to them and show you how Communism is one of the most bloody ideologies in world history.
"Do you have any idea how many DIE just trying to get to Europe and how many they take in?
You cannot demand Communism because it doesn''t work, not on a large scale, anyways. You would have to go to a Kibbutz in Israel or to a Jewish commune in Argentina to see it work, and that's on a rather small scale."
Communism is responsible for the deaths of some 70-100 million people in the twentieth century. Given that relatively few nations have adopted Communist rule, the track record is the worst in the history of the world.
So no, Communism does not work and has been the single greatest threat to humanity in the history of the world (besides perhaps abortion).
That's not Communism, that's Authoritarianism.
Further, those numbers are a guesstimate at best, and grossly exaggerated propaganda (100,000,000 exact! Nice round number!) at worst, and lump death from anything from firing squads to famines that may have been caused by bad state policy or simply not averted by effective planning.
How many were caused by decisions made by worker referendum? None. How many were caused or compounded by dictators? Nearly all. That's not Communism. That's what Autocrats do.
The worst track record by a nation/empire in the world ever is England, whose British Empire reaching around the globe over three centuries killed more than those entities did collectively. And it was for profit or oppression, unlike your fake "Communists" of which executing 70-100 million was never a policy.
Pretty sure there have been greater threats, just ask any country under the yoke of the UK back in the day or invaded and occupied by Hitler and Japan, Cecil Rhodes, Leopold I, whose methods of INTENTIONALLY killing people took new heights in terms of the imagination, Muslims, and of course, Christians, who have killed more than all the rest in history COMBINED.
"The worst track record by a nation/empire in the world ever is England, whose British Empire reaching around the globe over three centuries killed more than those entities did collectively. And it was for profit or oppression, unlike your fake "Communists" of which executing 70-100 million was never a policy.
Pretty sure there have been greater threats, just ask any country under the yoke of the UK back in the day or invaded and occupied by Hitler and Japan, Cecil Rhodes, Leopold I, whose methods of INTENTIONALLY killing people took new heights in terms of the imagination, Muslims, and of course, Christians, who have killed more than all the rest in history COMBINED."
Wow. Let's start with England. First, the historical data doesn't support your claim about it having a worse track record than Communism. Second, yes, the English could be brutal and undoubtedly slaughtered many. However, I know of no "English ideology" that supported such slaughtering, unlike the case of Communism.
And yes, there have been other mass murderers throughout history. However, the twentieth century was tops in the amount of killings that took place under various regimes, the worst of which were Communist regimes. There simply is no comparison.
There are several things wrong with your claim. No, the European/Canadian models are not the "end" to which we are moving. It's questionable why you would even think those would be desirable goals in the first place, which is why your claim is off the mark.
The fact that so many immigrants are trying to get into the United States compared to those other nations would suggest otherwise.
In addition, your analysis is quite misleading. Just one quick point about this - even if we assumed your subjective interpretation of "fairness" and "happiness" to be true about those nations, the reality is that those nations have the luxury of not needing to fund massive military budgets which ensures nations are able to be free. If the United States were to reduce its military budget by 90% or more, it could use that money on other things. Of course, that would last until we were attacked, destroying world peace.
It's easy to demand Communism while living in a free world; however, it can be deadly demanding freedom while living in a Communist world.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
I always see peoples other memes. And comment :) not stalking.
inefficient use causes war, not too few resources."
No, you are not "right". For example, you have wrongfully attributed war to "inefficient use". Please study the history of civilizations and you will see that there are a number of different reasons why war is started, so claiming "efficiency of use" (however you are interpreting the word that you left undefined) would "negate the 'need' to spend so much on the military" is simply baseless.
"ww1 was caused by a guy bitter about prior land and resource wars
ww2 was caused by a guy bitter about paying reparations from ww1
(japan was worried america would cut off their shipping lanes at philippines)"
You're attempting to use resource issues related to past wars and attribute the cause of those wars to resources. This is a flawed analysis. Of course all wars *involve* resource claims to greater or lesser degree, but this is a separate issue from whether those resource claims *cause* those wars. You're then using this flawed analysis to erroneously claim that all wars are based on resources.
Where did you get that idea? The left are the most racist. They manipulate blacks for votes and pay no attention to them otherwise. Democrats are keeping blacks on the vote plantation. Democrats thinks blacks are too stupid to get a voter ID. They've been conditioning blacks to believe there is absolutely no hope for them without Democrats, when it is the Democrats who have stolen any hope from them.
Blacks don't need Democrats, no one does. No one is standing in anyone's way, except for Democrats.
Conservatives don't hate blacks, we never have. We are the ones who freed the slaves by fighting the Democrats.
All you have is the propaganda you are being told by your overlords and it's a lie.
I do. We are in tune with countries around the world, unlike you.
[deleted]
4 ups, 3y,
7 replies
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
2 replies
"Nothing says "I'm not racist, you are" like accusing black people of being too stupid to think for themselves"
On the contrary... Blacks ARE thinking for themselves. After decades if being promised everything under the sun and not getting anything, blacks are now thinking for themselves and dumping the Democrat party and their empty promises. But there are still too many people on the left of all races that are fooled into thinking that if you take one step out of the herd mentality then you are a vile, disgusting, racist.
"You're confusing "Democrat" with "liberal". Democrats weren't liberals in the 1860s. Between liberals and conservatives, it sure as hell wasn't conservatives fighting to free the slaves."
You're right. Democrats weren't entirely classical liberals back then because they supported slavery. Other than that they were classical liberals. So were the Republicans. So was the entire nation.
But Democrats became classical conservatives when they fell in love with Karl Marx during the Progressive Era and have been classical conservatives ever since. You all think that everyone needs a strong powerful government to control people because people are bad. You're taking all political power from the people and giving all political power to the government.
"And as far as "conservatives don't hate blacks", many conservatives really do. You don't speak for all conservatives."
No, I can't speak for all conservatives. I can't speak for all liberals and leftists and neither can you. But I can speak for the prevalent ideology of the right and that it revolves around freedom. Everyone, all races, must be free. Freedom is not be the mindset of most of the the Republican party leadership but the majority of Republicans think that way.
Hitler called himself a socialist all the time. They were the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party or NAZI (in German) for short.
Hitler never called himself a fascist, that I am aware of, because fascism was Mussolini's thing. Even so fascism is just another version of socialism.
Learn history. What is being spread around in popular culture and even in schools and colleges are wrong. Their trying to hide who they really are and they control or media and our schools. Communists, Marxists, Nazis and fascists are all just minor variations of socialism. They always have been and they always will be. They are all built on the exact same foundation. No private property rights, no inalienable rights, no individual freedom and poverty and slavery for all.
Again, branding. Xi-Jing-Ping calls China a Utopia, but is it? You learn history. I guess you're a neo-socialist then.
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y,
2 replies
Go to your favorite search engine and look up the Nazi party platform. It may be by year but it doesn't really matter. Just pick a year. Read the Nazi party platform and references pertaining to Germany and see just how much is similar to the Democrat party platform.
Then find a book that explains what socialism is and not just about what it promises. If you want to go to the source then read what Marx wrote. He didn't invent socialism, he just codified it. Compare socialism to the Nazi party platform and the Democrat party platform.
And be objective. Don't let your biases sway you to try to rationalize the fact that Marx, Hitler and the Democrats all believe in the same thing.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
2 replies
what they claimed and what they did are 2 different things silly.
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y,
2 replies
Claim??? This is the Nazi party platform. This is the roadmap for what they wanted to do and what they actually did. Germany was already socialist under Kaiser Wilhelm. That is what caused their currency to fall apart and gave them hyper-inflation. Hitler offered his "new and [not at all] improved" version of socialism and the Germans were desperate for something.
Once Hitler got power, he did abandon some of socialist platform. That didn't mean anything because he kept the worst parts of socialism. That is what gave him the power he needed to control and dominate Germany. Without socialism, he wouldn't have had that power.
The left really tries to distract everyone with Hitler's nationalism but that was irrelevant. He never would have been able to do what he wanted to do without the power that socialism gives to maniacal dictators like him.
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
So why did he kill socialists and communists?
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
I don't know. Maybe it was fun for him. Was he specifically targeting them because of their political ideology or was it because they disagreed with him? I think it was the latter. Plus I think killing was fun for him, just like how much fun you're having over Ashli Bobbit's death.
He provided a take over of businesses and wanted he wanted universal healthcare but only for true Germans. He killed everyone who got in his way. In case you missed it, he was a bit of homicidal psychopath. He and Stalin were buddies behind the scenes and both had no problem sending their soldiers to kill each other. Stalin was more murder happy than Hitler, that's why he murdered twice as many people as Hitler.
Hitler nationalized all German businesses and eliminated the private sector? Really? On what planet?
Goodness, for once I read past your first half line. The war between the Nazis and the USSR was because Hitler and Stalin shared the hobby of getting their own soldiers offed?
Are you saying we defeated the nazis, put them trial for war crimes, created the Nuremburg Code as a result, so that globalists, democrats, and the leftists can break every single point within them??
I'd suggest stop erasing history (taking down statues, 1619 Project, etc.) like the nazis did through book burning, or you'll be bound to repeat it.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
name one nation that let's civil war losers fly their traitor flags and put up traitor statues.
"Annual immigrants to Canada: 300,000 average. In 2019: 341,000."30,087 refugee resettled, the highest number of any state worldwide." source: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2020/10/infographic-immigration-to-canada-in-2019. US in that same period: Permanent Resident status obtained: 1,127,167. Canada's adjusted for scale: 3,410,000. Therefore, proven wrong."
Ravenclaw, your analysis is flawed for two reasons. First, you're completely ignoring illegal immigration, and it has been well documented that illegal immigration into the U.S. is extremely high.
Second, you're using legal immigrants as a percentage of host country population when you should be using legal immigrants as a percentage of all immigrants. When you use this proper data, you will see that the number of immigrants who desire to become U.S. citizens is far higher than those who desire to become Canadian citizens.
Immigration isn't the only metric I'm using. I know there's no way to measure illegal immigration, so I can also use the survey metrics for happiest countries: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world. Note all the left-wing countries.
Yes, immigration *was* the only metric that you used in your post in which you falsely claimed that you proved me wrong.
The "happiest countries" survey is a separate issue, so let's examine that. First, it obviously involves a level of subjectivity, and that needs to be acknowledged. It is one indication that a nation is doing something right, but is not necessarily a validation of the nation's specific form of governance, or any single other activity.
Second, you claimed they are all "left-wing countries". But are they? I noticed that one thing they all had in common is that they are all small European nations with cold climates (mostly in the north). A few years ago, the Danish PM famously responded to a Bernie Sanders claim by stating that Denmark was a "market economy" that was "far from a socialist planned economy".
The reality is that those small European nations listed near the top don't bear the weight of over issues that larger nations face, one of which is taking the lead on international diplomacy issues or using military force to respond to threats. Those are huge concerns that absolutely cannot be ignored, but which people on the left regularly do ignore in order to try to push the U.S. in a socialist direction.
Third, I noticed that there are several countries even *more* left wing that further down on the list. Communist countries like China (#82), Vietnam (#77), and Laos (#98) are far below the United States (#19). Other Communist countries aren't even on the list (North Korea, Cuba).
So hopefully you will see that this "happiness list" is not at all the validation of leftist policies that you are trying to claim it is.
"I'm talking about liberals. There's a difference. Liberals- centre-left, fairly moderate. E.G: Democrats, Liberal Party of Canada. Communists- radical, far-left extremists. Not at all moderate."
So this is different from what you originally claimed.
In response, I will rely on what I already stated in an earlier post. The Nordic countries that you claim are "centre-left" area also vastly smaller than the United States and do not have to deal with issues that the United States has to deal with.
Please see my previous post for more details about this.
And I showed you how other, even more left-wing countries, were much lower on the "happiness" rating, and some of the most left-wing countries weren't even on the list.
Did you even read my response where I demonstrated this? If you are going to engage in debate on here, please take a look at my responses.
I'm talking about liberals. There's a difference. Liberals- centre-left, fairly moderate. E.G: Democrats, Liberal Party of Canada. Communists- radical, far-left extremists. Not at all moderate.
I just used statistics, if you could show me your statistics that's good, if not don't say mine are false. They are better than none, I at least have sources.
Show me your statistics, then you can judge me. Why are you wriggling out of it? As for "they don't support my argument" yes they do, they show the essence of my argument.
I already showed that you used your statistics *incorrectly*. I can't use statistics against your statistics if you inappropriately used statistics in the first place.
"What was inappropriate about it? Counteracting your point? Then leave."
I ALREADY TOLD YOU IN A PREVIOUS POST. I then asked if you were actually reading my responses and you claimed you were, but now you're asking me for information that I already provided.
Please, please, please, READ MY RESPONSES and avoid asking me for information that I already provided.
I suspect that's because you either a) did not read my earlier response, or b) did not understand my previous response.
However, I'll cut and paste it here:
"Ravenclaw, your analysis is flawed for two reasons. First, you're completely ignoring illegal immigration, and it has been well documented that illegal immigration into the U.S. is extremely high.
Second, you're using legal immigrants as a percentage of host country population when you should be using legal immigrants as a percentage of all immigrants. When you use this proper data, you will see that the number of immigrants who desire to become U.S. citizens is far higher than those who desire to become Canadian citizens."
Socialist Democrat countries are not, they're market economies, but the world leader of Capitalism is Communist at par with China under Mao?
Does your hypocrisy contain even a smidgen of self awareness and does your cognitive dissonance ever run out of the flatulence that fuels it?
I'll set aside the irrelevant ad hominem attacks you're making and consider only the intellectual components of your claim.
"Socialist Democrat countries are not, they're market economies..."
Which "Socialist Democrat" countries are you talking about? The Nordic countries? If so, please see the Danish PM's response to that myth in which he stated the following: "...I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy..."
"...but the world leader of Capitalism is Communist at par with China under Mao?"
I assume the "world leader of Capitalism" here is the United States, right? If so, I never made that absurd claim, of course. Mao killed tens of millions of people through execution, starvation, and so forth. The United States has not done this, and hopefully will never do this.
Why in the world would you even think I made such a clearly false claim?
Your constant use of ad hominem attacks reveals your lack of an argument on the merits. You may continue to attack me personally if you wish, but I think our argument about the substance of the issue here is done.
What argument? I don't have one. Pointing out your hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is not an argument. Facts bypass the need for an argument.
btw, your pass/aggrv thinly veiled ad hominems are still exactly that. That's all you've been doing with everyone on this meme, wrapped in crepe paper gauze as if that would conceal what it is somehow.
It doesn't.
I didn't realize you would continue with the ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual argumentation, but I suppose did say you could continue with them. If you ever wish to continue a substantive debate about Communism, then we could do so, but if you wish to play the transparent games you are doing here, it would be better if we didn't continue this discourse, ok?
btw, it's not ad hominems if those were actual observations of what you're doing, which, again, is the main 'substance' of what you do dipped in partisan hack lies.
"btw, it's not ad hominems if those were actual observations of what you're doing, which, again, is the main 'substance' of what you do dipped in partisan hack lies."
You're using ad hominem attacks because you are not addressing the issue at hand, but trying to criticize me personally. It's a worthless argumentation strategy, and it reveals to me that you are not able or willing to defend your own position on the merits.
Anyway, I'm going to block or mute you now, as this discussion with you has clearly devolved. This is a nuclear option I realize, but otherwise this pointless exchange would continue. I wish you peace.
[deleted]
1 up, 3y
Hey I’m the only one who can make ad hominem attacks around here
Not taking it is stupid. It's got a 0.00001 (1 in 100,000) death rate and 90% effectiveness at keeping people out of hospitals and a 50% effectiveness at stopping you catching it altogether. Just f*cking take it.
That’s a lie. The Nazis conducted horrific medical experiments on people to try and find a vaccine for Tuberculosis and other diseases. Learn your history, dumbàss.
And you’re the one who’s trying to force medical procedures on unwilling people, just like the Nazis did to the Jews, while I want people to have the FREEDOM to choose.
Try again, fascist vaccinator.
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y
Yo these retards keep babbling their fuçking retarded-ass baby noises and need to STFU for 5 fuçking minutes. I’m sorry that these retards cause you so much stress. I’m 15 and exposed to at least one of these retards every day at school. FUÇK MY LIFE.
"how is mine deeply flawed? Tell me. Yours is flawed because you are wriggling out of EVERY QUESTION. You do not have an argument."
Ravenclaw, your argument is flawed because of your original claim. I don't want to recreate the entire argument when you could just as easily review our posts and see for yourself, but I'll do it quickly here just because.
1) The original issue was effectively whether the United States was better or worse than Canada/European nations which have a heavy welfare state. I stated, "The fact that so many immigrants are trying to get into the United States compared to those other nations would suggest otherwise."
2) You countered by claiming that immigration data did not favor this view, but that somehow immigration to those other countries was greater per capita.
3) I countered you by showing you that your interpretation of the immigration data was wrong because you looked at immigrants per host country citizen, when the actual data you needed to take into account was how many immigrants are entering specific nations in relation to the overall number of immigrants going anywhere.
To put it another way, if five immigrants entered a nation of ten people, the number of immigrants to residents would be 1:2. However, if 100 immigrants entered a different nation of 300 people, that ratio would be 1:3. You tried to claim that the 1:2 number shows that there is a higher desire to enter the first nation. However, that's wrong. You need to count up the net number of immigrants (5+100=105), and then determine the percentage of immigrants entering each nation. Under this analysis, about 95% of immigrants want to go to the second nation, whereas only about 5% want to go into the first nation.
4) Furthermore, you asserted that the "happiness" ranking showed that left-leaning nations were *better* than non-left-leaning nations. You cited a study which showed that some nations with left-leaning governments near the top of the list.
5) There were several problems with your inference in #4. One was that you assumed casusation between "left-wing" policies and happiness, without actually showing causation. Someone else might look at the list and point out that all the nations near the top are also very "white" nations, and therefore conclude that having a white society *causes* happiness. Hopefully you can understand why such an analysis is wrong, but you employed it in a different way nonetheless.
