What argument? You parroted an question. That you think you made an argument, highlights that you parroted the question. Even if you want to understand the question as an argument, a basic inspection of the implied premise that lying is bad, is enough to dismiss the argument as lazy and surface-level.
If you don’t like it when people call your output boring, say something worthwhile.
This is such a boring thing that people say all the time.
Lying is normal. You should be lying. Lying isn’t morally wrong if it is not done for morally wrong reasons. My child should be lying to me. I should be lying to my child.
And my children will understand the difference between lying to e.g. prevent a surprise to be ruined and lying to avoid facing consequences.
It is such a black and white thinking. It is so boring too. I will teach my children violence because 1 day, they might need it too.
And sidenote: e.g. telling your child that they can “trust” the security or the police if they get lost in a large crowd, is a lie. But one that is true enough that the child is safer with them than alone in a crowd. Telling your child that e.g. a electrical signal is travelling from the tv station through a wire to your tv, would be a lie if there is some fiber cables somewhere between them, or a satellite connection. Yes, simplifications are lying. We will lie anyway to enable them to navigate the far too complex world and slowly learn about the real underlying complexities.
And obviously, there is a difference between making them write letters to Santa and telling them Santa brings gifts for Christmas.
Honestly, I think i will “lie” about Santa. Simply because it doesn’t really matter and it is fun for them.
Very anon of him, tbf
What is the connection to your claims that nazis are social Democrats or that democratic socialism is fascism?
Why can’t you just google things for once?
I think a division of power is important, as are: fair and free elections, multiple options in the elections, social programs to ensure the population has the resources to take part in the process, low corruption (ideally none but that is unrealistic). There is probably more but I am done doing your homework.
I will block you now, as you are the most clueless tankie that I have met to an embarrassing degree, so I think you are full of shit and not a tankie. I mean calling yourself a tankie and calling socialism fascistic is wild. Calling nazis social Democrats is more believable for a tankie but I am fairly certain they would realise that murdering disabled people isn’t fulfilling the “social” part in social democracy and e.g. the lack of fair and free elections doesn’t really match with the “democracy” part.
What? Do you understand logic?
If something fails to fulfill 1 requirement, It can’t pass anymore, otherwise it is not a requirement.
If you are not a woman, you can’t be a 186cm tall woman. You can be 186cm tall, but you aren’t a woman, so you can’t be a 186cm tall woman.
So if being multiparty is a requirement for being a democracy, then not being multiparty, makes you not a democracy. Even if you pass all other requirements.
They aren’t used interchangeably? Unless you are talking about people who also use communism and socialism interchangeably, then sure but i don’t think we should have a discussion on nazi politics based on utter lack of knowledge what words mean.
I implied that historically speaking Leninist Revolution led to single party systems? I mean yeah. That is just fact.
But you understand how saying “1 party systems aren’t democratic” doesn’t mean “multiparty systems are democratic”? If anything, it means “multiparty is one of the requirements of a democracy”.
e.g. i don’t think America is a proper democracy. Technically speaking, a person with 21% of the votes could win the presidential election. Yes, even if the other candidate has 79% of the votes. The obvious corruption and Oligarchy is another issue. I would argue that the use of voting computers makes them undemocratic. And there are probably more reasons but I am lazy.
I never said multiparty means democracy. But okay.
Who said it was hogwash? Who said it presents no threat to status quo?
We are talking about how the nazis weren’t socialist, or social Democrats. And how you don’t know the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. And to say that you are a tankie after saying that socialism is capitalism, is wild.
Well, tankies might disagree with me on some of this.
Democratic socialism got popular under socialist that opposed the Soviet Union.
China would like to be seen as democratic and would like to be socialistic but they are effectively a one party system (not very democratic) and they have special economic zones and simplified: the state owns the meaning of production and the worker only by proxy. China admit that they aren’t socialist yet but that they are working towards it. So currently not socialist, and the state owned means of production is in conflict with democratic socialism (or at least, that is my opinion and given that it became popular in opposition to the Soviet Union, I think I have a good case for that)
The whole state owned means of production issue and/or 1 party system, tend to be the reasons why no country was considered a democratic socialist country to my knowledge.
The distinction is between socialism and capitalism.
There are no democratic socialist countries.
Germany is a social democracy.
Socialism is not the same as democratic.
Socialism describe how Property right should work.
Democratic describe how the government works.
Both are independent Ideologies.
Socialism is not capitalism and to claim that is ridiculous.
Nope.
Democratic socialism is socialism. So the idea that workers should own the mean of production. But it is Democratic. So the government should be Democratic.
Social democracy is capitalism. But that it should be Democratic and soften the weakness of capitalism by providing social programs.
You see, 1 is capitalism, the other is socialism.
Social Democracy is not the same as democratic socialism. (E.g. germany understands itself as a social democracy but don’t do socialism nor democratic socialism)
The nazi murdered democratic socialists though.
Could you define fascism and socialism, please? For the sake of the argument, as you seem confused over social democracy and democratic socialism.
Saying that is about as stupid and uninformed as it gets.
Please, seriously please, look into actual nazi policies and ask yourself if those policies fit the claim.
Please look at the actions of the nazis. E.g. the Night of the long knives. Or ask if the systematic murders of disabled people, would be something that fits with social Democrats values.
Every historian with a focus on nazi germany disagrees with you.
For context:
500kg cash in 100 USD bills (like on the picture) would be roughly 50.000.000 USD.
And 500kg of Gold would currently be 71,396,000 USD.
Okay, so when workers cause damages to the society to stand up to the capitalists and fight against exploition of labour, that is cool.
When people find it funny that capitalists aren’t checking their sources while exploiting labour, then that is not cool.
Out of curiosity, what do you think about protests? And strikes? Like union strikes?
They are “guns don’t kill people”-ing it. Ignore them.
This sounds like guns don’t kill people, people do!
This is a beautiful connection between science about the past and science about the present.