[Lt. Kettch]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

Thats is a pessimistic personal opinion without any backup using factual data or logical argument.

Um, no. It's what communism is.

There are two main uses of the word, one being what is more accurately called socialism, state ownership of the means of production. These countries are sometimes (though inaccurately) referred to as communist states in the Western world.

The more accurate meaning of the word is the fifth stage of the Marxist ideology, a classless system where the state is no longer necessary and the people administer their own lives. Socialism was described by Lenin as the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, but so far no country has managed to get past it.

Or, to sum that up in a few words: Communism is the absence of government.

[Cyparagon]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

That is a very inaccurate definition, where did you get it from?

Webster

There's also Dictionary.com:a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Cambridge: the belief in a society without different classes in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need

and yourdictionary: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Originally Posted by I'm Me

socialism is not a government system, I suggest you brush up your knowledge on this.

Cambridge: the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs

Yourdictionary: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

And Dictionary.com: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Brushing up complete. Any other suggestions?

Lemme guess, they're all american based dictionaries and can't be trusted because I'm a tool for believing the racist media that is my WWW?

Originally Posted by I'm Me

Saying communism and socialism are the same thing is like saying democracy and capitalism are the same thing. Not very intelligent.

Oops, silly me, did I say they were the same thing?

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

They sound similar to me.

Nope, guess not.

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

Brushing up complete. Any other suggestions?

Lemme guess, they're all american based dictionaries and can't be trusted because I'm a tool for believing the racist media that is my WWW?Oops, silly me, did I say they were the same thing?Nope, guess not.

That is actually the way you and your fellow citizens think. Sign or a one track and narrow mind, you haven't been able to differentiate between the two dispite quoting dictionaries and just given us the dose of some of your...shall I say American Intelligence.

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

Oops, silly me, did I say they were the same thing?

You said they were similar and you have been unable to differentiate between the two. Like it or not, but a majority of Americans like you aren't able to understand a lot of things about the world.

[Cyparagon]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

That is actually the way you and your fellow citizens think. Sign or a one track and narrow mind

Surely you jest. A narrow mind? Have you given any evidence to prove me wrong? All I've said so far is:

1. Socialism is both a government system and a market system.
2. socialism and communism are similar.

Originally Posted by I'm Me

You said they were similar and you have been unable to differentiate between the two.

I wasn't even asked to differentiate between the two. But if you insist: communism is conservative, and socialism is liberal.

How else are they different?

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

Surely you jest. A narrow mind? Have you given any evidence to prove me wrong?

Here is a link to prove you wrong. Socialism is an economic system while communism is a different thing, a political government system.

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

How else are they different?

The relation between communism and socialism is as much as the relation between capitalism and democracy. While one is a political government structural system, the other in an economic market structural system.

When you can't counter other by logic you use dubious low means of trying to win by hook and crook. First by messing with my signature which only you find funny, and now trying your pathetic attempts at warning which I don't give a damn. Is bullying and other low measure how you learn to win an argument? You can't win by that method with me so learn to be a good loser, you little prima donna.

[Lt. Kettch]

I'm Me: While that site you offer as evidence may at first glance seem convincing, it is actually somewhat subversive when you look beyond the words at the structure and choice of language. Opinions are presented as facts, for example "He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings", or "they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practising.". It also leaves out facts, stating that "The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy" without actually continuing to point out that the New Economic Policy was abolished in 1929. Furthermore, some of the facts he presents as credible are in fact of questionable origin; referencing Wikipedia lends no support to any serious argument as what you are quoting could have been written by anybody.

The counter argument is completely left out - nowhere is there even a hint that another opinion has been considered. The entire source is written by one man, and looking at the other pieces he's written:

Beyond Lies: GOP Living On The Bizarro World
Ah, if we only had a liberal media
To the GOP, telling the truth is a sign of weakness
Loyal Bushies vs. Reality
Conservatives can't balance a checkbook, why should we trust them on taxes?
Simple truths that Republicans can never accept.
And my personal favourite: "Were Bush's great-grandfather and grandfather Nazis?"

It quickly becomes apparent where this man's opinions lie. Can we trust his presentation of the facts? Perhaps. But I would hardly call it 'proof'. It is evidence, it is a source of information to be read and taken into account, but it is very much one-sided, and taking it as gospel is foolish.



Secondly:

"Is bullying and other low measure how you learn to win an argument?"
"You little prima donna."

Anyone else find that amusing?

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

...referencing Wikipedia lends no support to any serious argument as what you are quoting could have been written by anybody.

What did you expect as reference? CIA.gov? If you want hard copy references then I'm sorry, you'd have to fly here so that you have have a look. Or develop a way of teleporting books and magazines.

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

....but it is very much one-sided, and taking it as gospel is foolish.

It is one sided but in the very least it does give an accurate distinction of socialism and communism which a lot of you are unable to fathom. It is as much one sided as the jewish Holocaust figures.....

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Anyone else find that amusing?

Those are statements, not jokes. Cyparagon has been threatening me in PM because he was unable to win an arguments. Signs of a bad self important fool.

[Lt. Kettch]

What did you expect as reference? CIA.gov? If you want hard copy references then I'm sorry, you'd have to fly here so that you have have a look. Or develop a way of teleporting books and magazines.

Don't be stupid, why would CIA.gov have information about the differences between communism and socialism? They're an intelligence agency, not a philosophy club. I did explain why wikipedia is an unreliable source of information, you know - since it can be edited by anyone, you have no idea who has written what you're reading.

it does give an accurate distinction of socialism and communism

It gives an opinion of the distinction. Just because it matches yours doesn't make it accurate, just repeatable.

It is as much one sided as the jewish Holocaust figures.....

No internet debate is complete without someone dragging Hitler and the Holocaust into it To humour you: A figure is a number. A number cannot be one sided, because it is neither opinion nor argument. It can be used as evidence for an argument, but calling a number one-sided is rather like calling a carrot intellectual - it simply can't be.

Those are statements, not jokes.

Oh, I know. I'm sure you're dead serious. I simply found the irony in what you'd said amusing:

'Don't bully me, it's a bad way to win an argument. You vain and temperamental little person.'

Because insults are such a great way to win. Signs of a confused mind? We may never know...

[Cyparagon]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

messing with my signature which only you find funny

I don't have that ability, only the super mods and admins do.

Originally Posted by I'm Me

and now trying your pathetic attempts at warning which I don't give a damn.

Trying attempts of warning? Too much redundancy. If you don't give a damn, you might as well leave now because I along with the rest of the staff won't stand for your insults.

Originally Posted by I'm Me

Is bullying and other low measure how you learn to win an argument?

Yes, I'm me. I'm threatening you with a ban because I lost an argument (which one? I'm not sure. This one's still going as far as I see), not because you're breaking forum rules.

Anywho...

Originally Posted by I'm Me

Socialism is an economic system while communism is a different thing, a political government system.

And what of all the dictionaries saying otherwise?

[Ultima Dragoon]

Define: Stupid

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Don't be stupid, why would CIA.gov have information about the differences between communism and socialism?

CIA is pretty touchy about communism and has a lot of influence in US media about the US perception of communism and socialism. Of course, they conveniently ignore the dictatorial regimes of Saudi Arabia and a few other countries where they placed genocidal dictators. It includes Saddam too.

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

I did explain why wikipedia is an unreliable source of information, you know - since it can be edited by anyone, you have no idea who has written what you're reading.

I do not use Wikipedia as my reference but when you quote sources on internet Wikipedia is generally a better one than most one person blogs available. Unless you care to have a look at library achieves and collections which for most of you would be more hard work than crossing the Atlantic.

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

It can be used as evidence for an argument, but calling a number one-sided is rather like calling a carrot intellectual - it simply can't be.

We are not talking about Mathematical integers, we are talking about the figures of Jews killed by the Nazis. That figure is one sided, primarily as a justification of the Allied war crimes and secondarily for the creating of Israel by displacing a million Arabs.

If we talk about the carotene content in a carrot we would be talking of variables not figures, which would depend on where it is harvested and the interests of the researcher. Your analogies of an intellectual carrots and body counts does not make much sense.

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

'Don't bully me, it's a bad way to win an argument. You vain and temperamental little person.'

I think I didn't say that and well I had to check the dictionary for what temperamental is. Now let me make it clear, if you try to edit my posts which so far is fine - I got measures and it will make you look rather foolish if you try.

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Because insults are such a great way to win.

I didn't insult, I was giving friendly advice reference with Cyparagon's PM which contained some sweet little threats. Internet is internet, it is silly threatening someone.

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

If you don't give a damn, you might as well leave now because I along with the rest of the staff won't stand for your insults.

Insults??? I got another advice, if you aren't hallucinating, don't try to read my posts when drunk. Cause that might make you think every idea is an insult. By the way, even if you are planning to form a gang, it is still an internet forum. You know what that means, don't you (I hope you are not drunk again)?

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

I don't have that ability, only the super mods and admins do.

I do remember someone changing my signatures to stupid remarks. I thought it was you, I still believe it is you....

[Lt. Kettch]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

CIA is pretty touchy about communism and has a lot of influence in US media about the US perception of communism and socialism.

So basically, Cyparagon disagrees with your opinion because the CIA has brainwashed him through their media influence.

I do not use Wikipedia as my reference but when you quote sources on internet Wikipedia is generally a better one than most one person blogs available. Unless you care to have a look at library achieves and collections which for most of you would be more hard work than crossing the Atlantic.

Over here, public access to archives is commonplace and relatively easy to take advantage of. Equally, crossing the Atlantic hardly takes much effort, one needs simply to book a flight and get on a plane. That wasn't actually my point though.

Your analogies of an intellectual carrots and body counts does not make much sense.

So it would seem. I'll keep analogies simple in the future.

Simpler than a carrot. This could be problematic. Note to self: use mineral analogies in future.

I think I didn't say that and well I had to check the dictionary for what temperamental is.

The term Prima Donna refers to the leading lady in an opera, italian for 'First Lady'. The derogatory term stems from the reputation of such singers for being irritable, egotistical and vain, and as such calling someone a 'little prima donna' suggests that you think them to share similar characteristics. Furthering this little foray into definitions, do you understand what an 'insult' is?

Now let me make it clear, if you try to edit my posts which so far is fine - I got measures and it will make you look rather foolish if you try.

Ooh, crumbs, better not then. LOL INTERNET. How do you plan to make me look foolish, exactly?

I didn't insult, I was giving friendly advice reference with Cyparagon's PM which contained some sweet little threats. Internet is internet, it is silly threatening someone.

Then why did you just threaten to make me look foolish?

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

So basically, Cyparagon disagrees with your opinion because the CIA has brainwashed him through their media influence.

Don't be silly. What I meant was that if Wikipedia was such an unreliable source of information, will CIA sources have been the impeccable proof?

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Equally, crossing the Atlantic hardly takes much effort, one needs simply to book a flight and get on a plane.

I suggested that quite a month back, no takers yet. Striker475 backed out then and there and I am waiting for the others....

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Furthering this little foray into definitions, do you understand what an 'insult' is?

Lets say, I don't. Would you enlighten me on the subject?

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

How do you plan to make me look foolish, exactly?

Don't try to sound foolish now. Which kind of person tells the plan of attack to an adversary before the attack?

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Then why did you just threaten to make me look foolish?

It was no threat but a precaution. I hope you understand the difference, which would become clear if you were to try editing my posts to fit your quotes. You would look foolish you you act foolish and get caught.

[Lt. Kettch]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

Don't be silly. What I meant was that if Wikipedia was such an unreliable source of information, will CIA sources have been the impeccable proof?

Nope, but you suggested it, not me. The CIA would present a view, just as your article presents a view. By all means take what the CIA would say into account, but like I said, taking one view as absolute proof is foolish.

I suggested that quite a month back, no takers yet. Striker475 backed out then and there and I am waiting for the others....

It's even easier for me to take the train to Edinburgh, but I don't plan on doing that either. Just because something is easy doesn't mean it's worth doing just to prove a point. I'll get back to you after I go to America next summer.

Lets say, I don't. Would you enlighten me on the subject?

No, actually. I'm no dictionary, and as I'd be trying to define an abstract concept I'd probably spend far longer getting my wording right than I really want to. I'm sure you do understand, but what I don't get is why you sling them around so casually at certain people.

Don't try to sound foolish now. Which kind of person tells the plan of attack to an adversary before the attack?

Planning to wing it, eh?

It was no threat but a precaution. I hope you understand the difference, which would become clear if you were to try editing my posts to fit your quotes.

'If you edit my posts I'll make you look foolish' sounds like a threat to me.

You would look foolish you you act foolish and get caught.

And I'd look happy if I act happy and get caught. It still requires me to do the acting, and I'm unsure as to how you intend to make me act foolishly.

[Cyparagon]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

Don't try to sound foolish now. Which kind of person tells the plan of attack to an adversary before the attack?

Someone who wants to gloat (you strike me as that sort of character) and knows their methods will succeed no matter what the opponent does (and you apparently don't)

Originally Posted by I'm Me

It was no threat but a precaution.

For a master of the English language, we seem to need to define many words for you.

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

And what of all the dictionaries saying otherwise?

Perhaps you missed this, but would you care to comment, please?