Labour Party plots overthrow of capitalism

[Galant]

OK, so lets address the original point shall we, I'll even break things down as you're obviously struggling to keep up.

I original replied to wazzickle saying "We just need a lot more structure and oversight to keep the worst sides of capitalism in check." with the following...



To which you felt the need to reply with the following



So now lets break down this original point shall we, starting with your use of contextomy: aka quoting someone out of context, this was your first error of reasoning, we're not taking about proper debating here, we're talking about a passage being removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning because you believe doing so would make it easier for you to attack the original point, we're not talking about proper debating here, we're talking about you trying to manipulate or persuade by deception or being careless or ignorant, either intentionally or unintentionally.

And just in case you need an even simpler version, you manipulated what i originally said to remove the implication that i was fully aware that the 'system' involved people so you could attack an argument i had not made, capeesh?

From that point onward everything you said in the next eight posts you made in this thread had been rendered moot because you started with a mistaken belief that was based on an unsound argument, however out of the kindness of my heart i offered you the chance to correct that mistake, an offer you refused when you decided to double down and continue to dig yourself in even deeper, as they say give someone enough rope and all that.

Now, knowing you you'll probably feel the need to reply however before you do I'd like to point out that so far we've only touched on the first flaw in your reasoning, the first of many, many fallacies you've used, but if you insist i can certainly revisit the above original point and go over all the other failures in reasons, such as your appeal to probability when you said "You don't need to" or your use of equivocation, or how about the nirvana fallacy or when you appealed to ridicule.

It should also go without saying but I'll say it anyway as i know how much you like to argue just for the sake of it, I'm not saying the use of fallacies are wrong, people use them all the time as rhetorical devices when there's a desire to persuade if the focus is more on communication and eliciting common agreement, however that's not how you're using them as you've made clear by your refusal to reach a common agreement.

If I may interject Corky - I don't see the lack of context here. The way I read it, as a third party, is that your point was:

All systems need regulating, the more important question between regulated systems is therefore what each system is aiming towards, or put another way, where will each system take us if we make a success of it.

Ttaskmaster's reply, as I read it, was to state that the question of destination isn't the most important question because all systems are ultimately designed to take society to utopia. Instead, he suggests that a pragmatic approach to the question may be more helpful, namely that it is more helpful to consider how human beings will respond to/behave within any given system. Inferring that it doesn't matter what is the destination or goal of any system if that system is unworkable (in this case because people won't or can't follow along/submit).

From my perspective Ttaskmaster's point here is a pragmatic one, in contrast to your point on the principle of any given system.

But maybe I've misunderstood you both?

[Corky34]

No, i think you're spot on and I'm perfectly happy to have that conversation but that's (IMO) not the argument Ttaskmaster put forth, (s)he's made abundantly clear, by refusing to clarify when given the opportunity in a follow up post, instead of pointing out that (s)he was looking at it from a pragmatic point of view instead of a principled one and there may have been a misunderstanding (s)he decided to instead double down on the fallacies by claiming (s)he did not say it was only about how people behave within a system, (s)he decided to equivocate.

In other words instead of saying his/her intention was not to imply that it was only about how people behave within a system or that i had misunderstood his/her intention, (s)he decided to retreat behind yet more fallacies and that continued for eight more post despite my attempts at pointing him/her in the right direction.

[Galant]

No, i think you're spot on and I'm perfectly happy to have that conversation but that's (IMO) not the argument Ttaskmaster put forth, (s)he's made abundantly clear, by refusing to clarify when given the opportunity in a follow up post, instead of pointing out that (s)he was looking at it from a pragmatic point of view instead of a principled one and there may have been a misunderstanding (s)he decided to instead double down on the fallacies by claiming (s)he did not say it was only about how people behave within a system, (s)he decided to equivocate.

In other words instead of saying his/her intention was not to imply that it was only about how people behave within a system or that i had misunderstood his/her intention, (s)he decided to retreat behind yet more fallacies.

Okay but I'm just saying that's how I read it in the first place. And everything since then has been a rabbit-trail arguing over fallacies and adventures in missing the point. The subject matter is an interesting one, maybe the best thing is to give each other the benefit of the doubt and carry on with the main point of discussion?

Just IMO.

[Corky34]

Yea, it's totally been a rabbit-trail arguing over fallacies and adventures in missing the point but as i kept saying to Ttaskmaster there's little point in trying to discus the subject matter with him/her as it would lead nowhere because of his/her constant use of fallacies and inability to recognise that (s)he's not just using them for rhetorical effect but also using them in an attempt to support his point of view, that we'd spend more time debunking his/her fallacies than actually discussing the subject matter.

[Galant]

Yea, it's totally been a rabbit-trail arguing over fallacies and adventures in missing the point but as i kept saying to Ttaskmaster there's little point in trying to discus the subject matter with him/her as it would lead nowhere because of his/her constant use of fallacies and inability to recognise that (s)he's not just using them for rhetorical effect but also using them in an attempt to support his point of view, that we'd spend more time debunking his/her fallacies than actually discussing the subject matter.

In fairness to Ttaskmaster, I don't think his initial response took you out of context. That's what I was trying to show in my recent interjection. I think it was more a misunderstanding. When he responded that he didn't say that how people behave is the only thing that matters, he did clarify it stating that he was saying it was the most important part. I think his point was clear.

But this is just to go over the same territory of how each of you read the posts.

The last point of discussion on the topic that I can see is that you stated that it was false that the pragmatic point, that people's behaviour in a system, is the more important point in evaluating a system, but that destination of goal is more important.

Shall we take it from there?

[wazzickle]

Shall we take it from there?

Why bother? Are you here to learn about communism and capitalism? Or here to tell us what you know and ignore what we have to say?

[Galant]

I seem to have upset you. Hopefully I'm here to both share my own thoughts as well as listen to others. Have I ignored you somewhere?

[Corky34]

In fairness to Ttaskmaster, I don't think his initial response took you out of context. That's what I was trying to show in my recent interjection. I think it was more a misunderstanding. When he responded that he didn't say that how people behave is the only thing that matters, he did clarify it stating that he was saying it was the most important part. I think his point was clear.

Unfortunately whether intentionally or not he did take what i said out of context, you may not believe that he did but as I've already show that's exactly what he did when he removed the proceeding 50 odd words and only quoted the last 10, the removal of those preceding words talking about human nature, people, and the rules and regulations governing peoples actions in a system was the context, it was literally the parts of the post that immediately precede a passage and clarified its meaning.

Either intentional or unintentional removing the passage "I've noticed a few comments along the lines of curbing the worst parts of human nature, that capitalism needs rules and regulations so it doesn't harm the very people it depends on, but isn't that true of all 'systems' (capitalism, communism, socialism), isn't it more about what each system is designed to achieve?", removing that drastically alters the following passage "Not that i really know what each 'system' is designed to achieve as I've never looked that deeply into any of them."

There's really no other way of interpreting that in light of the following "You don't need to - You just need to understand how people will behave within those systems, rather than how the system designers would like them to. Every system will be a glorious utopian ideal, as designed... but only if Tha Peepul play ball, which of course they will not."

The reason there's no other way of interpreting it is because it's already been stated in the original statement that the person, me in this case, is fully aware of the worst parts of human nature, that he fully understands that rules and regulations are passed by people, for people, and to prevent harm to people. By removing that passage it made it easier to attack on the grounds that someone just need to understand how people behave, if that proceeding passage was not removed it makes no logical sense whatsoever, here look...

The same can be said of most, if not all, systems.

I've noticed a few comments along the lines of curbing the worst parts of human nature, that capitalism needs rules and regulations so it doesn't harm the very people it depends on, but isn't that true of all 'systems' (capitalism, communism, socialism), isn't it more about what each system is designed to achieve?

Not that i really know what each 'system' is designed to achieve as I've never looked that deeply into any of them.

You don't need to - You just need to understand how people will behave within those systems, rather than how the system designers would like them to. Every system will be a glorious utopian ideal, as designed... but only if Tha Peepul play ball, which of course they will not.

You see it's completely nonsensical to tell someone they just need to understand how people behave within a systems when that person has just said rules and regulations are passed to curb how people behave in a system.

And as i already covered with Ttaskmaster he did indeed state that how people behave is the only thing that matters, again whether intentional or not is irrelevant as the burden is on the person talking (typing) to clarify any misunderstandings, it's not to furiously deny that there's been a misunderstanding, that's not how conversations work, there's give and take, there's honest questions and honest answers, there's misunderstandings and clarifications.

But this is just to go over the same territory of how each of you read the posts.

The last point of discussion on the topic that I can see is that you stated that it was false that the pragmatic point, that people's behaviour in a system, is the more important point in evaluating a system, but that destination of goal is more important.

Shall we take it from there?

It is indeed going over the same territory and that's why i had, up until this point, been simply pointing out every time Ttaskmaster had used a fallacy because i knew by responding I'd just be feeding the troll, however after discovering that Ttaskmaster really did not grasp why i was not responding to the original point i thought I'd give explaining it to him/her another stab, despite my better judgment.

Returning to the point: I wasn't saying it was false, i was simply pointing out that no matter what system (capitalism, communism, socialism) is used you still need rules and regulations to dissuade peoples darker nature, however those rules and regulations are, or at least should be, shaped by the system you're using.

For example, in my very limited knowledge of how each system works: In the idealised communist system (afaik) you shouldn't really need laws against theft as everyone is, from my limited understand, meant to be equal owners of everything, in a capitalist system you need laws to prevent exploitation of people and the environment because it encourages private ownership that results in more is better.

Oh and just to say i would love to continue this conversation but i know full well that at any moment now Ttaskmaster will interject as he did before with a plethora of fallacies and render any attempt at reasonable conversation meaningless.

[Galant]

...

Returning to the point: I wasn't saying it was false, i was simply pointing out that no matter what system (capitalism, communism, socialism) is used you still need rules and regulations to dissuade peoples darker nature, however those rules and regulations are, or at least should be, shaped by the system you're using.

For example, in my very limited knowledge of how each system works: In the idealised communist system (afaik) you shouldn't really need laws against theft as everyone is, from my limited understand, meant to be equal owners of everything, in a capitalist system you need laws to prevent exploitation of people and the environment because it encourages private ownership that results in more is better..

Yes, I think that should be a given - different systems will require different focuses in terms of regulation etc. Can you explain what you were trying to highlight with that in response to Wazzickle's comment:

We just need a lot more structure and oversight to keep the worst sides of capitalism in check.

[Corky34]

Well it's not just capitalism (IMO) that needs structure and oversight (laws, rules, and regulations) to keep it in check, doesn't communism and socialism also need structure and oversight to keep it in check? Like i said IDK much about how each system is meant to operate but I'm going to go out on a limb and say communist and socialist states have failed in the past because they were not kept in check.

Yes those rules an regulations maybe slightly different for different systems but ultimately capitalism, communism, and socialism are not inherently 'bad', it's the people within each system that allow it to be subverted from the ideal, in the ideal capitalist system it's meant to raise all boats equally but that's clearly not been happening, that's not a failing of capitalism it's a failing of the people passing the rules an regulations that govern the system, no?

EDIT: And just to add if it is, indeed, more to do with how far away a system is from the ideal due to the forces acting on it from human nature and not the actual system itself doesn't that invariably lead us to the question of what system is inherently better.

[badass]

Or here to tell us what you know and ignore what we have to say?

I think we all are. Whether we know it or not. It's just that some of us can have our opinions changed once in a blue moon.

[Ttaskmaster]

So now lets break down this original point shall we, starting with your use of contextomy: aka quoting someone out of context

Sure - You want to talk about regulating people, but state that you don't know much about what each system wants to achieve.
I asserted that you don't need the latter when working with the regulations, because you're regulating people who will behave the same irrespective of system.
Feel free to tell me how that is out of context... and then, dear Pot, tell me more about false assumptions, mistaken beliefs and all that...!

we're talking about you trying to manipulate or persuade by deception or being careless or ignorant, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Proof?
For what purpose?
What do you believe my motivation (if any) would be behind this supposed crime?

I asserted something. You can disagree with it and explain why, if you like, or not even respond. It makes no difference to me. If you challenge it, I'll address the challenge.

however out of the kindness of my heart i offered you the chance to correct that mistake, an offer you refused when you decided to double down and continue to dig yourself in even deeper, as they say give someone enough rope and all that.

Are you even reading the same thread?

Now, knowing you you'll probably feel the need to reply however before you do I'd like to point out that so far we've only touched on the first flaw in your reasoning, the first of many, many fallacies you've used, but if you insist i can certainly revisit the above original point and go over all the other failures in reasons, such as your appeal to probability when you said "You don't need to" or your use of equivocation, or how about the nirvana fallacy or when you appealed to ridicule.

You do whatever gets your rocks off, mate.
You carry on wittering about logical fallacies if it makes you feel big and clever. You already failed as a Grammar Nazi and you're failing with this too...

Even if I were making such criminal errors, the fact that you're incapable of looking past that and simply addressing the point like a normal human being is failure enough.

It should also go without saying but I'll say it anyway as i know how much you like to argue just for the sake of it

That's quite an assumption... again.
I do like a fight. But since you clearly want to pick one yourself, that's nothing to crow about.

Ttaskmaster's reply, as I read it, was to state that the question of destination isn't the most important question because all systems are ultimately designed to take society to utopia. Instead, he suggests that a pragmatic approach to the question may be more helpful, namely that it is more helpful to consider how human beings will respond to/behave within any given system. Inferring that it doesn't matter what is the destination or goal of any system if that system is unworkable (in this case because people won't or can't follow along/submit).

That sounds bang on, yes, although a far more eloquent way of putting it.

No, i think you're spot on and I'm perfectly happy to have that conversation but that's (IMO) not the argument Ttaskmaster put forth

Well that's just your opinion and, despite me already explaining, if you still have that opinion then it's also your problem.

(s)he's made abundantly clear, by refusing to clarify when given the opportunity in a follow up post

I did exactly that in Post #110...

(s)he decided to instead double down on the fallacies by claiming (s)he did not say it was only about how people behave within a system, (s)he decided to equivocate.

You are assuming my meaning and then claiming what I did or didn't imply with what I didn't say, instead of just using the words I put down in the first place.
But whatever.
The term can easily have eight or nine different meanings, so why would you not assume them all equally instead of just/only/simply the one that you feel best about ranting against?

In other words instead of saying his/her intention was not to imply that it was only about how people behave within a system or that i had misunderstood his/her intention, (s)he decided to retreat behind yet more fallacies and that continued for eight more post despite my attempts at pointing him/her in the right direction.

1/. I did exactly that in the first three lines of post #107
2/. You're upset that I'm not playing by your rules, which is exactly what I said people do in the first three lines of post #107 - So you're actually illustrating my point exceedingly well!!

Yea, it's totally been a rabbit-trail arguing over fallacies and adventures in missing the point but as i kept saying to Ttaskmaster there's little point in trying to discus the subject matter with him/her as it would lead nowhere because of his/her constant use of fallacies and inability to recognise that (s)he's not just using them for rhetorical effect but also using them in an attempt to support his point of view, that we'd spend more time debunking his/her fallacies than actually discussing the subject matter.

That's a poor excuse for your poor comprehension... and if it were true, and you as clever as you like to pretend, you'd be able to look past all that and just answer my point directly, just as I looked past your flawed spelling and grammar when you try to pull me on mine.

Unfortunately whether intentionally or not he did take what i said out of context, you may not believe that he did but as I've already show that's exactly what he did when he removed the proceeding 50 odd words and only quoted the last 10, the removal of those preceding words talking about human nature, people, and the rules and regulations governing peoples actions in a system was the context, it was literally the parts of the post that immediately precede a passage and clarified its meaning.

I have not deleted your post. The context is still right there for anyone reading.
If your memory is so bad you cannot remember the context of a post you read 20 seconds ago without me re-quoting absolutely everything, nor simply flick your eyes 3" upward to remind yourself, then that's your problem.

There's really no other way of interpreting that

Stop trying to flippin' 'interpret' then, you plonker!!!
I don't use complicated words or a foreign language, here. No interpretation needed. You're looking for hidden contexts, implications and meanings where there are none, and in the process making a great many gross assumptions that lead to you inventing fallacies that cannot possibly apply anyway, let alone in this thread.

The reason there's no other way of interpreting it is because it's already been stated in the original statement that the person, me in this case, is fully aware of the worst parts of human nature, that he fully understands that rules and regulations are passed by people, for people, and to prevent harm to people.

Not what I said, not what I addressed and not even what I debated....

You see it's completely nonsensical to tell someone they just need to understand how people behave within a systems when that person has just said rules and regulations are passed to curb how people behave in a system.

Just because rules are passed does not mean they will be effective or even well conceived. Some rules are clearly ineffective, because people in the thread are crying out for more, because the existing rules were made according to the system design, not to the mechanics of human behaviour. If they were effective, we'd not need more.

And as i already covered with Ttaskmaster he did indeed state that how people behave is the only thing that matters

Nope.
I said that in order to make rules, you just need to understand human behaviour within the system, because that is the constant element. You don't need to understand the system for this part, because how people behave will then define what the system can and cannot feasibly achieve through these rules.

again whether intentional or not is irrelevant as the burden is on the person talking (typing) to clarify any misunderstandings, it's not to furiously deny that there's been a misunderstanding, that's not how conversations work, there's give and take, there's honest questions and honest answers, there's misunderstandings and clarifications.

I've clarified and explained several times, never denied any of your misunderstandings and indeed pointed them out while supplying corrections, only to be met by your refusal to acknowledge and instead further attempts to compound the issue with irrelevant claims of fallacy at every imagined opportunity.
You've merely tried different tactics to try and discredit, negate, erase, alter, or otherwise remove my assertions instead of simply addressing the point - Arguing grammar, imagining different meanings, inventing implications, fallacy dropping and all manner of avoidance tactics. So much for give and take....

But then, all of this is yet another example of why you can't design and then enforce a system with rules, if you don't first understand and design it and them around how and why people can't, don't and won't play by them.

that's why i had, up until this point, been simply pointing out every time Ttaskmaster had used a fallacy because i knew by responding I'd just be feeding the troll

I don't troll and I don't give a toss if you even respond to this thread. I was making a point in the discussion, and that's as far as I went. Do not assume my intentions or meanings - You get it wrong too often.

Returning to the point: I wasn't saying it was false, i was simply pointing out that no matter what system (capitalism, communism, socialism) is used you still need rules and regulations to dissuade peoples darker nature, however those rules and regulations are, or at least should be, shaped by the system you're using.

And I was disagreeing with the last part. They are shaped by the mechanics of human nature.

In the idealised communist system (afaik) you shouldn't really need laws against theft as everyone is, from my limited understand, meant to be equal owners of everything

But human nature, unchanged over centuries, means it will not be ideal and every attempt has required laws that are only not needed in theory.

Oh and just to say i would love to continue this conversation but i know full well that at any moment now Ttaskmaster will interject as he did before with a plethora of fallacies and render any attempt at reasonable conversation meaningless.

If you don't like how people play the game, stop trying to red card them on irrelevant rules, or go start your own game and define the rules before commencing.

that's not a failing of capitalism it's a failing of the people passing the rules an regulations that govern the system, no?

So after all your pretentious bull-cack, you assert what I asserted in the first place!!
This has a very Orwellian ring to it...

[Corky34]

^^Case in point^^ I'm outa' here.

[Zak33]

that is the right reply...

while I don't agree or disagree with Taskmaster particularly, and tbh don't have time to read that mountain... if you don't wanna argue... walk.

[badass]

Communism is a very simple concept, defined by one main idea: the means of production being owned by the people.

On that basis, we are partially communist in the UK. JLP are communist https://www.johnlewispartnership.co....ownership.html

This means that communism can exist within capitalism. And in this case very successfully.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just to be clear.

[Ttaskmaster]

On that basis, we are partially communist in the UK. JLP are communist https://www.johnlewispartnership.co....ownership.html
This means that communism can exist within capitalism. And in this case very successfully.

JLP Partners don't really own the business, though. They get shares as benefits in kind and part of their remuneration package, but cannot actually buy or sell them. I also understand that, while they get a voice and a say in what the company does with its money, they only get that over part of the capital and not that large a percentage... so the means of production are neither fully owned, nor fully controlled, by the workers.