Skeptic Project

You basically have an opinion on "capitalism," but I think what you really have an opinion on "globalisation" and as usual you don't really know what you're talking about.

You keep throwing around all these terms you don't understand to justify an opinion. You can keep doing it, but you look pretty stupid. Especially with Marilyn Manson as your avatar.

NO UR WRONG

Your linear model of philosophical perspectives is rather dubious. How does one ascribe "socialism" are being responsible for the kinds of relationships that exist between states and individuals? One could just simply argue that Liberalism in the 20th century, not Socialism, is responsible for state bound rights systems and contemporary models of behavior. Again, this seems to be a rather tenuous stringing together of an eclectic political continuum. You can't just say that our current systems are the result of socialism since thats a remarkably empty statement. Liberalism forwarded many of the current patterns. Egalitarianism laid the foundation for our conception of that system. On what basis can you say socialism has had the influence it has? Are you so sure the welfare state is congruent with socialism as it evolves and interacts with a progression of changing circumstances? Honestly, this is all rather annoying.

"Your linear model of philosophical perspectives is rather dubious."

The best thing to come out of this terrible, awful thread based on fail to begin with.

Well, from the perspective of Australia at least (and many European nations) I'd have to disagree. The same may not be true of America, I don't know, but I'm not in a position to argue specifically on this issue for America because I really don't take an interest in much of American history.

Yes, the socialists slowly compromised - but they didn't give up on their core values. Ever.

They also didnt get to dictate the terms of the broader discourse. That which does so is the prime power that must be understood. Social Democratic movements were situated within the context of the post war period and had to maneuver a much broader set of circumstances. This honeymoon was quickly truncated in the 1980s, and none of this is to deal with the fact that the social democrat movement was never that original or unique in their approaches. They pursue ideas of Capitalist welfare states, no a progression from capitalism to socialism. That's a fairly profound change. By your reasoning, furthermore, i could say that Hedonism is the prime force in Western moral constructions. It wouldnt be a good argument, but one could make it.

I wish Brenton and Nic would stop committing the Australia fallacy.

This isn't about politics so much as its Brenton and Nic thinking that words mean different things in other places than America.

Also Brenton hates Wal Mart.

That's probably about it.

I will accept that the argument was weak and also add that I'm biased. If we're going to have Capitalism then it had best be socially democratic, or quite frankly, it can fuck off.

This thread, Matt, has not at all been about redefining words but if you want to make that argument then please provide some examples of me doing it in this thread - something you've thus far failed to do. I may not be making a fully sound argument, but that doesn't mean my definitions are wrong.

Brenton, after getting your Bachelor in Film Production, are you planning to pursue a PhD in YouTubeology?

Well I actually hate studying film, which has surprised me. I'm about 11 weeks into my first trimester and I'm going to change to a Bachelor of Music Production in March. Film just pisses me the fuck off. At least when you're assigned essays in music classes they don't want your "opinion" on the construction of a scene/etc/etc ... it's all about the lawful construction of music, the math behind it, etc, etc,.

Not me Matt. You will note that I was telling to wake up well before it got out of control. Also Galileo was wrong. The universe obviously revolves around America.

Well, only until China or somewhere else becomes the reserve currency lolz.

I don't care if I have an understanding on an academic level, because I'm not claiming that I do. I am biased. I do not like the world as it is. I take the contention that it has to be changed. I will not respect mainstream economics because I consider that there is enough evidence that it's in opposition to sustainability. I consider that social democratic ideas are responsible (alongside liberalism and egalitarianism, sure) for public services that mean that I don't have to live off mashed potato and the cheapest parts of meat with some rare vegetables as would have been my destiny if it were not for such social policy. This is simple stuff, at least from the viewpoint of an Australian - our own PM gave speeches on the direct influence of social democracy (whatever other labels you want to add to it, obviously a Labor party is going to call it social democracy) on our standard of living during last years August elections.

We're not even discussing economics here muertos, so do us a favour and keep that out of it, we're discussing simple basic political philosophy. Philosophy being something that I have excelled at in my education.

Why are my arguments here weak? Because I'm not even bothering to do research until I'm challenged back on this forum, and I NEVER DO, because I don't take any of you with the slightest seriousness at all. Sorry. Just sayin'.

On this forum it is my attitude that I will give my basic assumption on something before I even bother turning it into truth/research because I really don't care that much about the responses I get. Really. I just don't take this place seriously at all.

Simply put, when I post on here I'm not writing an academic paper and I will NEVER behave like I am.

Taking discussions on here would be like taking discussions with supporters of the Australian Liberal Party on twitter seriously. I just don't do it.

You can seperate these things when we're having a specific, undetailed, unacademic discussion about politic philosophy. Anyone who thought this was a serious discussion from even post #1 was seriously misled, and seriously misled by 90% of the threads they enter into on this forum if that's the way they think of it.

I was a Greens supporter and am a member of the Greens, but Browns behaviour - his "do as I say, not as I do" attitude - is in my mind no better than TAbbott's or JG's. So I don't know that I could say that I particularly support anyone. Granted I will always preference Greens & Labour up top, even if they're not doing the best they could for the economy because that'd be better than having Abbott or any Conservative leader running this country. I'm glad also that you pointed out that our major Conservative party is essentially the wet dream of the tea party (because it's sooo true haha). Anyway to discuss Aus politics in detail is kind of to digress from where this discussion is at so I'll leave it at that.

Again, I'm not fucking deviating from the definition of any word I've used. If that were the case I would expect by now that at least one poster in this topic would provide a specific, explained example of me having done as such in this thread. But they haven't. Accusations really do suck when a person doesn't at least try to provide evidence for them.

And, as I'll continue to maintain, I completely disagree. I'm not even interested in arguing about this anymore. The continuing spread of public services being a granted in societies is socialistic (not purely, but certainly socialistic in many ways) and I wont diverge from that. If I could be bothered I could find plenty of papers that decently argue this. But as with my post of the gun crimes per-capita by country graphic, when you're presented with something that's actually real you'll ignore me anyway.

Typical troll.

Go back and read my posts you dirty bitch. You can try and tell me I'm misrepresenting it as much as i want but i'm not, I'm being very clear about the parameters it uses - and they're fair in terms of that discussion so gtfo ploise.

Well you obviously didn't read them because you're claiming that I'm claiming things that I'm certainly not! #fail

I've re-read this thread a few times to help put my responses in the best context I can. All I've claimed is that socialist theory is the major basis for social programs that are accessible to all. Now, granted, I did also say that it was the only and core basis for such things - and sure I'll allow that as this conversation has progressed that I would admit that that is not true. But, what I do absolutely stand by is my contention that socialism is a major basis for broad ranging social programs. There are so many major developments that we could discuss that are a result almost directly of socialist ideology. But why bother, since I'm already wrong anyway - right?