|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 21:31:58 GMT -5
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2019 12:36:24 GMT -5
Imagine being such a delusional shithead, that when someone suggests you use your wealth, time, or effort to help other people, your immediate conclusion is "this person must be in favor of torture and genocide".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 14, 2019 13:49:13 GMT -5
Imagine being such a delusional shithead, that when someone suggests you use your wealth, time, or effort to help other people, your immediate conclusion is "this person must be in favor of torture and genocide".
Actually, Mao was responsible for the torture and death of millions of people. That's a matter of public record.
"Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years'"
"In 1957, he launched a campaign known as the Great Leap Forward that aimed to rapidly transform China's economy from agrarian to industrial. This campaign led to the deadliest famine in history and the deaths of 20–45 million people between 1958 and 1962.[3][4][5] In 1966, Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution, a program to remove "counter-revolutionary" elements in Chinese society which lasted 10 years and was marked by violent class struggle, widespread destruction of cultural artifacts, and an unprecedented elevation of Mao's cult of personality."
But people who run private charities also suggest that others use their wealth, time, or effort to help other people. In a previous thread, I supported their efforts.
Weren't you the one who accused private charities of "exploitation?"
Why the sudden change in your views?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2019 12:02:14 GMT -5
Of course, as a Randian, there is no reason to think that genocide is bad in principle. What matters is whether it was done for the correct reasons, and against the correct targets.
For Randians, Mao's genocide was incorrect because he didn't kill 'primitives' or 'moochers'.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 16, 2019 14:02:55 GMT -5
Of course, as a Randian, there is no reason to think that genocide is bad in principle. What matters is whether it was done for the correct reasons, and against the correct targets. For Randians, Mao's genocide was incorrect because he didn't kill 'primitives' or 'moochers'.
Ad Hominem, Circumstantial.
Mao's genocide was wrong because it was an actual genocide. Millions died. Who did Rand ever kill?
On top of that, you keep ignoring the fact that Rand's comments on genocide were clearly inconsistent with the foundation of her philosophy, the Non-Aggression Principle.
By contrast, Mao's genocide was in complete accord with his Marxist-Leninist prime directive to eliminate all "counter-revolutionaries."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 9:59:10 GMT -5
Mao's genocide was wrong because it was an actual genocide. So the genocide against Native Americans wasn't a real genocide in your eyes.
I can't say I'm surprised, as this is actually in line with the Ayn Rand Institute's position in reaction to criticism of Rand's genocide advocacy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 18, 2019 11:53:31 GMT -5
Mao's genocide was wrong because it was an actual genocide. So the genocide against Native Americans wasn't a real genocide in your eyes. Nope. I didn't say that at all. The genocide of Native Americans was obviously a real genocide where large numbers of people were killed. My point was that whie Rand may have supported that genocide over 100 years after it happened she herself didn't participate in it or kill anyone. I have always said that Rand's position on the Native-American genocide was clearly wrong. How is that in line with anyone who justifies it?
And what does any of this have to do with the fact that Mao actually killed millions of his own people? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 13:52:11 GMT -5
So the genocide against Native Americans wasn't a real genocide in your eyes. Nope. I didn't say that at all. The genocide of Native Americans was obviously a real genocide where large numbers of people were killed. My point was that whie Rand may have supported that genocide over 100 years after it happened she herself didn't participate in it or kill anyone. So what you're saying is that by 2045, it will be okay to defend the Holocaust?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 19, 2019 14:17:27 GMT -5
Nope. I didn't say that at all. The genocide of Native Americans was obviously a real genocide where large numbers of people were killed. My point was that whie Rand may have supported that genocide over 100 years after it happened she herself didn't participate in it or kill anyone. So what you're saying is that by 2045, it will be okay to defend the Holocaust?
Of course not. In 2045, they will be just as wrong about this particular issue as Rand is today.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 21, 2019 21:05:38 GMT -5
The point is that while Rand may have defended one Holocaust, many Socialists and Communists defend all of the Holocausts that have occurred in the the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, and even the the mass starvation that is happening today in Venezuela.
Rand's defense of one Holocaust was clearly in contradiction of her Cardinal Principle: Do not initiate violence.
The Communist Holocausts were in full accord of the Marxist-Leninist command to kill all "bourgeois counter-revolutionaries."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 12:02:09 GMT -5
Who are these "many socialists" and why are they relevant?
Rand's defense of one Holocaust was clearly in contradiction of her Cardinal Principle: Do not initiate violence. But the colonists didn't initiate violence. They simply took land that 'wasn't used properly', and were attacked by suicidal animals.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2019 14:08:09 GMT -5
Who are these "many socialists" and why are they relevant? No shortage of supporting evidence here. There have been plenty of them around since the 1930's. "Although the trials of former Soviet leaders were widely publicized, the hundreds of thousands of other arrests and executions were not. These became known in the West only as a few former gulag inmates reached the West with their stories.[76] Not only did foreign correspondents from the West fail to report on the purges, but in many Western nations (especially France), attempts were made to silence or discredit these witnesses; according to Robert Conquest, Jean-Paul Sartre took the position that evidence of the camps should be ignored so the French proletariat would not be discouraged.[77]... According to Robert Conquest in his 1968 book The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties, with respect to the trials of former leaders, some Western observers were unable to see through the fraudulent nature of the charges and evidence, notably Walter Duranty of The New York Times, a Russian speaker; the American Ambassador, Joseph E. Davies, who reported, "proof...beyond reasonable doubt to justify the verdict of treason"[79] and Beatrice and Sidney Webb, authors of Soviet Communism: A New Civilization.[80]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Western_reactionsWant something more recent? Try this: www.marxist.com/cuba-revolution100504.htmStrawman and Red Herring. I never made any such claim. And your comment here has nothing to do with the Socialists and Communists who are still advocating Socialism even after the ever increasing numbers of Socialist Genocides. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 14:44:24 GMT -5
Strawman and Red Herring. I never made any such claim. And your comment here has nothing to do with the Socialists and Communists who are still advocating Socialism even after the ever increasing numbers of Socialist Genocides. Bob Did I say that you made such a claim? If yes, then please include a direct quote where I said it.
And I already asked you once who these "socialists and communists" are whom you are talking about.
Again, who are they? And what exactly did they say? Can you actually provide sources with direct quotes?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2019 15:03:17 GMT -5
Strawman and Red Herring. I never made any such claim. And your comment here has nothing to do with the Socialists and Communists who are still advocating Socialism even after the ever increasing numbers of Socialist Genocides. Bob Did I say that you made such a claim? If yes, then please include a direct quote where I said it. And I already asked you once who these "socialists and communists" are whom you are talking about. Again, who are they? And what exactly did they say? Can you actually provide sources with direct quotes? Sure. No problem. Here they are again: And here is another quote from a long-time Communist:
"Eric John Ernest Hobsbawm CH FRSL FBA (/ˈhɒbz.bɔːm/; 9 June 1917 – 1 October 2012) was a British historian of the rise of industrial capitalism, socialism and nationalism. He is considered one of the world's best-known historians.[1] Ideologically a life-long Marxist, his socio-political convictions influenced the character of his work.[2]
In a 1994 interview on BBC British television with Canadian author and politician Michael Ignatieff (whose grandfather and great-grandfather were ministers of the Czar prior to the Bolshevik Revolution), he shocked viewers when he said that the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens under Stalin would have been worth it if a genuine Communist society had been the result.[5][48][49]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm#Praise_and_criticismBob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 5:37:54 GMT -5
So you are argueing that all "foreign correspondents to the West" were diehard communists? Even those of centrist or right-wing newspapers?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2019 14:16:03 GMT -5
So you are argueing that all "foreign correspondents to the West" were diehard communists? Even those of centrist or right-wing newspapers? No. But plenty of them were. And that's why they lied when they wrote that there was no mass-murder going on in the Soviet Union. They were justifying the mass-murder while it was happening. And the article clearly does not mention "all" western correspondents. You asked me: "Again, who are they? And what exactly did they say? Can you actually provide sources with direct quotes?" And I told you. And there's plenty more there this came from. Communists and their sympathizers have been claiming that Communist Holocausts really didn't happen since the 1930's. When they can't deny it, they try to ignore it. But it's difficult to ignore the murder of several million people. Here's another article about the Soviet coverup of the Ukrainian Holocaust: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_HolodomorHere's one about the attempted coverup of the Cambodian Holocaust: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Murder_of_Malcolm_CaldwellWant more? Try this: Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 23:51:57 GMT -5
So people with leftist leanings are parasites that must be purged. Interesting position for the New York Times to take, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 24, 2019 10:42:31 GMT -5
So people with leftist leanings are parasites that must be purged. Interesting position for the New York Times to take, don't you think?
Your ability to misinterpret direct quotes never ceases to amaze me.
Quite clearly the quote refers to Communist ideas. That is the plague. Lenin was just a carrier.
Are you also saying that Lenin should not have been purged? After all, Lenin started a police state that killed thousands under his rule. And that led to Stalin who killed millions.
If you had been alive back then and had the authority to stop Lenin, would you have done so? How about Hitler? If you had the power to stop Hitler in 1930, would you have done it?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 5:43:08 GMT -5
So people with leftist leanings are parasites that must be purged. Interesting position for the New York Times to take, don't you think?
Your ability to misinterpret direct quotes never ceases to amaze me. Quite clearly the quote refers to Communist ideas. That is the plague. Lenin was just a carrier. So ideas have a life of their own? They exist separately from the people who think and talk about them? That's an even nuttier proposition!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 5:44:07 GMT -5
So people with leftist leanings are parasites that must be purged. Interesting position for the New York Times to take, don't you think?
Your ability to misinterpret direct quotes never ceases to amaze me. Quite clearly the quote refers to Communist ideas. That is the plague. Lenin was just a carrier. Are you also saying that Lenin should not have been purged? After all, Lenin started a police state that killed thousands under his rule. And that led to Stalin who killed millions.
If you had been alive back then and had the authority to stop Lenin, would you have done so? How about Hitler? If you had the power to stop Hitler in 1930, would you have done it? Bob
Wouldn't it have been a violation of Lenin's freedom of speech if he had been attacked for his socialist views?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 25, 2019 10:14:33 GMT -5
Your ability to misinterpret direct quotes never ceases to amaze me. Quite clearly the quote refers to Communist ideas. That is the plague. Lenin was just a carrier. So ideas have a life of their own? They exist separately from the people who think and talk about them? That's an even nuttier proposition!
Where did I say that ideas have a life of their own? I didn't. That's your misinterpretation.
Your right though that it's a nuttier proposition. Which is why I never said it.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 4:39:35 GMT -5
So ideas have a life of their own? They exist separately from the people who think and talk about them? That's an even nuttier proposition! Where did I say that ideas have a life of their own? I didn't. That's your misinterpretation.
Your right though that it's a nuttier proposition. Which is why I never said it. Bob
A plague I carry is not subject to my will or my commands. It has a life of its own. If communism behaves like a plague, then it has a life of its own. Or were you saying that communism is unique in that it is the only idea that has a life of its own?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 1, 2019 12:47:17 GMT -5
Where did I say that ideas have a life of their own? I didn't. That's your misinterpretation.
Your right though that it's a nuttier proposition. Which is why I never said it. Bob
A plague I carry is not subject to my will or my commands. It has a life of its own. If communism behaves like a plague, then it has a life of its own. Or were you saying that communism is unique in that it is the only idea that has a life of its own?
Plague germs and viruses actually do have a life of their own. They exist all by themselves and can be photographed. Try doing that with an idea.
To say something behaves like a plague is a metaphor.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 18:49:11 GMT -5
A plague I carry is not subject to my will or my commands. It has a life of its own. If communism behaves like a plague, then it has a life of its own. Or were you saying that communism is unique in that it is the only idea that has a life of its own? Plague germs and viruses actually do have a life of their own. They exist all by themselves and can be photographed. Try doing that with an idea. To say something behaves like a plague is a metaphor. Bob
So what you're saying is that you were lying?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2019 21:02:55 GMT -5
Plague germs and viruses actually do have a life of their own. They exist all by themselves and can be photographed. Try doing that with an idea. To say something behaves like a plague is a metaphor. Bob
So what you're saying is that you were lying? Since when are metaphors "lies?"
And Communist countries have killed many more people that most medical plagues, so the metaphor is apt.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 15:05:49 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that you were lying? Since when are metaphors "lies?" Does communism have a mind of its own, yes or no? If not, then you were knowingly stating a falsehood, aka lying.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 20:34:15 GMT -5
Since when are metaphors "lies?" Does communism have a mind of its own, yes or no? If not, then you were knowingly stating a falsehood, aka lying.
You didn't answer the question. Since when are metaphors "lies?"
And I never said "communism has a mind of its own". You made that up.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 12:17:43 GMT -5
Does communism have a mind of its own, yes or no? If not, then you were knowingly stating a falsehood, aka lying. You didn't answer the question. Since when are metaphors "lies?" And I never said "communism has a mind of its own". You made that up. Bob
Knowingly stating a falsehood is lying, is it not? Did you know that communism doesn't have a mind of its own when you compared it to a plague, yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 13:10:41 GMT -5
You didn't answer the question. Since when are metaphors "lies?" And I never said "communism has a mind of its own". You made that up. Bob
Knowingly stating a falsehood is lying, is it not? Did you know that communism doesn't have a mind of its own when you compared it to a plague, yes or no?
First of all, Plagues don't have minds, do they?
Second and more important, Metaphors are not lies.
"Definition of metaphor 1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money) "
If someone says they are "drowning in debt", would you call them a liar?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 17:02:01 GMT -5
Knowingly stating a falsehood is lying, is it not? Did you know that communism doesn't have a mind of its own when you compared it to a plague, yes or no? First of all, Plagues don't have minds, do they?
Of course not, I mistyped. I meant "a life of its own". Red Herring. We weren't talking about metaphors, we were talking about your claim that communism is a plague, which it self-evidently isn't. You knew it wasn't, yet you made the claim anyway. Therefore, you lied. Of course we all know that the real reason why communism is bad, is that helping other people is evil and wrong.
|
|