Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
No. The end state of the communism would be everyone living in harmony working for the benefit of the group. No wars and no state. I personally can only remember a single true communist society in fiction (Gaia from the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov) and that's because it makes humans more like a colony. Anarchy actually is incompatible with communism.
No. This is incorrect in both history and political science. And incredible incorrect if we go by values. If you are talking about values at least be consistent.
Again, you should know the concepts before claiming things. Individual liberty, that I claimed to be the core of liberalism, is actually central to many ideas from the left. Economical liberalism, political liberalism and neo liberalism and sociological liberalism are different in pratical terms (most liberals would hate economical liberalism and would prefer protectionism).
If this is your point of view that's ok. But don't act as if this has any semblance of the reality or any basis on sociology or political theory. Anyone that took a 101 on sociology would be able to understand that both the far left and the far right can lead to oppressive regimes (with the far left regimes actually being way more common) and that acting as if one side is always wrong is moronic.
No. You are the one using economic and political terms as if they mean values, without even understanding what they mean. Basic example: try to explain what is ''state capitalism'' (if you mean the state controlling the capital and leading the economy that's socialism. If you mean the state putting limits on capitalism that's protectionism and actually a leftist movement to limit the damages that capitalism may cause. If you mean something else, you should use it's proper term) in a way that is not linked to economy and politics and just values.
This statement is incredible naive and don't represent the graphic in any way, shape or form.
Sorry, but the graphic not only is incorrect but is oversimplified to the point of being useless. And I recommend you to look at the
Dunning–Kruger effect. For someone that don't have any idea about what you're talking about, you seem overly confident.
Sorry. Usually this naivete exists in younger people that haven't seem the world and think that everything is black and white.
No. This is incorrect in both history and political science. And incredible incorrect if we go by values. If you are talking about values at least be consistent.
Again, you should know the concepts before claiming things. Individual liberty, that I claimed to be the core of liberalism, is actually central to many ideas from the left. Economical liberalism, political liberalism and neo liberalism and sociological liberalism are different in pratical terms (most liberals would hate economical liberalism and would prefer protectionism).
If this is your point of view that's ok. But don't act as if this has any semblance of the reality or any basis on sociology or political theory. Anyone that took a 101 on sociology would be able to understand that both the far left and the far right can lead to oppressive regimes (with the far left regimes actually being way more common) and that acting as if one side is always wrong is moronic.
No. You are the one using economic and political terms as if they mean values, without even understanding what they mean. Basic example: try to explain what is ''state capitalism'' (if you mean the state controlling the capital and leading the economy that's socialism. If you mean the state putting limits on capitalism that's protectionism and actually a leftist movement to limit the damages that capitalism may cause. If you mean something else, you should use it's proper term) in a way that is not linked to economy and politics and just values.
This statement is incredible naive and don't represent the graphic in any way, shape or form.
Sorry, but the graphic not only is incorrect but is oversimplified to the point of being useless. And I recommend you to look at the
Dunning–Kruger effect. For someone that don't have any idea about what you're talking about, you seem overly confident.
Sorry. Usually this naivete exists in younger people that haven't seem the world and think that everything is black and white.
you are cringe bro
You said that it was won like any other frontier, and despite the fact that i don't think this true, i told you how i feel about it.
How is this not the answer you wanted?
A Western colony in the middle east uses overwhelming technologis power to destroy and genocide a technological inferior population.
It is wrong, just like killing aborigenous in austria.
How is this not the answer you wanted?
A Western colony in the middle east uses overwhelming technologis power to destroy and genocide a technological inferior population.
It is wrong, just like killing aborigenous in austria.
