PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #21
"Civilization has to be defended against the individual, and its regulations, institutions, and commands are directed to that task." Sigmund Freud
I am never sure what to make of these straw arguments? The author hasn't the faintest idea what socialism is and for that matter doesn't even know anything about capitalism. What purpose do these bizarre arguments serve and for whom? There is so much wrong in the post, it would be impossible to correct. In this case it is necessary that one throw the whole thing out as nothing of substance is contained therein.
Look Inside:
Amazon.com: Socialism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Michael Newman: Books
Amazon.com: Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): James Fulcher: Books
Yes, yes... Once again we're treated to the absurdity that Socialism is impossible to define; so COMPLEX is this concept that the only people qualified to define Socialism are the High Preist of Academia... the Advocates of Social Science whose high intellects are the only means to navigate the subtle nuance within this ethereal premise...
I mean even this member who comes to refute my argument can't define Socialism... the best she can do is imply the 'TRUTH' is to be found in the obligatory "Link."
Reason is served by the certainty that IF Midcan had read these books and IF Nidcan believed that the truth was contained in the position advanced in these books... that she would have advanced an argument which expressed the principled truth contained in those books...
Yet that is not what she did is it?
The reason? Well it's obvious...
Last edited: