I said capitalism is at least better than communism. Everything else is words written for me.
To be precise, you demanded an example of a ‘pure’ system that the original commenter made no pretensions of supporting, and when called out, you objected that you weren’t the one claiming that such a system existed, implying that the other commenter was (which is demonstrably untrue).
My fault for using the wrong term. I didn’t mean pure as in: solitary unto itself. But as people tend to say communism is better than capitalism or what have you-
They never specify “communism + (other form of government) either.
My original point is: Communism isn’t automatically good just because capitalism isn’t. And as predicted, the discussion exploded into a series of me defending points I never made, as a result of moved goalposts and rhetoric. (Not from you per-se, but I knew the moment I responded to the original post, I would be defending f stupid shit all day).
Ok, but that seems like a non sequitur. I don’t understand how your metaphor is supposed to help translate “[capitalism] beats communism any day of the week” into “communism isn’t automatically good because capitalism isn’t”. Those are two completely different statements.
I think it would help me if you connected the dots more when you write things.
Person A thinks capitalism sucks because it has traffic, over saturated consumerism, and healthcare for profit.
Person B thinks that communism has most of those things as well, and makes a point to insinuate that capitalism, while having those problems- is still better than communism when communism has very few examples of actually being any better.
To further explain-
Complaining about something while offering little to remedy the complaint is pointless. Therefore, I simply offered a counter argument that was at least productive.
I said capitalism is at least better than communism. Everything else is words written for me.
To be precise, you demanded an example of a ‘pure’ system that the original commenter made no pretensions of supporting, and when called out, you objected that you weren’t the one claiming that such a system existed, implying that the other commenter was (which is demonstrably untrue).
My fault for using the wrong term. I didn’t mean pure as in: solitary unto itself. But as people tend to say communism is better than capitalism or what have you-
They never specify “communism + (other form of government) either.
My original point is: Communism isn’t automatically good just because capitalism isn’t. And as predicted, the discussion exploded into a series of me defending points I never made, as a result of moved goalposts and rhetoric. (Not from you per-se, but I knew the moment I responded to the original post, I would be defending f stupid shit all day).
I absolutely did not get that meaning from your comment at the top of this thread, which was:
Every shitty neighborhood has that one house that’s juuuuusst a bit less shitty than the rest.
But it’s still shitty.
Ok, but that seems like a non sequitur. I don’t understand how your metaphor is supposed to help translate “[capitalism] beats communism any day of the week” into “communism isn’t automatically good because capitalism isn’t”. Those are two completely different statements.
I think it would help me if you connected the dots more when you write things.
I was being sarcastic.
Meaning:
Person A thinks capitalism sucks because it has traffic, over saturated consumerism, and healthcare for profit.
Person B thinks that communism has most of those things as well, and makes a point to insinuate that capitalism, while having those problems- is still better than communism when communism has very few examples of actually being any better.
To further explain-
Complaining about something while offering little to remedy the complaint is pointless. Therefore, I simply offered a counter argument that was at least productive.
Ok, I understand what you meant better. Thanks for explaining further.