: : : : : Oh yeah, have I endorsed any EXISTING or PAST system of "communism"? Where? And what did I say about it? : See, Norman, I can post links about everything you said. Can you do the same for my posts?: : : You've never quoted Lenin or Marx to support your positions?
: : SDF: I could quote either author and it wouldn't be because I was trying to show anything about anything more than "what Lenin said" or "what Marx said". Stoller quoted Hitler (in fact he quoted Hitler's DENUNCIATIONS of COMMUNISM) in support of the position that Hitler "wasn't on the left"; this does not make Stoller a Nazi.
: It isn't as absurd as your implying to assume one who quotes Lenin and Marx and Bakunin and a few others with such depth of knowledge to support their views. If I quoted G. Washington, or heaven forbid, the Bible, do you think that those who would inevitably accuse me of jingoism or Bible Thumpery would be far from wrong? Look at past posts to see what I've been labled using Von Mises as an authoritative source.
SDF: Aw, poor baby! Don't you know how to defend yourself with logic?
:
: : Go ahead, quote Marx if you want Norman. It's OK. We have freedom of speech here in America, and you can buy Marx's books openly in the bookstore without fear of immediate retribution. And, besides, your quote doesn't have to be an APPROVING quote.
:
: I have, remember the challenge that K issued (I think it was K) daring me to show where Marx advocated violence? From his (Marx's) point of view he approved of violence in obtaining his social goals.
SDF: Aha! So you quote Marx, do you, eh? You're a communist, right?
:
: : : You've never illustrated your conception of an ideal society with examples including Pygmy tribes and American Indian tribes?
: : SDF: No, I illustrated a point about this so-called HUMAN NATURE of ours with those examples. I showed how referring to "human nature" as an argument for LIMITING HUMAN POSSIBILILTIES was absurd, because there were so many different varieties of society that a concept of "human nature" would have to encompass them all. This was a disproof of the notion that "human nature" is CULTURAL -- people are who they are because they are Pygmy or Ik or Semai or Yanomami or American or Chinese, not because someone says "it is human nature to be (fill in the blank)". Ideal societies cannot thusly be rendered impossible with shallow arguments about "human nature," because culture is something we can KNOW and therefore DESIGN.
: Hold on slick. If what you say is true, if human nature is nothing more than a reflection of society, and that, further, it is not possible to judge one society by the standards of another,
SDF: This "further" is something you are trying to attribute to me, FALSELY. I ONLY said that the diversity of human societies militated against simplistic attributions of "human nature". The acid test for this assertion, as I have shown, is that an attribution must cover all present and past human social forms, and I named a few. I never said ANYTHING about making judgments about which social forms are better than others.
: you are only left with the conclusion that might is right.
SDF: A conclusion which is based on the above false attribution.
: : Say Norman, what if you all of a sudden decided to say something about the WORDS on the PAGE as I put them down, instead of merely identifying my words with the stereotyped visions that dot your responses? Wouldn't that be something!j
: I do Sam.
SDF: No you don't, as evidenced by the above false attribution.
