LeninOnAPrayer @ LeninOnAPrayer @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

446

Joined

5 mo. ago

There is nothing to defend when you're not actually attacking what I'm saying. You're talking about things I never said like jewish conspiracy theories. Pointing out your strawman's is not "ad hominem". I think you might need to reread your comment and see if you actually addressed anything I said. You didn't. You jumped to conclusions and then made up shit I never said to argue against.

it's also ironic your mistaken "ad hominem" is directly followed with a "you dummy". Pretty funny. Just contradicting your own point.

Just straight ignoring what I said by creating a strawman and then trying to point to a falacy you are guilty of in the very next sentence.

I'm not a "debate lord". But I always find it funny when debate perverts like yourself can't even follow your own reasoning. It's adorable.

You're just arguing with a strawman at this point. Literally just making up stuff that I never said to argue against. Do you even read what you say? It's like you're having a conversation with yourself.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Individual Monarchy's failing is not what I mean. I'm talking about the transition between a world ruled by monarchs under feudalism to a world rule by capitalist under capitalism.

That transition took centuries with many failed attempts to dissolve the Monarchy and replace it with forms of a democracy under different class structures and in many different parts of the world. The one that won out in the west was capitalism. But attempts to dissolve the existing class structures of the monarch failed countless times. And even ones that succeeded also eventually failed.

My point is. You are essentially a peasant in the 1500s saying "the kings is sanctioned by God to rule us! There is clearly no better system! Look at the Greeks! Those idiots tried a class based democracy and it failed! Monarchy has been the best system for centuries! My family was meant to toil the land for the king! The king is much greater than I!"

Capitalist economies have failed, fuedalist economies have failed, socialist economies have failed, that doesn't mean that this systems are not positive progressions from one another.

It is such a simplistic and naive understanding of history to expect capitalism to continue forever. Especially when it's systems inherently rely on an oppressive class hierarchy just as the others did.

And many of the brief experiments with socialism have been absolutely successful, beneficial, and most importantly BETTER than the systems that came before it.

Cuba under socialism is SIGNIFICANTLY better than it's sugar plantation slavery under its fascist dictatorship.

Russia under the USSR was significantly better for its people than under the Tsarist rule. It brought a feudalist peasant society to a state where it defeated the Nazis (most of which Europe failed to do).

To act like an economic system is inherently good or bad is naive. It can absolutely fail and have its problems. But capitalism has absolutely failed and has significantly more problems on our planet than it solves.

The complete cognitive dissonance it must take to defend the people that opress and murder the poorest and most defenseless people in the world.

Like, you must really only see westerners as people and no one else. That's the only real answer for it.

Youve spent the whole time defending the military and not once gave a shit out the innocent people they kill. Some dude flying halfway across the world to "protect our freedom" against the poorest people in the world.

You can't do this "both sides" crap. Because you can pretend you see people of Gaza or Yemen as people. But if all you do is spend your whole time saying "both sides" then all you're doing is siding with the status quo and the oppression done by American Imperialism and the allies it weaponizes.

My hatred for the US military comes directly from my humanization of the people that they opress and kill. So, yeah, when I see a dead Joe that decided to go join that organization of terror all I see is "one less soldier to kill the innocent". Because that's what all of them are used for. Directly or indirectly that is the result of being in the military.

And I will never show respect for them. I will continue to show disrespect when they die. Because all of the ones that are still alive should feel the same shame. They should be shamed to stop serving. Because serving in the US military is something to be shamed. In life and in death.

And your "respect" for them is only serving to keep others serving and killing innocent people.

Again, you're just trying to distance them from the material results of their support for an organization that kills innocent people on a daily basis.

Whether they were doing a desk job or piloting a drone, they were a part of the organization that murders innocent people.

Just as I don't respect any cop regardless of whether they are a crossing guard or an ICE agent. They all support the structures of injustice. They are all bastards. And so is every dumb ass Joe that dies in the mud.

Yeah. I guess we should go back to Monarchy by that logic. Seems to be a very strong system that was strong for centuries and centuries. I guess when the first revolutions against monarchs failed people should have just given up and not tried to improve upon existing systems.

Your argument is literally just in favor of keeping the existing hierarchy because it is the one that exists now. That's literally all you're saying.

Zzzzzzz. Get better arguments.

Being happy when a murderer dies is being as bad as a murderer?

Nah man. I'm happy that they're not murdering people anymore. And them being dead is the only way they are brought to justice.

Only your delusions about America and it's military make you think that's a brag. For everyone else, that's not trying to add "nuance" to being a murder for hire gi joe, it's a pretty normal reaction to when US soldiers die.

God damn. It's like I'm back on reddit with how incredibly stupid some of you are.

Go suck a troops dick.

Holy fuck you people are dense. Yeah dude. They were training to "protect us from terrorist and Russians" just like in the movies. That's exactly how the world works.

Remind me again what country we just recently bombed? Oh yeah, one of the poorest countries on the planet that spent the last decade being genocided by the US and it's allies. The only country in the world performing any military action to resist the genocide in Gaza.

But yeah. The US military "fights bad guys". I'm sure. Keep believing your delusions.

Can we please this time support the Communist and Socialist organizations that did armed protest in order to get those actual results? Can we please please learn from history and not allow the capitalist to continue to control the means of production? Because in another 100 years we'll be in the exact same place with the ruling class trying to destroy the social safetynets that only served as temporary measures.

We need a real systemic change in who deciding how the economy is run and who's interest it is meant to serve.

How long will we keep pretending a bunch of 20-30 year old white dudes in the 1700s had the best idea of how to run things?

Yep. Glad to hear that's still true. It's so nice to see. A complete opposite of a lot of people that I use to love. Ethan Klein being the worst and most recent example.

Did you read the article? These dumb ass joes died in a training exercise by getting their vehicle stuck in the mud.

What do you think NATO troops do? They bomb brown people in Western Asia.

I swear to God you idiots are so excited to come up with the most idiotic "gotchas" that you don't even think about what is actually being talked about.

No one said they were actively bombing brown people. They were so stupid they died training to bomb brown people.

Exactly! I was wrong. I see the light! All of these comments replying to me and yours turned me into a patriot! We must keep throwing bodies at the problem! It would dishonorable to the fallen not to do so!

Again, you shifted the goal post so now the conversation has to be about the definition of "terrorism". That's fine. We can have that conversation. But that is not at all "emotional".

You keep assigning "emotional" as a way to avoid the point and then trying to change the topic.

It's exhausting. And it's a sign that you don't want to actually argue in good faith. You've gone full "debate lord". Goodnight mate.

The leader of a military that terrorizes the third world SHOULD honor his troops. At least in terms of his own self interest

You're gonna quote me and purposely remove the one sentence in the middle that is important to the context? Like, did you do that in your head and not even notice it? Or do you do it purposely to avoid the point being made?

I really hope it's the former. I'd much rather hope that you're just arguing in bad faith rather than being that dumb.

At this point it's obvious that you're trying to "debate lord" more than you are trying to understand what I'm saying. So I don't really have much interest in continuing this conversation.

What part of what I said was emotional? I feel like people just say this in order to not address what is actually being said. You simply say "you're being emotional" and then you don't have to address your own contridictions.

I'm pretty clear in pointing to the terrorism of both ISIS and the US military. I'm not using "emotion" I'm pointing to the material actions of these organizations that result in the deaths of innocent people. And if we were considering scale the US military would be far far worse. Even if we adjusted for the time they existed.

You are clearly the one trying to appeal to emotions. Pointing to the deaths of individual soldiers of these organizations. Like because they are humans in a uniform we have to "respect or honor" them. That is extremely emotional and not at all based in judging them by their material actions.

You can understand the circumstances that led these people to be in their roles in a terrorist organization. But you definitely do not have to "honor" or "respect" them. To do so is to endorse the material circumstances that lead to them being a part of that terrorist organization to begin with.

You're really missing the point here and keep sidetracking by trying to say I'm "being emotional". When you are clearly the only one appealing to emotions.

Thanks. Got it just in time to edit my comment and then see your reply. I'm a dummy.

Sadly they can't experience it. Not really.

I remember awhile ago there was some grifter YouTube channel that was posting "Homeless to $100k" videos.

Like even in their made up scenario the first thing they do is ask a friend for a place to stay and some cash.

Like, that's literally the hardest step and they just act like it's so simple to the point of not even addressing it.

Most of the difference between people that end up in the final stage of homelessness and people that got back on their feet is the support systems that are available to them.

Which is why people that work to end homelessness do a lot of work focusing on keeping people from even getting to that last stage of homelessness in the first place. It's much easier for our society to provide safetynets long before anyone ends up on the street addicted to drugs.

Not sure what you mean.

Edit: I'm dumb. The joke is that Elon is a drug addict. Hit me a few minutes later.