History is full of examples that prove my point, Janine, because all of history prior to the revolution is of eras where humanity did not have the technological advances to create an abundance for all, yet still changed and progressed in other ways.
I don't know exactly what you have or have not read, but it's obvious from your statements what the ideology behind them happen to be. You make that clear.
I'm mean-spirited? You know that you're getting overwrought here because I think I've been quite cordial to you throughout this debate compared to the things your ally Winston and others in this thread have said to me, and I don't think I got nasty with you. Do I throw a barb here and there? Yes, maybe, because debates can and often do get heated. But I do not think I have been mean to you or used a tone beyond what you have occasionally used with me. I didn't jump on you about that, however, because I understand that this happens during a debate when frustration mounts between people.
To be frank, I do not think anything I said to you would have caused you to consider my opinion even if I was as cordial as a saint. I have these debates not because I think I will convince most Libertarians et al of my views, but generally for the sake of fence-sitters who haven't yet made up their minds but are looking for debates so they can consider both views to help them decide which stance to take, or to provide strong reinforcement for other socialists.
Now you are being insulting and, quite frankly, dense by repeatedly using the Straw Man tactic with alleging that I'm asking people to give up their civil rights or even making it clear what you mean by "rights" in the first place. People who have actually read Marx & Engels objectively will clearly see that I am *not* arguing in defense of Soviet-style state-controlled despotism because they know the vast differences between the two. Simply conflating them over and over again while providing no real knowledge of how either worked is not being convincing but indicative of simple emoting. And referring to someone arguing for a fundamental form of democracy like economic democracy as a "sociopath" makes as much rational sense as the common tactic of SJWs throwing the "Nazi" label at anyone who disagrees with *their* form of Extreme Left autocracy by standing up for the equality of *everyone.*
History is full of examples that prove my point, Janine, because all of history prior to the revolution is of eras where humanity did not have the technological advances to create an abundance for all, yet still changed and progressed in other ways.
I don't know exactly what you have or have not read, but it's obvious from your statements what the ideology behind them happen to be. You make that clear.
I'm mean-spirited? You know that you're getting overwrought here because I think I've been quite cordial to you throughout this debate compared to the things your ally Winston and others in this thread have said to me, and I don't think I got nasty with you. Do I throw a barb here and there? Yes, maybe, because debates can and often do get heated. But I do not think I have been mean to you or used a tone beyond what you have occasionally used with me. I didn't jump on you about that, however, because I understand that this happens during a debate when frustration mounts between people.
To be frank, I do not think anything I said to you would have caused you to consider my opinion even if I was as cordial as a saint. I have these debates not because I think I will convince most Libertarians et al of my views, but generally for the sake of fence-sitters who haven't yet made up their minds but are looking for debates so they can consider both views to help them decide which stance to take, or to provide strong reinforcement for other socialists.
Now you are being insulting and, quite frankly, dense by repeatedly using the Straw Man tactic with alleging that I'm asking people to give up their civil rights or even making it clear what you mean by "rights" in the first place. People who have actually read Marx & Engels objectively will clearly see that I am *not* arguing in defense of Soviet-style state-controlled despotism because they know the vast differences between the two. Simply conflating them over and over again while providing no real knowledge of how either worked is not being convincing but indicative of simple emoting. And referring to someone arguing for a fundamental form of democracy like economic democracy as a "sociopath" makes as much rational sense as the common tactic of SJWs throwing the "Nazi" label at anyone who disagrees with *their* form of Extreme Left autocracy by standing up for the equality of *everyone.*