Liberals and Libertarians.

There was one thread named "libertarians are a joke" with some liberals talking as though all libertarians are capitalists and libertarians pointing out that this was wrong.

Then there was another thread named "what does socialism mean" with some libertarians talking as though all liberals are communists and some liberals pointing out that this was wrong.

We should be beginning to see a pattern here.

Are we all in agreement that Marx's idea of communism and capitalism are all naive bullshit? I'm not just talking about Marx either, I'm talking about all sorts of political philosophers who knew very little about the field they discussed and viewed the world through a very narrow lense. Marx discussed socio-economics yet he did not major in mathematics which is fundamental to any subject dealing with economics. In his writings he did not prove scientifically that his theories were viable. He was a total failure. No one can take him seriously as a scientist, only as a case study in psychology investigating how people get drawn into fallacies.

So Libertarians believe communism is utter BS and claim not to be capitalists but free marketeers. Whilst liberals believe capitalism is utter BS and claim not to be communists but social democrats....

Perhaps it is time for libertarians to state clearly that capitalism is BS and for liberals to state clearly that communism is BS.

Then we can all agree that Marx and other idealists who followed suite, including national socialists, capitalists and fascists, were bullshitters and we need to do things scientifically.

As a libertarian myself I hereby clearly state that capitalism is BS.

>>37

With your rationale, leaving the lecture hall when you're losing a debate is a perfectly reasonable form of rebuttal.

And I'm sure using words like "faggotry" really impresses the professors. They must be amazed at your eclectic vocabulary.

You claim that I've never been in an university before? Prove it. For all I know, you haven't attended one; and your arguments are at least testament to this. Usually when someone attempts to attack one's character with false or baseless claims, as you have, by mocking what you claim to be my assumed lack of a higher education, it shows that you have nothing else worthwhile to back up your arguments, and are either losing, or don't actually understand proper debate procedure. It may work when Wally George or Rush Limbaugh or even politicians on both sides of the political spectrum do it, but it doesn't cut it in an academic environment. And assuming you've ever been in an academic debate, you'd know that attacking an opponent's character with baseless slander is considered a fallacy; an "ad hominem argument," and useless easily refutable in a debate that you seem to believe is up to academic standards.

I'm not arguing either side of the debate. Common ground hasn't even been established yet, mostly due to people who insist on believing that Marxism as a philosophy is the same as communism as an economic structure, and Social Darwinism as a philosophy or even free market as an ideology is the same as capitalism. I'm arguing against people who choose to abandon arguments they are losing and claiming that they won by insulting their peers' intelligence with false claims.

If you have to leave, then just go, nobody expects you to stick around if you have work/school/etc. priorities, as do I, as well as everybody else here. But insulting people on the way out as a last ditch effort to save face in the wake of a losing argument is laughable.