>>79
I see that I am literally going to have to hold your hand and walk you through this.
"There is no basis for this, you did not specify the statement I am desperate to "obtusificate", whatever that means."
[b]OBTUSE[/b]
1 a: not pointed or acute
2 a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression>
If I have to specify what statement you tried to make difficult to comprehend (or unclear or unpointed), then you just haven't been paying attention. Anyway, the statements are as follows:
Another poster brought up the idea of an uprising of the lower classes. My first post in this thread was
>>29. The thesis statement was that an uprising could take place and could be very effective- as history has shown us. (You take exception to the effect but I'll get to that later).
Your replies (
>>30, >>39, >>41) were all along the same lines as those in
>>30: "And how many times did the mob succeed? A handful commie revolutions versus the countless crushed..."
In
>>48 you accused me of "not being specific" (again trying to make my argument appear obuse). In
>>55 once again I clarify: "You are in denial as to the effectiveness of actual and justified revolution. Your reasons for it's ineffectiveness are reasons that every "system" has given for many years."
...but even this wasn't enough. If another effort to obtusify my statements you trivialize the argument with semantics despite you clearly understanding what I meant. If you didn't I doubt the exchange of post cited above would even be possible.
As for the rest of your statments...
Again, you misunderstand the meaning and the effect of revolution. Whatever is percieved as "being better for opressed individual" is what revolution seeks to bring about. If this results in another reign of terror or "not a communist utopia", then another revolution will be needed until we get desired results. What appears to be "ineffective revolution" is actually true revolution working itself out.
You concede to this by trying to cite anything that doesn't fit the mold of your desired result (glaring over the American Civil War, which for all intensive perpurses was a revolution- it resulted in the end of slavery).
There. Now, I've run the gamut with you, I've clarified and re-clarified without resorting to trolling or accusing you of ad homonem. If you don't think revolution (whatever one definition you want to reduce it to) will happen or that it doesn't produce change, this is entirely your perogitive. But just remember that it doesn't reflect history and that you- in this thread- have done a really poor job of arguing otherwise.