@SleepingSilence1. That really does not answer my question in the slightest. Maybe people don't like communism because of the actual facts they have easy access to opposed to the evidence that it was a lie in any regard. I know what you're saying, but you've given literally nothing here to extend the conversation. :/ I want a link of evidence. Or names of people who miscalculated the numbers or the real numbers...Not everyone "dislikes" communism so those real number MUST be somewhere.
That would take way more effort than I have the time to expend. I'm not trying to revise the list, i'm arguing that the lists that keep getting posted are too liberal in what they count as a killed-by.
2. I have a slight feeling I'm getting into a "Not Real (insert opinion which has a lot of damning evidence against it here)" argument right now. Millions of death is something to avoid...regardless of how many millions it is...(Feel like a one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic discussion.
If I say this is basically the only system that's killed 100 million people. Through awful famines and guns pressed to mothers and children's heads and the reaction I'm getting is "Well actually those numbers are probably lower than that!" 1. Is that remotely a good defense? 2. Sounds in poor taste to disregard the dead. 3. Seems like the can be nothing gained from the rest. I'm not hearing many pro's, just strong denial of the (SEVERITY) of the cons.
I feel like if you don't deny what communism has done. That's all it has under it's belt. So I don't understand why it is worth defending...
I'm not defending the malicious deaths, or any deaths tbh. I'm defending a less politically-motivated reading of history. I've said a half dozen times that if someone was literally murdered, then yeh, count the murder.
3. But why attempt to tell me about fringe examples of "democracies and (monarch run)capitalists" if not to draw comparison to the united states...You did them together as well? When everything else has been single examples. And argued I was being pedantic when I said we were not a democracy, instead of telling me I was correct but that totally wasn't what you were saying. So it seems like that's exactly what you did that for. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Because I have to make comparisons to something, and that something best exists in this period of history, which limits us a bit to what comparisons we make.
4. Without any evidence to back up an argument, it completely falls apart. I assume what you're saying has no evidence to back it up, basically making it conjecture at best. That's why I wanted evidence...it's necessary for this conversation to go farther then. "Here's evidence" "oh well...that's wrong! Because I say so." Doesn't really "a great debate/discussion" make.
I don't understand what evidence you mean. I'm making the arguments myself. I don't need a link to a guy saying the same shit I am saying. Like I said, we are talking methodology, I'm not accusing anybody of inventing numbers whole cloth, so evidence is more an argument for an appeal to authority.
^ I HAVE to assume, that was a writing/posting mistake because it makes no sense asking me what I asked you. :I
Once again, I feel like that doesn't help or add anything relevant here. :P
Ah, I accidentally wrote in the middle one of your quotes, so some of that is your words.
6. Once again your refusing evidence that I've provided...just because it "feels" like it's wrong. Well I'll refrain from an obvious quote I have i mind. But feelings but have much substance.
Economic statistics is a hazy field, and if they don't describe reality, you can bring them into question. I don't have time to dissect them, so this line of conversation will go to nothing. I still stand by where I was before; statistics that describes rural southern states as wealthier than the wealthiest European states are using a flawed methodology. If you produced Stats saying Nigeria was wealthier than the United States, I would have to say the same thing no matter how many graphs are involved.
8. You're doing it again. :P But seriously is germany and hitler just misunderstood in ww2? Is the war that he caused and was the forefront of, was he not responsible and was it a super complicated buisness?
I think he is to blame for the war, but putting all the deaths in that war at his doorstep would be overzealous history.
I feel like there hasn't been any detail for me to sink my teeth into. I've gotten a debate sandwich that's pretty light on actual meat.
I am working seventy hours a week right now so I don't exactly have time to spend hours researching shit. I had to throw this answer together in five minutes before eating.
I feel like we should probably just stop this argument by the way, because we aren't really going anywhere. Truce?
Timemaster
