"This in a nutshell is the how the socialists frame their arguments for socialism"
If you can point out ONE socialist, find ONE, have that ONE pointed out, as a reference, an actual socialist, ONE example, for all to see, then YOUR exclusive measure of that ONE socialist will not be only YOUR viewpoint. You can share.
You have this viewpoint of "socialists".
Provide an example of ONE.
Now that you have ONE, instead of eluding to ONE, and instead of an ambiguous nothingness, you have in front of everyone, to see, this socialist example, now that it is in view, this socialist, how about describing exactly what this socialist said, in this socialists own words, so that you can then allow anyone else to hear what this socialist has to say, straight from the socialists mouth, without any miscommunication that may arise from your offering a translation of what the socialists had said?
I can offer one up, if you can't.
Now you are claiming that someone on this forum has said something that sounded like a nebulous socialist that remains very well hidden behind a cloak of smoke and mirrors. So consider removing the smoke and mirrors, please.
Now the person on this forum is guilty by association, according to you, with this socialist that remains hidden behind smoke and mirrors.
In your own words:
concerning the socialist tone was in reference specifically to the "out of the box"
I've heard a lot of people, most people, speaking out of the box, which is a measure of creativity.
Now, out of the smoke and mirrors, I am supposed to now know, from your words, that a socialist is a creative person?
Note the question mark.
More of your words:
which tended to immediately cast a bad light on all millionaires (simply I suppose because they have a lot of money) and also the reference to addressing economic "inequality".
Now, not having the actual words quoted from the person on this forum who has been rendered guilty by association with nebulous socialists, these boogie men, these whatever is a socialist, now the picture of just how guilty the person on this forum is, concerning just exactly how close this person on this forum is to this boogie man, now, your version of the words of the person who is guilty of being so close to the boogie man, will have to do?
Now, I see a need to actually return back to the words of the person being so well placed in guilt by association with a nebulous boogie man, socialist, hidden behind such volumes of smoke, and reflected in so many mirrors.
"Out of the box thinking...
Instead of labeling them and tracking their activities and trying to teach right from wrong, how about we create an environment where the gains of doing wrong are gone? If we ended scarcity, I think most, if not all, crimes of greed and want would disappear. (Sans the obvious mental health related ones.) If a person lived in a world where things were either free or very cheap (in personal cost) most crimes would vanish."
Socialism is along the same lines as "create an environment where the gains of doing wrong are gone"
yes or no?
Socialism is along the same lines as "If we ended scarcity, I think most, if not all, crimes of greed and want would disappear."
yes or no, is that socialism?
Socialism is along the same lines as "If a person lived in a world where things were either free or very cheap (in personal cost) most crimes would vanish."
Or, on the other hand, socialism is:
My comments concerning the socialist tone was in reference specifically to the "out of the box" comments, which tended to immediately cast a bad light on all millionaires (simply I suppose because they have a lot of money) and also the reference to addressing economic "inequality".
Who "cast a bad light on millionaires"?
Who used the word "inequality"?
Who is constructing a Man of Straw where the Man of Straw speaks about casting a "bad light on millionaires" and who is speaking about "inequality"?
If productive people produce more, without having their products stolen, what do you think will happen?
Your Man of Straw, where you hang a fellow forum member out to dry, on your false association, guilt by false association routine, that YOU are doing right here in this forum, falsely convicting some innocent person, YOU do, right here, continues with the following fabricated LIES.
"Giving something to people who have not earned it (usually taken from somebody else by force) is the core of socialism and "economic inequality" is one of their frequently used slogans)."
You are describing crime, so why use the word socialism?
You are claiming that a fellow forum member who publishes matter-of-fact, reasoned, reasonable, common sense, factual, information, in a kind way, in a discussion, an innocent discussion, this fellow forum member offers a logical viewpoint, and you falsely associate the fellow forum member with criminals.
"one of their frequently used slogans"
They: meaning the fellow forum member you convict publicly and sentence publicly, for the crime of offering a common sense viewpoint for competitive review.
YOU punish the innocent.
You do that, right here, in black and white.
"Also, Josf, you apparently misunderstand me, as well as my intent in my comments. I am in no way trying to censor anybody and would defend anyone's right to express whatever views they want to."
Then why do you twist a fellow forum members words into meanings that are opposite what was obviously intended? Why do you falsely connect the fellow forum member with criminals that you call socialists?
If you were not intending to censor (as in shoot the messenger) then why did you make the false connection between the fellow forum member and criminals?
" That does not mean that I have to agree with it and on a website that promotes the idea of free speech, I should also be free to give my own differing opinion without being accused of "censorship". I don't agree with the posters point of view, but I respect their right to voice it!"
You did not agree with your false interpretation of what the fellow forum member actually said, so your false conviction (but your real punishment) of that fellow forum member was, in fact, a case of you shooting the messenger as you falsely convicted that fellow forum member of something that that fellow forum member is innocent of doing - quite the opposite.
You falsely associate the fellow forum member with criminals in this way:
How is it, in your mind, that the fellow forum member you find to be guilty enough to have their good name dragged through this mud that you are slinging, injuring that innocent person with this bad press, public hanging of sorts, as your words falsely associate that innocent forum member with thieves, or people who take from "somebody else by force"?
You are taking, by the force of deception, a person's good name, right here, right now.
Are you providing the example of just how bad people are these days?
"but I respect their right to voice it!"
If you did, as you say, respect their right to voice it, then why do you twist "it" around into something bad, when the target of your false advertizement campaign was offering something good?
"I also believe that people get upset and defensive when confronted with the notion of human beings inherently bad because it assaults their pride."
Now you appear to be wandering into some smoke and mirrors whereby the actual facts are to be lost, as if by magic. If instead of wandering into smoke and mirrors the idea is to actually discuss something real, then it may help, in that positive, good, direction, to find someone that exemplifies exactly what you are trying to communicate with your words.
Who exemplifies a person who may be "upset or defensive when confronted with the notion of human beings inherently bad"?
Is there a boogie man somewhere, or do you have someone in mind?
Many good people are easy to find, there is one on this forum, at least one, and you targeted that one for exploitation.
You exemplify what is bad.
Your target exemplifies what is good.
Now there is an obvious competition as to see which is bad and which is good.
You are bad.
Your target is good.
What makes you bad.
What makes your target good?
The fact that you attack an innocent person with lies makes you bad.
The fact that your target expresses common sense on a forum while risking attacks by people like you makes that person generous, and good.
Who is upset?
I think that another Man of Straw is being constructed out of more smoke and more mirrors by you.
How bad can you get?
I am now your next target?
Are you building up this upset person so as to then attach my name on your fabrication?
"Most people tend to look at themselves as a "good" person and resent that anyone would ever suggest otherwise."
Where is the evidence of this claim, which you claim in such a way as to present the claim as if the claim was fact. Where is any evidence that backs up this claim?
I am interested in knowing the facts, so please consider backing up this claim as this claim does not sound true to me, this claim, to me, sounds ambiguous to a point of meaning anything one minute and the opposite the next minute.
Most people do not want to be injured, so your attack upon the fellow forum member sends a message to most people, and the message says: "Don't speak your mind here, don't come in here and speak common sense words, because if you do, I will convict you, by false association with criminals, nailing you to a cross, of my false construction."
Now, what you appear to be doing, is making up this upset person, and you are going to nail me to that cross.
Now, what you are doing, is making other people up, nameless people, to be tending to look at themselves as "good" people and "they" resent anyone ever suggesting otherwise.
Where is ONE of these such people, and when you find one, they can either be upset, or not be upset, in reality, and no one will have to depend upon your fabrications of Straw Men.
I also believe that people get upset and defensive when confronted with the notion of human beings inherently bad because it assaults their pride. Most people tend to look at themselves as a "good" person and resent that anyone would ever suggest otherwise. To me, though, good behavior is defined by God and His laws and statutes and any actions which are outside of those fail to be "good" and even if appearing "good" to the world in general, usually have selfishness that their core (i.e. something to be gained by their "good" behavior).
What that may be saying, and you can certainly clarify in case of any error by anyone, including me: "they" are bad, in this way, but I am not guilty of being bad in that way.
They become upset.
Where is one person who is upset?
Where is one person who is selfish?
When someone begins to collect "they" into a group, then that someone does so for a reason.
Is the reason called prejudice?
"As a Christian; I do not deny that many people can display acts of "goodness" and incredible kindess, but I also assert that God's common grace is the only reason that anyone displays "goodness" at all and that if you were to remove that in it's entirety, this world would literally be hell on earth."
To me it does not matter by which POWER an individual person decides to be good, since the actual decision maker is responsible in any case.
You could have decided not to create the Man of Straw to be used upon the innocent victims in this case, for example, and you could have decided not to falsely associate the fellow forum member with criminals, but you did, so I guess by your own confession, God's grace left you at that moment.
"To me, all you have to do is turn on the news for an hour for proof that people at their core are not good. Everywhere you look there is corruption, greed, robbery, murder, dishonesty...the list goes on an on."
Examples of a lack of God's grace is provided right here by you, who needs television?
"The very reason this country is failing is because people in general have given themselves over to corruption, immorality and selfishness and have rejected God as lord of their lives. This is nothing new, it has been the pattern of human behavior as long as there have been humans."
No, I think that is another case of prejudice, whereby "everyone" is guilty for the bad things done by people, like you, who choose to do bad things like dragging fellow forum members through the mud, by falsely associating innocent people with criminals.
"It really boils down to differing world views, and that is fine."
It is finer for you, I suppose, since your innocent victim, that you drug through the mud, by falsely associating your fellow forum member with criminals, because you get away with it, in your own mind, by blaming what you did on "everybody"?
You take no responsibility, no accountability, for the wrongs you do, and that is fine by you?
You call your personal attack by nice sounding words like "differing world views" and that is fine to you?
" I am not saying that anybody has to agree with me, but at the same time I am also entitled to my own beliefs."
What you did, in English, is you took someone posting reasonable words, factual words, and twisted them around so as to falsely associate that fellow forum member with criminals: guilt by association.
You did that, not "everyone", and if you actually believe your own words, then God's grace left you when you did it.
Now, you have a choice, admit it, or reject your own stated belief.
Ohhhhh but it is me, of course, I am part of the collective, as we are all guilty of bad things done by everyone?
It is fine, don't worry, God's grace will cover it up for me.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: