Yeah you did, ad hominem would be me saying you’re wrong because of a personal character trait. I just stated a simple observation about you. Like I said, clueless.
Oh, huh! I didn’t know it worked like that! If I had, I could’ve just pointed out that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and have a cartoonish worldview, and I could have avoided all the trouble of making actual arguments. That’s so much easier!
Its not an as hominem attack kid ^^
Ad hominem would be: you are an idiot and therefore wrong.
What he says is “you write wrong stuff and are therfore an idiot”
So, you’re saying that the Global South (either Africa or South America) has made major, concerted attempts at creating effective capitalist states?
There’s a few examples. Australia, of course, though Leftists will obviously discount it.
Chile very deliberately adopted capitalism, though it was under an oppressive dictator. Even so, it’s #3 on the list of South American countries for per-capita GDP these days, and is topping the list for political freedoms.
Uruguay, with it’s famously beige recent politics, is #1.
Of course, you have Indonesia, which has been doing pretty well recently. I wonder why? (/s)
Malaysia and Singapore are technically in the northern hemisphere, so they don’t count I guess…
Most of South America has historically swung radically back and forth between left and right (yes, in part due to US pressure). There’s a leftward swing again. Let’s see how it goes this time! Good news is that if it fails, they can just blame external forces yet again.
First of all, capitalism is very obviously the model of relations in majority of Global South countries such a Brazil, India, Colombia and many others. The fact that you can’t even name these countries says volumes.
However, whether these countries are capitalist or not is missing the point entirely. The reason Global South is poor has to do with the western capitalist empire having colonized these countries and continuing to brutally exploit them by stealing labour and resources out of these countries to prop up western lifestyle. The two books I linked in the post details the atrocities the west has committed against these countries in the name of capitalism.
India and Colombia are both in the northern hemisphere. Anyway, they’re not exactly enthusiastic capitalists.
Western empires weren’t even really capitalist at the point that they colonized Colombia or India. And they’ve been gone for ages (nearly a century in India, much more for Colombia)…you think the wealth of the US, Europe, Australia, Canada, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, etc, are all being extracted somehow from India and Colombia and the rest of the Global South? By what mechanism? They don’t export a lot aside from raw materials, and even there they’re not exactly top of the list. So…how are capitalist countries living on extracted labor and resources? Are they piped through secret underground pipelines?
Bad things happened in the past. Some continue to happen. That’s true. Doesn’t change the fact that communism is a stupid system.
Go read the link I gave you explaining the definition of Global South, it’s not based solely on the hemisphere. We’re also talking about colonialism that’s happening today not some ancient history. However, much of the colonialism absolutely did initially happen under capitalism. The British empire being one of the biggest colonialist projects in history.
Maybe spend the time to minimally educate yourself on the subject you’re attempting to debate here instead of opnining about things you very clearly don’t have any clue about?
The fact that you think communism is a stupid system is really just the cherry on top.
Careful! By including more of the world in the Global South, you’re gonna start seeing more and more thriving capitalist countries, which kinda underlines my initial point.
You know that Hong Kong (occupied by the evil British!) provided the inspiration for Deng Xiaoping’s U-turn? Now it’s a joke to call China communist, and it’s GDP per capita looks like this…
Yes, Britain is capitalist these days. No, it was not a modern capitalist society in the 1700s–or at least, it was only just emerging. India was given to the East India Company by edict of the King.
Maybe spend the time to minimally educate yourself on the subject you’re attempting to debate here instead of opining about things you very clearly don’t have any clue about? The fact that you think communism could ever work in the real world is just the cherry on top.
China is not a capitalist country, and the only joke here is that you think it’s not communist. One simple test that shows how wrong you are is to compare how China and India developed with India going the actual capitalist route. China also doesn’t suffer from the economic crashes that happen every decade under capitalism. If you actually want to educate yourself then you should watch this informative video about China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7Th2aV0wM
Maybe spend the time to minimally educate yourself on the subject you’re attempting to debate here instead of opining about things you very clearly don’t have any clue about? The fact that you think communism could ever work in the real world is just the cherry on top.
You’re like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger syndrome here.
and now your making a strawman argument. do you try to play some sort of bogus-argument-bingo?
What is said was: “what a did was not an ad hominem atack”
now your comment starts with: “So, you’re saying that the Global South (either Africa or South America) has made major, concerted attempts at creating effective capitalist states?”
and you even dare to start with: "so what your saying is … "
no thats not at all what i said, i didnt mention the globale south, i didnt metion capitalism, i didnt even agree with OP on his meme.
but thats what you argue against. Do you really not see this or are you a troll?
Well this is a blast from the past. I can’t even load the context anymore.
I was engaged in an argument, and staying focused on the argument instead of getting sidetracked by semantics. But anyway, you claimed “it’s not ad hominem, he said you were wrong therefore you are stupid!” That rests on the assumption that I was wrong, so I was assuming that was your assertion.
I think. This was, after all, months ago, and apparently the account I was arguing with got deleted or something?
It would be an ad hominem Argument if he would take your personality/looks/person as an argument against your talking point/what you say.
This is not the case here. He argues against your talking point/what you say and uses that as an argument against your person.
It doesn’t matter what side of you both is right content wise, its not ad hominem either way, as you botth argue about the information itself. (Plus making [unnessesary] assumptions about each others personality based on the opinion they have in the information)
As homin is ONLY if you use the person saying the opinion against the opinion.
If you use the opinion the person says as an argument against the person, that something totally different and quite logic frankly.
For example:
If trump says: poc are violent
Ad hominem would be: this is wrong BECAUSE trump said it.
Normal arguing is: trump is saying this, therefore he is a racist/dumb/wrong.
Two very different things.
And atacking others for caring two much about semantics when you make false (semantic) allegations is another sign of bad discussion style IMHO
I have no hard feelings about this thread, but it bothers me when people are discussing in awaty that is bound to fail, so I wanted to clarify this
You used so many words to say that you’re clueless.
Leftists and ad-hominem attacks, name a more iconic duo
The fact that you’re using ad hominem incorrectly here really underscores my point.
You called me clueless based on a single sentence in an attempt to dismiss what I said. I didn’t use ‘ad hominem’ wrong, lol.
Yeah you did, ad hominem would be me saying you’re wrong because of a personal character trait. I just stated a simple observation about you. Like I said, clueless.
Oh, huh! I didn’t know it worked like that! If I had, I could’ve just pointed out that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and have a cartoonish worldview, and I could have avoided all the trouble of making actual arguments. That’s so much easier!
Alternatively you could’ve spent the time to educate yourself instead of making vapid comments on a public forum exposing yourself as an ignoramus.
I’ve been reading and studying for decades, and yet somehow your worldview remains inconsistent and incoherent to me.
I’m sure it’s my fault.
Haven’t most adults been reading and studying for decades?
If you read or studied anything for even a few days you wouldn’t be spewing utter nonsense here.
Its not an as hominem attack kid ^^ Ad hominem would be: you are an idiot and therefore wrong. What he says is “you write wrong stuff and are therfore an idiot”
Huge difference
So, you’re saying that the Global South (either Africa or South America) has made major, concerted attempts at creating effective capitalist states?
There’s a few examples. Australia, of course, though Leftists will obviously discount it.
Chile very deliberately adopted capitalism, though it was under an oppressive dictator. Even so, it’s #3 on the list of South American countries for per-capita GDP these days, and is topping the list for political freedoms.
Uruguay, with it’s famously beige recent politics, is #1.
Of course, you have Indonesia, which has been doing pretty well recently. I wonder why? (/s)
Malaysia and Singapore are technically in the northern hemisphere, so they don’t count I guess…
Most of South America has historically swung radically back and forth between left and right (yes, in part due to US pressure). There’s a leftward swing again. Let’s see how it goes this time! Good news is that if it fails, they can just blame external forces yet again.
Australia isn’t considered part of the global south. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South
First of all, capitalism is very obviously the model of relations in majority of Global South countries such a Brazil, India, Colombia and many others. The fact that you can’t even name these countries says volumes.
However, whether these countries are capitalist or not is missing the point entirely. The reason Global South is poor has to do with the western capitalist empire having colonized these countries and continuing to brutally exploit them by stealing labour and resources out of these countries to prop up western lifestyle. The two books I linked in the post details the atrocities the west has committed against these countries in the name of capitalism.
India and Colombia are both in the northern hemisphere. Anyway, they’re not exactly enthusiastic capitalists.
Western empires weren’t even really capitalist at the point that they colonized Colombia or India. And they’ve been gone for ages (nearly a century in India, much more for Colombia)…you think the wealth of the US, Europe, Australia, Canada, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, etc, are all being extracted somehow from India and Colombia and the rest of the Global South? By what mechanism? They don’t export a lot aside from raw materials, and even there they’re not exactly top of the list. So…how are capitalist countries living on extracted labor and resources? Are they piped through secret underground pipelines?
Bad things happened in the past. Some continue to happen. That’s true. Doesn’t change the fact that communism is a stupid system.
Go read the link I gave you explaining the definition of Global South, it’s not based solely on the hemisphere. We’re also talking about colonialism that’s happening today not some ancient history. However, much of the colonialism absolutely did initially happen under capitalism. The British empire being one of the biggest colonialist projects in history.
Maybe spend the time to minimally educate yourself on the subject you’re attempting to debate here instead of opnining about things you very clearly don’t have any clue about?
The fact that you think communism is a stupid system is really just the cherry on top.
Careful! By including more of the world in the Global South, you’re gonna start seeing more and more thriving capitalist countries, which kinda underlines my initial point.
You know that Hong Kong (occupied by the evil British!) provided the inspiration for Deng Xiaoping’s U-turn? Now it’s a joke to call China communist, and it’s GDP per capita looks like this…
Yes, Britain is capitalist these days. No, it was not a modern capitalist society in the 1700s–or at least, it was only just emerging. India was given to the East India Company by edict of the King.
Maybe spend the time to minimally educate yourself on the subject you’re attempting to debate here instead of opining about things you very clearly don’t have any clue about? The fact that you think communism could ever work in the real world is just the cherry on top.
China is not a capitalist country, and the only joke here is that you think it’s not communist. One simple test that shows how wrong you are is to compare how China and India developed with India going the actual capitalist route. China also doesn’t suffer from the economic crashes that happen every decade under capitalism. If you actually want to educate yourself then you should watch this informative video about China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7Th2aV0wM
You’re like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger syndrome here.
and now your making a strawman argument. do you try to play some sort of bogus-argument-bingo?
What is said was: “what a did was not an ad hominem atack”
now your comment starts with: “So, you’re saying that the Global South (either Africa or South America) has made major, concerted attempts at creating effective capitalist states?”
and you even dare to start with: "so what your saying is … "
no thats not at all what i said, i didnt mention the globale south, i didnt metion capitalism, i didnt even agree with OP on his meme.
but thats what you argue against. Do you really not see this or are you a troll?
Well this is a blast from the past. I can’t even load the context anymore.
I was engaged in an argument, and staying focused on the argument instead of getting sidetracked by semantics. But anyway, you claimed “it’s not ad hominem, he said you were wrong therefore you are stupid!” That rests on the assumption that I was wrong, so I was assuming that was your assertion.
I think. This was, after all, months ago, and apparently the account I was arguing with got deleted or something?
Yeah, just saw i had unread messages and replied.
My point was that you are using ad hominem wrong.
It would be an ad hominem Argument if he would take your personality/looks/person as an argument against your talking point/what you say.
This is not the case here. He argues against your talking point/what you say and uses that as an argument against your person.
It doesn’t matter what side of you both is right content wise, its not ad hominem either way, as you botth argue about the information itself. (Plus making [unnessesary] assumptions about each others personality based on the opinion they have in the information)
As homin is ONLY if you use the person saying the opinion against the opinion.
If you use the opinion the person says as an argument against the person, that something totally different and quite logic frankly.
For example: If trump says: poc are violent
Ad hominem would be: this is wrong BECAUSE trump said it.
Normal arguing is: trump is saying this, therefore he is a racist/dumb/wrong.
Two very different things.
And atacking others for caring two much about semantics when you make false (semantic) allegations is another sign of bad discussion style IMHO
I have no hard feelings about this thread, but it bothers me when people are discussing in awaty that is bound to fail, so I wanted to clarify this