Do you love The Lord Jesus?

[iAmCaffeine]

tzor stop ignoring the question.

[tzor]

tzor stop ignoring the question.

What question?

[Dukasaur]

Communism is an extreme variant of socialism repudiated by most socialists.

Well of course they would say that ... once again ... their vision is long term. We can't have the water suddenly boiling; the frog will jump out. But if the temperature is raised over time no one will notice. Socialism is merely the very hot water leading to boiling. Once that state is reached the water will continue to rise. Socialists, like all despots are never happy with even their own status quo.

The empiric evidence stands in opposition to your theory.

If communism was the long term-result of socialism, the we would expect to see this reflected in the real world. We would expect to see examples of nations with a history of socialism become communist. In fact we do not. Every major communist country -- Russia, China, Laos, Cuba, etc. -- went directly from an absolutist monarchy or an absolutist military junta directly to communism, without passing through a social democracy phase. On the other hand, all the major social democratic countries -- Germany, the Scandinavian countries, the Beneluxii, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand -- have stabilized at a certain level of socialism and show no sign whatsoever of moving toward any more extreme level.

Modern socialists understand that a free market is an essential component of an economy, and rarely advocate for greater state ownership than the bare minimum. Most social democracies have reduced their levels of state ownership over time and increased the role of the market.

Communism has, in every instance, been imposed by military force in a country previously ravaged by war. It is a unique and degenerate form of socialism that does not have enough mainstream support to ever be implemented in a democracy.

[Symmetry]

Communism is an extreme variant of socialism repudiated by most socialists.

Well of course they would say that ... once again ... their vision is long term. We can't have the water suddenly boiling; the frog will jump out. But if the temperature is raised over time no one will notice. Socialism is merely the very hot water leading to boiling. Once that state is reached the water will continue to rise. Socialists, like all despots are never happy with even their own status quo.

I always thought that that the boiling frog thing was a false urban myth used by idiots.

[iAmCaffeine]

First of all, Bernie, Jesus was not and never was a "socialist." I think it is fair to say that it was not really an advocate of any modern "ism." The closest might be "capitalism" where in a parable he has a master tell his servant that at the very least he should have deposited the money into a bank where it would have earned interest, but that's a stretch even there. If you take the Gospel stories are more or less their word, he had a very hands off approach to government.

Now the early church did have a "hippy commune" phase, but they also insisted that those who did not work would not eat. (Hey Bernie, weren't you thrown out of the commune because you weren't doing your fair share of the work?) But even then, it is not the same thing. Socialism is top down unified central government, while the early church was a bottom up community of believers (sort of like your old commune). The different is represented in the "Christian" principle ("Christian" as in held by the church but generally forgotten by the Protestant communities who in the United States basically almost rediscovered it through "Federalism") of "Subsidiarity." Government should always be implemented at the lowest level possible; as close to the people as possible.

But we are not talking about the early church, but Jesus. Jesus always talked directly to the people. He told the people what they needed to do and how they should behave. Even when he spoke to members of the government, he spoke to them on a personal basis and not on their proper role should be. He lived under an occupying force and the only people of authority he called out were the religious leaders, not the secular ones.

That's all great and all but do you love The Lord?

tzor stop ignoring the question.

What question?

[Dukasaur]

Communism is an extreme variant of socialism repudiated by most socialists.

Well of course they would say that ... once again ... their vision is long term. We can't have the water suddenly boiling; the frog will jump out. But if the temperature is raised over time no one will notice. Socialism is merely the very hot water leading to boiling. Once that state is reached the water will continue to rise. Socialists, like all despots are never happy with even their own status quo.

I always thought that that the boiling frog thing was a false urban myth used by idiots.

Not entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_froghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

The science

As part of advancing science, several experiments observing the reaction of frogs to slowly heated water took place in the 19th century. In 1869, while doing experiments searching for the location of the soul, German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated that a frog that has had its brain removed will remain in slowly heated water, but an intact frog attempted to escape the water when it reached 25 °C.[1][5]

Other experiments showed that frogs did not attempt to escape gradually heated water. An 1872 experiment by Heinzmann demonstrated that a normal frog would not attempt to escape if the water was heated slowly enough,[6] which was corroborated in 1875 by Fratscher.[7]

Goltz raised the temperature of the water from 17.5 °C to 56 °C in about ten minutes, or 3.8 °C per minute, in his experiment which prompted normal frogs to attempt to escape, whereas Heinzmann heated the frogs over the course of 90 minutes from about 21 °C to 37.5 °C, a rate of less than 0.2 °C per minute.[1] In "On the Variation of Reflex Excitability in the Frog induced by changes of Temperature" (1882) William Thompson Sedgwick writes: "in one experiment by Scripture the temperature was raised at a rate of 0.002°C per second, and the frog was found dead at the end of 2½ hours without having moved."[8]

In 1888 Sedgwick explained the apparent contradiction between the results of these experiments as a consequence of different heating rates used in the experiments: "The truth appears to be that if the heating be sufficiently gradual, no reflex movements will be produced even in the normal frog; if it be more rapid, yet take place at such a rate as to be fairly called 'gradual', it will not secure the response of the normal frog under any circumstances".[2]

Modern sources tend to dispute that the phenomenon is real. In 1995, Professor Douglas Melton, of the Harvard University Biology department, said, "If you put a frog in boiling water, it won't jump out. It will die. If you put it in cold water, it will jump before it gets hot—they don't sit still for you." Dr. George R. Zug, curator of reptiles and amphibians at the National Museum of Natural History, also rejected the suggestion, saying that "If a frog had a means of getting out, it certainly would get out."[3]

In 2002 Dr. Victor H. Hutchison, Professor Emeritus of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma, with a research interest in thermal relations of amphibians, said that "The legend is entirely incorrect!". He described how the critical thermal maximum for many frog species has been determined by contemporary research experiments: as the water is heated by about 2 °F, or 1.1 °C, per minute, the frog becomes increasingly active as it tries to escape, and eventually jumps out if the container allows it.[4]

It seems to be disputed, but not really disproven. Note that the most modern experiments, like Hutchinson's are elevating the temperature by 1.1 degrees per minute. That's not really very gradual. Actually, it's quite quick.

Heintzmann's 1872 experiments elevated the temperature by less than 0.2 degrees per minute, more than five times slower than what the recent experiments used, and were successful in boiling the frog. I suspect that it's a question of "how gradual is gradual?" Based on the above, it seems that if the change is sufficiently slow, the effect may very well exist.

Completely off topic, of course.

[tzor]

If communism was the long term-result of socialism, the we would expect to see this reflected in the real world. We would expect to see examples of nations with a history of socialism become communist. In fact we do not. Every major communist country -- Russia, China, Laos, Cuba, etc. -- went directly from an absolutist monarchy or an absolutist military junta directly to communism, without passing through a social democracy phase.

Your argument is illogical. I have never stated that communism is only possible through socialism. I simply stated that socialism's long term goals is that of communism. Direct communism is the result of wanting everything right away, through violence, while the path of socialism is long term generational change. The goal is the same, the timeframe is vastly different.

And this is Socialism's major problem. Neither system can sustain viable growth. Communism crashes and burns within a generation. Socialism, like the great gas giant known as Jupiter, fails to get the critical mass needed to explode into full form communism and fades to darkness within a few generations.

Now both the former and the later is actually a Q.E.D. proof of why Marx SUCKS. There hasn't been a single case of Marxism in the world, no nation has gone from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism. It has never happened and there are economic reasons why it can never happen. Jupiter will never become a star, not even a red dwarf.

Russia was a great example of faux Marxism, just as the French Revolution is a great example of the faux Age of Enlightenment.

So let's consider most "socialist" countries. (Wiki Link Here) Let's ignore the ones who slided from Communism to Socialism. Of the ones that continue, most of these states are very small (you might say too small to fail). Some of these are barely socialist in the true sense of the Word. (India is in the list of "Current countries with constitutional references to socialism.")

A sovereign state is a different entity from the political party that rules that state at any given time. Thus, a country may be ruled by a socialist political party but without the country itself claiming to be socialist. This has occurred in both one-party and multi-party political systems. In particular, there are numerous cases of democratic socialist political parties winning elections in liberal democratic states and ruling for a number of terms until a different party wins the elections. For example, the Swedish Social Democratic Party has won most elections in Sweden since 1945, but the country never adopted socialism as its official ideology.

[tzor]

First of all, Bernie, Jesus was not and never was a "socialist." I think it is fair to say that it was not really an advocate of any modern "ism." The closest might be "capitalism" where in a parable he has a master tell his servant that at the very least he should have deposited the money into a bank where it would have earned interest, but that's a stretch even there. If you take the Gospel stories are more or less their word, he had a very hands off approach to government.

Now the early church did have a "hippy commune" phase, but they also insisted that those who did not work would not eat. (Hey Bernie, weren't you thrown out of the commune because you weren't doing your fair share of the work?) But even then, it is not the same thing. Socialism is top down unified central government, while the early church was a bottom up community of believers (sort of like your old commune). The different is represented in the "Christian" principle ("Christian" as in held by the church but generally forgotten by the Protestant communities who in the United States basically almost rediscovered it through "Federalism") of "Subsidiarity." Government should always be implemented at the lowest level possible; as close to the people as possible.

But we are not talking about the early church, but Jesus. Jesus always talked directly to the people. He told the people what they needed to do and how they should behave. Even when he spoke to members of the government, he spoke to them on a personal basis and not on their proper role should be. He lived under an occupying force and the only people of authority he called out were the religious leaders, not the secular ones.

That's all great and all but do you love The Lord?

tzor stop ignoring the question.

What question?

I thought I already answered that question on Page one. I'll quote myself and highlight my already previously upper case large answer in red, if you like.

So let me get this correct. User "demonfork" starts a thread entitled "Do you love The Lord Jesus?"
Why do I heave the feeling that this is a trap?
Or a tarp?
Or a carp?
Or just crap?
Yep, it's a trap!

Good thing I filled my super soaker with holy water.

YES

Or even if you don't like.

[Woodruff]

Communism is an extreme variant of socialism repudiated by most socialists.

Well of course they would say that ... once again ... their vision is long term. We can't have the water suddenly boiling; the frog will jump out. But if the temperature is raised over time no one will notice. Socialism is merely the very hot water leading to boiling. Once that state is reached the water will continue to rise. Socialists, like all despots are never happy with even their own status quo.

Your willful ignorance is painful.

[Woodruff]

Communism is an extreme variant of socialism repudiated by most socialists.

Well of course they would say that ... once again ... their vision is long term. We can't have the water suddenly boiling; the frog will jump out. But if the temperature is raised over time no one will notice. Socialism is merely the very hot water leading to boiling. Once that state is reached the water will continue to rise. Socialists, like all despots are never happy with even their own status quo.

I always thought that that the boiling frog thing was a false urban myth used by idiots.

How does tzor using it discredit that theory?

[tzor]

How does tzor using it discredit that theory?

It's more of a metaphor than a theory. It's easier to explain than the hot shower example. When you go into a shower you don't start off with the hottest temperature; that would be too hot. You start off with a very warm temperature and feeling comfortable with it, raise it up slightly. By the time you are done with the shower the temperature is at a level you would have never considered when you started the shower.

This theory also explains why the Laffer curve is flawed; the curve is actually a differential equation. It's not just he taxation rate but the increase in taxation that effects the participation rate for other points in the curve. A very slow tax increase in time might not even be noticeable. A rapid increase will have a drastic effect. A rapid decrease will have a much less drastic effect but still more than a very slow decrease.

[tzor]

Your willful ignorance is painful.

The goal of socialism is communism.

How Socialism Works

True socialists advocate a completely classless society, where the government controls all means of production and distribution of goods. Socialists believe this control is necessary to eliminate competition among the people and put everyone on a level playing field. Socialism is also characterized by the absence of private property. The idea is that if everyone works, everyone will reap the same benefits and prosper equally. Therefore, everyone receives equal earnings, medical care and other necessities.

As we've learned, socialism is difficult to define because it has so many incarnations. One of the things socialists agree on is that capitalism causes oppression of the lower class. Socialists believe that due to the competitive nature of capitalism, the wealthy minority maintains control of industry, effectively driving down wages and opportunity for the working class. The main goal of socialism is to dispel class distinctions by turning over control of industry to the state. This results in a harmonious society, free of oppression and financial instability.

You know, for a person whose Icon is a vulcan, I find your illogical responses fascinating.

[Woodruff]

How does tzor using it discredit that theory?

It's more of a metaphor than a theory. It's easier to explain than the hot shower example. When you go into a shower you don't start off with the hottest temperature; that would be too hot. You start off with a very warm temperature and feeling comfortable with it, raise it up slightly. By the time you are done with the shower the temperature is at a level you would have never considered when you started the shower.

This theory also explains why the Laffer curve is flawed; the curve is actually a differential equation. It's not just he taxation rate but the increase in taxation that effects the participation rate for other points in the curve. A very slow tax increase in time might not even be noticeable. A rapid increase will have a drastic effect. A rapid decrease will have a much less drastic effect but still more than a very slow decrease.

I suspect you have missed my point.

[Woodruff]

Your willful ignorance is painful.

The goal of socialism is communism.

How Socialism Works

True socialists advocate a completely classless society, where the government controls all means of production and distribution of goods. Socialists believe this control is necessary to eliminate competition among the people and put everyone on a level playing field. Socialism is also characterized by the absence of private property. The idea is that if everyone works, everyone will reap the same benefits and prosper equally. Therefore, everyone receives equal earnings, medical care and other necessities.

As we've learned, socialism is difficult to define because it has so many incarnations. One of the things socialists agree on is that capitalism causes oppression of the lower class. Socialists believe that due to the competitive nature of capitalism, the wealthy minority maintains control of industry, effectively driving down wages and opportunity for the working class. The main goal of socialism is to dispel class distinctions by turning over control of industry to the state. This results in a harmonious society, free of oppression and financial instability.

You know, for a person whose Icon is a vulcan, I find your illogical responses fascinating.

It's illogical to recognize your willful ignorance? I don't believe it is.

But you do seem determined to carry on. Your own cite doesn't even support your position. Well done!