Are you sure you're NOT a Socialist?

...... and the difference is??????

 

Let me simplify this questionaire

Do you surrender your life to the government? yes or no. If No then please report to one of Bernie's local "Education" camps./

 

It's the difference between a meaning, which is expressed in a few words, and the concept which is much more broad. Authors of dictionaries are very knowledgeable about language (linguistics or philology), but they are not experts in any of the areas that the terms they define refers to. So they compile a collection of what people understand by a word in a colloquial conversation. But they don't go deep into the concept. Also, due to the limitations in space, they are forced to offer a short succinct description (even in the areas in which they might be experts) that don't go deep into the concepts.

That's fine for a majority of words (chair, table, candle, ...) But not enough to settle philosophical and political discussions.

 

This is a good point. But the problem at hand is when the meaning is expanded beyond the dictionary definition to its concept, but then the concept changes the meaning, which is what is happening in the debate on what socialism is.

 

Yes. That's why we debate the concept. Not the dictionary meaning.

A dictionary, for example, does not always take into account the etymology of the word. I would say that, etymologically, there is a continuum that goes from "individualism" to "socialism" depending on how much importance you place on individual or society. Absolute importance to the individual would be anarchism, absolute importance to society is communism. Anarchism and communism are pretty well defined. However, you can be an individualist, and not be an anarchist, just like you can be a socialist without being a communist. But you have to explain what specifically you mean by individualism or socialism.

It's more work, intellectually speaking. So those who don't like to make an intellectual effort (or are incapable) will just bundle all those on the opposite side at the most extreme position. Where very few people actually are.

 

I agree. But in practice the rub comes from your statement that I emphasized. If there is a group of people discussing X there needs to be a general understanding and consensus what X is. If some in the group see X at one end of the continuum and others see X at the other end of the continuum then there can be no worthwhile discussion.

 

If you are going to discuss "socialism" in the abstract, then you use the etymological meaning which is simply that, if you're a socialist you give more importance to society than you give to the individual. But it wouldn't be rational to assume anything beyond that.

 

Here is the condensed version: Do you believe in open borders and massive expansion of the welfare state? Then you are a socialist.

 

Quote anybody who is considered a socialist advocating for open borders.

Oh.... you can't? That's what I thought.

Just saving some time with those we all know are not here to actually contribute.

 

I won.

 

Only if you consider the fact that your lie was exposed a "win"

BTW, do you know who is actually the one in this race attacking the right to private property?

Trump!

As soon as you give me your quote (or retraction), I'll give you mine. That leaves me at an advantage. Because I know you don't have a quote. But you....

 

The appeal to definition logical fallacy is not an academically agreed-upon fallacy; you'll not find it in any course that teaches argument. Golem got this definition from a site called https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/. I've never heard of this so-called fallacy until Golem brought it up.

Read about the author here: http://www.bobennett.com/authors/bobennett

The author of the definition is Bo Bennet, a graphics designer. He has no degree that is relevant to make him a subject matter expert in logic. As evidenced in this thread, Golem rarely backs up his points with grounds. And when he does, he quotes some graphics designer with a PhD in social psychology. Bo Bennet is not in league with logicians like Stephen Toulmin, whose theories in argumentation are taught in academia.

Yes, a dictionary cannot teach you everything about anything, but it does serve as a foundation that sets up meaningful parameters around a word. The dictionary definition of socialism states that property is not a right. That is a fundamental aspect of it, not an exhaustive listing of everything that has to do with socialism.

 

that's not socialism, either. at least not in such simple and unrealistic terms.

it's an economic model predicated on strength in numbers. it's purpose is to provide access to housing and resources to those who may be unable to access those things independently. the concern for the 'society' is a means to an end only. IOW, when every individual contributes, every other individual is supported (including themselves).

 

"Read about the author"? I assume you also believe that "Ad Hominem" is also not an "academiclaly agreed-upon fallacy"

Who cares about the author? Is he right? If not, then explain why not!

In any case, that is only one reference of many. The general "agreed-upon" fallacy is "Argument of Authority" (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) where it is assumed that the authors of the dictionary are "authorities" on the matter being discussed. If you want more references

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/#CorFal
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#PersuasiveDefinition

And the Political Science explanation (not definition) of socialism, from real experts on the matter, states that that only describes one small part of of socialists mostly associated with the ideas of Karl Marx, but not other socialists.

And since you can't quote a single American socialist of any relevance stating that the property is not a right, or even advocating for eliminating the "right to property", means you lose.

Trump, on the other hand has, in fact, demonstrated his lack of respect for private property (other than his own)

 

I don't agree with the perspective, but nothing here contradicts anything I've said.

 

You're still not making any progress on your ability to make valid points. For one, you are are the one that committed the appeal to authority logical fallacy by citing an author who has no credentials in the field of logic. The author of that term, Appeal to Definition, is a graphics designer with a PhD in social psychology; this hardly makes him an authority on logical fallacies. This is a textbook definition of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy, as you had made "an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside the authority's special field of expertise." (https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html). By the way, thanks for the link.

Your friend, Bo Bennet, commits a non-sequitur on the same page in which he makes up a word and definition of a so-called logical fallacy, which is utterly ironic. He claims that his definition is backed up in the book A Practical Study of Argument by Trudy Govier, an academically accepted logician. I have that book. Although Bo does not point to a specific page number or section in which he is basing his claim that his definition is supported in that book, which goes against appropriate standards of citation, I am assuming that he is referring to section 3-3, which goes over definitions. Miss Govier explains the limitations of reportive definitions, which are the lexical meaning, or denotation, of a word, since their narrowness cannot capture the complete, exhaustive meaning of a word, such as its connotations and the other senses of a word. For example, "chair" can be both a piece of a furniture or a person of authority.

"Socialism," too, has other senses. The most palatable sense is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods," which does not rule out private property as a right, nor includes gulags as a necessary component. However, that sense does not mean that "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property" is not a legitimate strain of socialism. Hell, you even admitted it yourself that "real experts on the matter . . . [say] that that only describes one small part of of [sic] socialists." So what are we even arguing about? You've just admitted that "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property" is a fact that "only describes one small part of of socialists," which has been my entire point the whole time. In short, there are words that have more than one sense, and each of those senses are different from the others.

That is as far as she goes; she does not support the other aspects of the so-called logical fallacy appeal to definition, which states that "dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean," (this is Bo's summary of the appeal to definition fallacy) which is patently absurd, since Merriam-Webster, as an example, has definitions that it classifies as obsolete or archaic, which goes against his point that dictionaries don't point to a sense of a word at a previous time. Also, digital dictionaries, which is what I was quoting, are ever-evolving. Language is dynamic, and Merriam-Webster reflects this by adding words and modifying or adding senses to an existing word. As for what a word should mean? What kind of juvenile, sophomoric silliness is that? I want the word "bird" to mean "Pop-Tarts," and if you don't think so, you are being fallacious? What absurdity! Lastly, his point that dictionary definitions are what words mean according to the authors dismisses the fact that technical terms are peer-reviewed by subject-matter experts. There I have destroyed the logic of his silly term.

I, on the other hand, did not commit an Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy. Merriam-Webster is an authority on language. It is an authority on language because it takes a scientifically methodical approach to crafting its definitions. Technical words, such as "socialism," are peer-reviewed by subject-matter experts in the appropriate field. If you feel that their definition is wrong, you are more than welcome to communicate with them. If they feel that you have a good point, they can submit your request to a subject-matter expert. I know that this is the process, for I have done so.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you are terrible at making arguments. Here's a video to get you started on your odyssey to become at least a halfway decent arguer:



When you can start making halfway decent arguments, give me a call. Until then, know your place.

 

Oh my God! Are you even trying? How can you expect to have a serious debate about the use of logical fallacies as arguments when you don't even know what an argument is?

The quote is not meant as an argument. It's an explanation of what I'm referring to.

No matter how much I try to dumb it down, it still feels like anything I say is too elevated for you.

I'll try one more time: If I said "what you say is a logical fallacy because this author say it's a logical fallacy", that would be argumentum ad verecundiam. Very different from "you committed a logical fallacy" followed by my arguments and then a link where you can expand on what the fallacy is.

Who the f...hell cares about the author? A reasonable person cares about whether or not people are right.

So looks like a graphics designer with a PhD in social psychology just whooped your ass in logic!

Exactly. And the sense in which Democrats use it is explained on the OP.

On language (as I already said) yes. In politics, no. Nor do they claim to be. Nor do they claim that a dictionary definition of any term is a complete description of its meaning. You are the only one claiming that.

 

You don’t get to change the definition of socialism, Marx.came up with it and defined it

 

"Marx came up with it"????

Looks like that takes the prize for most uninformed post of the week.

 

Nope it’s a Marxist theory

 

Uh huh...

BTW. Just to clarify. As far as I know, you might be the most informed person in the world. And maybe you're just joking... or something. I have no way of knowing. What I am criticizing is the content of your post.

Just to be clear.... Don't want to get in trouble....

 

It does if when you say contribute to society, you mean in any altruistic sense.

And I don't doubt you disagree with the perspective. Why would you agree with it, when it doesn't bolster the image of 'compassionate regard'.

 

Altruistic? Human beings require society to survive as a species (and, for the most part, also as individuals). So the need for society to survive and become more cohesive is very selfish. But a certain degree of altruism and compassion are necessary for society to survive and thrive.

Therefore, altruism and compassion are ultimately very selfish. But selfishness begets altruism and compassion.

In any case, as far as the point on the OP, it makes no difference whether it's altruistic or not.

 

Exactly. So why dispute it?

We both know there's very little (if any) completely selfless altruism in existence, since it's rarely a benefit to individual survival.