This is going to have to be my final post on the matter for sake of time. I hope my posts have served well enough to warn people about the dangers of left wing politics and inspire them to study in greater detail this subject for themselves.
Going for ward, let's remember what I said about Commie's in a previous post ''Communists /socialists/left wingers are always redefining the meaning of words and acceptable speech for the purpose to shift the focus off of serious debate'' and now let's see how Ken, my left wing opponent is responding.
But those regimes were not only communist, they were also fascist.
Admitting regimes are communist but trying to excuse their crimes won't help you. Communist's are fascists. Fascism is just the use of force against your opponent. The Bolshevik used force against their opponents and they were communists.
Your point is sort of making an appeal that these were not true communist regimes because they were violent but the left wing are very violent and always have been: The holodomor 10 million dead via a forced starvation. Cambodia 2 million dead for ethnic cleansing. And the Chinese famine supposed by some to be the greatest constructed killings in human history with ten of millions-also communist/left wing ideologically driven.
Any person with any level of intelligence would never assist people carrying out such evil acts.
I can understand the person who wrote the Manifesto having personal views about governing, but that does not mean communism is about governing. That would be like someone writing a book about capitalism, who also is Christian; but that would not mean Capitalism is in any way associated with Christianity. Does that make sense? If not, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
You are wrong because it was designed to be a political manifesto. And it was used as a political manifesto.
Who should I listen to-the person who wrote it and intended it to be used as a blueprint for political parties or you?
That's what this conversation is about; the definition of a specific word!
Not for me it is not. For me it is to debunk the lie you told. Whether knowingly or unknowingly.
And you actually admitted what I attributed to commie strategies: ''Communists /socialists/left wingers are always redefining the meaning of words and acceptable speech for the purpose to shift the focus off of serious debate'' so there we have it. Rather than tackle the dangers of Communism you want to argue about definitions. See, I predicted it before you even said because what I said about you is true-you are a ''useful idiot'' for the people at the top. You just mindless blurt out their talking points.
For clarification; so you understand where I am coming from:
Why do you keep patronizing me like this? This is another reason why I general don't talk to left wingers. Their arrogance is overt. Of course I understand the bull that you are propagating but I just disagree and oppose it. Now do you understand that?
So your question should be for me to give examples of Socialist regimes that have not diminished individual human rights.
You did not substantiate your own point. That's because you cannot. Your whole belief system is founded on false promises to the working classes that never materialise.
I think some of the Scandinavian Countries have become Socialist (Democratic Socialist) while keeping their human rights in tact.
Well ''Scandinavia'' is not a country. For someone how likes to be specific, when we really hold your feet to the fire and demand where the Commie's have taken power and haven't devastated everything you just point to a whole region in northern Europe-not specific so we can examine. Because now you don't want to be specific, because there are no cases of Left wing politics not destroying nations.
Would you mind refraining from insults? Name calling brings no credibility to your argument.
But you need it. So I will do it.
Note again-Complaining about terms, not the topic. A distraction tactic of left wingers.
And you are a fine one to talk about bringing credibility to a case, you never made one. Pathetic and hypocritical.
And what empirical evidence do you have to prove this?
The Bible. The scriptures are empirical. And the specific place I would take a professing Christian to is Exo 20:3. A God can be a creator but it can be an idol of the heart, like overly supportive of a government system. Putting a government above God in Biblical Christianity is impossible. Therefore I say commie's/left wingers are not Christians.
There are many incidents of Gods people rebelling against the government if the rulers were attempting to force them to sin. Like the Midwives who refused to kill the children, Daniel continued to prayer to God after the ban on religions other than then king. All sorts of examples where Gods law
always come above mans law. Socialism demands the state is to be obeyed over all things and if you agree with this-you are not are Christian. We Christians have a moral obligation to God to refuse government laws if sin is the outcome.
Repent Ken, of your ignorance and unbelief.
bigthink.com
