Communism vs. Democracy

Which part Joe? ;-)

Personally, i'm opposed to communism 'cause the music sucks, and they got no sense of style . . .

Hey, the Soviets had some good rock bands, Akvarium and all ... and great troubadours (Visotsky, Okudzhava, Bashlachev ...)

Personally I'm kinda partial to those old-fashioned struggle songs too, but I admit it's an acquired taste ... ;-)

Hard to get comfy shoes too.

I hear the toilet paper was awful, too.

"It is impossible to prove something."

While I would agree that "proof" cannot be arrived at inductively, it is certainly available deductively.

Agreed, the statement you quoted treated both (calling something proof would be covered under the lee way that deductive arguments allow).

But I have a quibble of the logomacial variety with your statement.

Deductive reasoning allows for unproven axioms. I do not consider this to be proof but this is absolutism that I do not uphold in myself or others.

Given that I'm already considering the use of the word within deductive arguments to be a variance from true proof I don't see any reason why the same logomachial liberties can't be taken with either.

In other words, what I'm saying is that I'd consider neither to be true proof but would accept the word in either argument to mean a degree of probability that the interlocutor deems close enough.

Some of the Constructivist art/design (pre-Stalin) was very cool -- and, probably not so coincidentally, bore a lot of stylistic similarities with artwork funded by the WPA in the US in the 1930s.

And that's not even mentioning the enormous influence (to put it generously) of Meyerhold's work on Bertie Brecht and of Eisenstein's on early cinema in general. (Not that these folks were a product of the revolution, but they flourished afterward -- until Stalin took over.)

I still say the music sucks, and they got no sense of style . . . fer chrissake, they kept ol' Yeltsin around when he was so fat an' intoxicated he couldn't stand up straight at official functions . . . and those uniforms, spare me . . .

I'm tempted to point out that it should be "logomachical," but then I don't think either of us is quite prepared for the meta-irony of it all.


Deductive proofs are true because they are true by definition. For instance: if all A's are B's, and all B's are C's, then all A's are C's. Now, it's true that this proof relies upon a definite meaning of "all" and "are" which are, in themselves, not subject to proof (they would, in other words, be "unproven" axioms). At that point, however, we've reached the cynic's dead-end, and we're left debating what the meaning of "is" is.

But you jsut did, and said irony is swirling round me hed.

But I might be inclined to dispute that.




That's not where I'd point out the flaw. For me it's the initial axiom that is not proven.

Within reduced logic in which you can start with a defined variable proof is easy.

In reality said definition is subject to scrutiny of proof.

Hehheh ... but wait, what about the uniforms from after the Soviet Union ... anyone remember Dudayev of Chechnya? <grins>

I, not sure how to do that quoting thing, with the white box, so ill just try copying and pasting.

Nimh said...

K e v i n, is it tomorrow? Good luck!

I hope you've benefited from the first few pages of posts here, there was lots of worthwhile advice in there! And do, please, forgive us for taking your thread and going into all kinds of other interesting directions with it ... That's what happens, you know! You go from one thing to another, and discussing is way too much fun ...

don't worry, my debate is not until next Thursday, but thanks for the good luck :wink:

And I don't consider this discussion having "taken over my forum", this is great fun to read. Since I my first post at A2K my goal has been to start a large forum with people arguing on it, and this is it!

This is fun to read, and I get to listen to really smart people arguing over concepts that I have barely started to grasp! thank you all for making a young boys dreams [sniff] come true...

BTW, does anyone know what program i might use to shrink the file size of a picture I have on my computer so i can use it as my avatar? Just wondering

wait... wednesday i meen, this wednesday.

Tell us how it goes. What basis have you chosen for your arguments? Since it's a political theme, you would do well with lies. People have always responded well to lies.

Be cool, Kevin, 'cause:

- Spring can really Hang you up the most

Once I was a sentimental thing;
threw my heart away each spring.
Now a spring romance
hasn't got a chance.
Promised my first dance to winter.
All I've got to show's a splinter
for my little fling.

Spring this year has got me feeling
like a horse that never left the post.
I lie in my room
staring up at the ceiling.
Spring can really hang you up the most.

Morning's kiss wakes trees and flowers,
and to them I'd like to drink a toast.
But I walk in the park
just to kill the lonely hours.
Spring can really hang you up the most.

All afternoon the birds twitter-twitt.
I know the tune. This is love, this is it.
Heard it before
and don't I know the score.
And I've decided that spring is a bore.

Love seems sure around the new year.
Now it's April. Love is just a ghost.
Spring arrived on time,
only what became of you, dear?
Spring can really hang you up the most.
Spring can really hang you up the most.

Love came my way. I thought it would last.
We had our day, now it's all in the past.
Spring came along, a season of song,
full of sweet promise
but something went wrong.

Doctors once prescribed a tonic.
Sulfur and molasses was the dose.
Didn't help one bit.
My condition must be chronic.
Spring can really hang you up the most.

All alone, the party is over.
Old man winter was a gracious host.
But when you keep praying
for snow to hide the clover,
spring can really hang you up the most.

It's almost spring..and a young man's fancy must turn to love.

And remember, setanta, Meadowland is beautiful.

Goodnight

Try IrFanView. It's a nifty little freeware tool that works wonders with resizing images.

See, see . . . no style at all . . .

your best bet is to argue that while free market economics works well in a nation like the US with nearly unlimited resources that can afford to be wasteful and spend in excess, it doesn't work in impoverished nations. Such nations do need communistic principles to help their people. The world is literred with nations that illustrate this.