The no-underage characters rule

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic in practice
Click to expand...
I suggest everyone to not discuss anything with someone who uses words without knowing their meaning. It is plain useless
 
Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic in practice.
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of the proper definition of the term I am using.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
  1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Click to expand...

I do not advocate Communist or Nazi ideology: both are just different faces of tyranny. Nor do I advocate the end of liberty, quite the opposite. I advocate that we have greater freedom than is now possible: freedom from Hunger, Disease, Propaganda, Coruption, and Fear.

Your statement that you represent liberal democracy is inherently flawed: this dichotomy between 'liberal' and 'conservative' parties is a uniquely American form of madness that has served both my nation and the world at large exceedingly ill. We are involved not in some form of polar dichotomy between freedom and tyranny but in an eternal and inescapable 3 way war: on one side we have the tyrannical regimes which promise stability at the cost of liberty, and on the other the anarchists who promise total freedom at the cost of any kind of safety. Poised eternally between the two is Democracy, which offers both, but at the cost of requiring eternal vigilance from all citizens lest it fall into the embrace of one extreme or the other. Why, you may ask is it a 3 way war as opposed to 2 sides and a no-man's-land between them? Because, like the world itself, the battle is 3 dimensional. Democracy, in its ideal form, is inherently supportive of the common good. Both Tyranny and Anarchy, in their actual effects, inevitably end up promoting the WORST of humanity.

This struggle can be viewed through the lense of the D&D alignment system:

Tyranny, no matter the color it is painted, be it Communism, Fascism, or Dictatorship, is Lawful/Evil.

Anarchy, while it often begins as the work of Chaotic/Neutral individuals, in the end is always Hijacked By Chaotic/Evil persons.

And then there's Democracy: which, if it is to have any hope of survival, must continuously promote and utilize the talents and ability of Good individuals of every alignment.

In essence these three polarities represent the real world manifestations of Hell, The Abyss, and the celestial realms, respectively.

To carry the analogy further I am a Paladin, advocates of GOOD and LAW. Your position, it appears, is that of a 'Libertine': advocateing the Chaotic/Good position. We are agreed that good is paramount, but not on how to best bring it about.

Am I incorrect in this assessment?
 
Nemo of Utopia said:
Your statement that you represent liberal democracy is inherently flawed: ...
Click to expand...

I agree you can't be both a democratic socialist and advocate for liberal democracy, however that doesn't automatically mean that they advocate ownership of means of production, distribution, and exchange cause there is an 'or' part in the socialist ideology regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange by the community as a whole. Western Democracies already do the later anyway, as the government is the representative of the community.

As liberal democracy, it has one very important tenant that I don't think any government actually adheres to it faithful nowadays: free market capitalism. You can't advocate that kind of democracy and leave out that part. If anything people who advocate Western style democracy and call it a classical liberal democracy they are delusional. Since the great depression or the 1880's depending on your interpenetration of history we haven't had model for that kind of democracy. We are just living in a tweaked version of it.

TheDespaxas said:
The question was, is is immoral to describe through text an immoral act?
Click to expand...

I would say, no, as long as you aren't advocating said acts or using it to manipulate people.
 
TheDespaxas said:
This could replace the five pages of this totally derailed debate.
Click to expand...
Agreed, however, the debate derailed over my opposition to preceding statement. It is my position that, intentionally or not, depictions of certain harmful acts in anything other than their actual negative context, IS, in effect, advocating them.
 
...And now we have gone from "there is one solid set of moral codes and no one is allowed to disagree with me" to "socialism is fascism."

I am not sure which of those is more ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top