"If you want an example of one of your strawmen, you should ask for it.  You haven't, but here:  "what you need to do is to do is liberate yourself from this idiotic notion that socialism is inherently good and that nothing bad can come out of it"

Assert that I hold a position I don't hold in order to argue against it:  a definition of a strawman argument. "

...except that you've done so many times

here you are unable to differentiate between intended consequences and actual consequences because of your bias towards socialism

"You yourself defined socialism as "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state."  That being the case, it seems completely antithetical to the ideals of socialism to EXPLICITLY AND DIRECTLY destroy the ability of the working community to collectively bargain with employers.  Your claim that socialists would do this because they are just too stupid to see that their polices have unintended negative consequences is beyond foolish when in the example it's not an unintended consequence but the entire fucking point of what they are doing. "

you made the argument that simply because socialists have good intentions then that must mean that as soon as socialism turns bad then it was not socialism to begin with

never mind the fact that you would be wrong anyway since many socialist do not have good intentions and are just driven by resentment of successful people

here again because of your bias towards socialism, you are unable to realise that the definitions here can be completely compatible with each other

"Which of these two things do you think that fits the definition of better?  

Socialism:  "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state."
Totalitarianism:  (first sentence of wikipedia)  "a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life." 
(dictionary)  "1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority; 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority""

"when have i ever though of a post"
Is that supposed to be "thought" or isn't it? 
—If so, you are asking me to tell you when you THOUGHT of something (therefore asking me to read your mind).  I am prepared to concede that you never posted, "Final-Fan, your post on this topic which you addressed to me, o_O.Q, is not silly." 
—If not, please rewrite your question until it makes sense.  It might take a while; I'll wait. 
—I'm still waiting. 

I presume you have no objection to my response to your question about grammar. 

re: the strawman
Thanks for actually responding on point in support of your original argument.  However, I have to say that you actually are reading quite a lot into what I said and all of the stuff you added was wrong.  Take the English car industry unions as an example.  The greed of the unions and workers is partly to blame (along with epic mismanagement by the companies) for the downfall of that industry:  they kept pushing for better compensation and less work even when it was actually bad for them in the long run.  That's an unintended consequence.  What you and I have been discussing is not an unintended consequence.  You are confusing ends and means.  "owned by the community collectively, usually through the state" is different from "the state is absolutely everything and the community is nothing". 

"I presume you have no objection to my response to your question about grammar.  "

why're you pretending that this was anything other than a useless red herring to distract away from you not having an argument?

"all of the stuff you added was wrong"

i didn't add anything lol i quoted you directly and pointed out your ridiculous bias

"However, I have to say that you actually are reading quite a lot into what I said"

no i quoted what you said but regardless you still have no addressed my original question... which was how have i used a strawman against the other person?

this is like the third time or so i'm asking and no answer... you don't have an answer do you?

"That's an unintended consequence. "

who cares? and unintended for who? might be for you but what makes you so sure that's the case with other people who identify as socialist?

intent is completely irrelevant here, i don't see why you keep bringing it up in an attempt to absolve this ideology of the intrinsic flaw that leads to the abuse of the people of a community

" You are confusing ends and means.  "owned by the community collectively, usually through the state" is different from "the state is absolutely everything and the community is nothing". 

well if you strawman me then you can claim i'm confused i suppose

can you show me where i've ever made that argument?

They don't tend to here. What happens in the US with their laxed regulations is probably an entirely different kettle of fish.

That is all ever hear... The left did this. The left did that... Those people need to get out of the country... That country is taking our jobs... The same old, same old.
You have pretty much provided the absolute perfect example.

The left and right are no more and no less evil than each other. BOTH are a requirement in any functioning democratic, modern society... They provide different perspectives on each issue, from there the vast majority who are in the center can opt for the most compelling argument for the benefit of all.

Bullshit.

Socialism in moderation is perfectly fine. Again... There are a plethora of nations around the world that have leveraged socialist policies and achieved some of the best healthcare, living standards, wages and so on... But they also achieved that by leveraging capitalist ideas in a mixed-model. - The way it should be.

So you are perfectly okay with Muslims/Islam in your country then? Most people on the right-wing spectrum wish to kick them out of our country with extreme prejudice... Irregardless of what the Australian constitution or National Anthem says.

With that in mind... I actually like strict border controls, I would rather bring in highly skilled people with a very strong background.

No, its not private businesses made record profits during the Third Reich and I'm pretty sure the same thing applies to other fascists regimes.  But pointing out facts to you is pretty pointless since you ignore everything that is said to you.  You like living in a world of alternate facts.  I might as well put you in the same boat as global warming and holocaust deniers.  

your own sources state that the government controlled those businesses... so wtf are you arguing exactly?

i've also noticed that whenever i bring that up you just run away for a bit and then come back and restate the same thing that i've already disproven using your own sources

its really bizarre... its like religious dogma turned up to 11

btw this is the definition of fascism since you seem to be unaware 

 is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

i'm beginning to think that you aren't even capable of understanding what any of that means

To understand Hitler you first have to know who he really was. That means realizing that a lot of what we were told about him were lies. History is written by the victors. The public has to have a reason for the millions of people who died in the war. If everyone knew the truth about the war there may be a revolution. There is one thing that even dictators fear, and that is the will of the people. If the people want to overthrow a dictator nothing can stop them. So after the war Hitler had to be made into a demon so that the millions of people who lost loved ones would not be angry at their leaders. 

Why would they be angry at their leaders you ask? It is because the war was not about concentration camps. It was about money. Wars are always about money. When Hitler came to power he outlawed charging of interest. That means the banks would lose everything if Hitler took over Europe. That is why Churchill would stop at nothing but the total annihilation of Nazism. The banks are the richest and most powerful organizations. They control the politicians and everything that they need to make a profit. War was necessary to protect their profits. 

What about the gas chambers? Just lies. Yes there were work camps to support the war effort. If there were gas chambers and the millions died like we are told there would have to have been crematoriums working around the clock. Take a look at a picture of Auschwitz from the war. To cremate all those bodies they would have needed tons of fuel. In the pictures there are none. 

So who was Hitler. He was a Nationalist. He wanted what was best for his people. But he was also rash and impulsive. His war record showed that he would take exceptional risks to help his fellow soldiers regardless of his personal risk. This was the cause of his eventual downfall. He did not carefully evaluate the strength of his opponents. He rushed into battles he shouldn't have that eventually lost WWII.

User banned -Raven

If you are saying that your comment about grammar was a red herring, then okay.  Otherwise you are making nonsensical statements. 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you don't know what "reading into what you said" means.  It means that you take the plain meaning of what I said and also interpret it to mean more things that were not said.  This can be either warranted or unwarranted.  An example of unwarranted might be, "o_O.Q:  I want less government" > "Final-Fan:  so you're saying you're an anarchist!"  When "all the stuff you added was wrong", that means unwarranted.  The result is a strawman. 

My comment about unintended consequence vs. intended consequence is relevant to the earlier topic of discussion about whether destroying trade unions can be or is likely to be a socialist activity.  Do you even remember that? 

I admit, you got me:  I gave you an example of you using a strawman against me, not an example of one you used against Cosmic.  How about when you implied the Tuskegee experiment was the result of socialism instead of literally any form of government including but not limited to socialism? 

I'm still waiting. 

Socialims looks somewhat "good" on paper .... but never works. There´s always two classes and two economic status: the very very rich (government officials) and the very very poor (the people, the actual working class). I´m not sure about the "irrelevance of the ethnic identity" though, since in socialism the focus is normally shifted to ban religous identity, which would work just as the same way as banning ethnic identity.

Oh well, sorry for diverging so much from the topic.

The Chilean dictatorship is far-right too. And now? Erdogan is far-right.