Message from @The Electric Lizard
Discord ID: 665718154189602838
this guys french
or something
TEB
@Jym That's a completely different scenario
My point is that we should look at a philosophy based on it's ideas not based on death count
@The Electric Lizard
Like I said I'm no philosopher. Perhaps you can explain how, philosophically, the more murderous ideology is 'better'.
Capitalism has got many people killed so should we completely ignore it despite it working quite well?
progressivism is generally just left liberalism on a religious level
Or should we look at the philosophy itself and ignore death count?
liberalizing culture
People only bring up death count when they are looking at a philosophy in a partisan manner
I'm fine with death count as capitalism is better than communism or the second-place winner of the genocide Olympics fascism.
yeah i don't think so
liberalism and capitalism beats both in death count
british empire alone would beat both
i think even just british india alone would beat both
This reminds me of people in Baltimore
"I'm rebelling against the patriarchy! Let's burn down OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD!"
Not sure if the British Empire qualifies as their major economic projects were state-run companies (the East India etc,) That's how they get to tortured logic like calling **King** Leopold's adventures in Congo 'Capitalism'.
It all depends on how you count it, If you lean to Communism you can count that Capitalism has killed more, Just look at all the people who died from illness despite cures being made due to wealth inequality under Capitalism
Plus all wars that were fought over economic interests
I would agree with you that adherence to communism is indicative of a basic inability to do math.....
Capitalism vs Communism debates are like “what would happen if Germany won ww2” or “AK vs AR” debates
yeah of course, but by this metric i'm counting anyone who died in a famine under a capitalist regime as part of capitalism's death toll for example
since that is the standard applied to communism
Either a classic or a dead horse depending on the person
and by that standard capitalism would beat communism and national socialism put together in the 21st century alone
Except the deaths under Capitalism happen over a much longer time span in many more places, because Capitalism is an actual working system
AK vs AR is a debate? I mean the sprawl on 7.62x39 alone......
And this is exactly why i try to ignore death counts when looking at a philosophy
communism has lasted for about a century
i dunno if "death counts" should be ignored entirely but the vast majority of examples where they're brought up are done so in a manner that is retarded in one way or the other
I would also agree that adhering to communism requires a willing ignorance to death and human suffering. See we have a lot of common ground here.....
The point, though, is that Communism kills people much more quickly and has much less benefit than Capitalism
Modern Communism has made a lot of adjustments so it's arguable if they can be considered the same philosophy as the one that killed people
i've seen little evidence to suggest it "kills people much more quickly" whatever that means
Just look at this debate for instance and you can see that the sane modern communists do not resemble the old ones
Sure it could be argued that a new version of homeopath *could* cure cancer.
south korea and indonesia seemed pretty capable of "killing people quickly"