"Marxists are clueless" (Funk N. Furter)

[Steve Ballmer]

Fixed.

[H20nly]

i voted for "Jedi mind tricks" godammit, not A!

[Steve Ballmer]

i voted for "Jedi mind tricks" godammit, not A!

I think I'd make a poor dictator.

[Machinesworking]

i voted for "Jedi mind tricks" godammit, not A!

I think I'd make a poor dictator.

Caligula comes to mind.

[regretfullySaid]

Spot on.

[Steve Ballmer]

Steve: 2. you admit that your post was intentionally off-topic.

Funk: What we said were completely different things.

Good, so we agree.

[Steve Ballmer]

the science of revolution

And how many peer-reviewed scientific studies have been carried in the field of revolution?

Hundreds, with dire consequences if you get it wrong.

Name one.

[Steve Ballmer]

It was predicted to fail if it remained isolated. But there was good reason to believe a socialist revolution would spread

So now you're saying that it wasn't predicted to fail. That's twice in two pages that you've done a 180. So not reckless then, just foolish. Got it.

[Steve Ballmer]

The revolution was predicted to fail if it remained isolated. In other words, if an advanced country did not join in.

Indeed, but as you say, it was predicted that an advanced country would join in, hence it was predicted to succeed.

Thus, Marxism predicted the success of the revolution. And if the revolution could prove Marxism, as you claim for reasons that defy both logic and science, then it must be also able to disprove Marxism.

We can thus reason, by following the logic of Boy-Genius Funk N, Imperial Wizard of the Hooded Order of Marxists, that the revolution disproved Marxism.

To sum up this incredibly simple logic, either:

1. The revolution was predicted to succeed, and Marxism is disproven, or
2. The revolution was predicted to fail, and the Marxists were a bunch of reckless idiots.

So which is it twinkletoes? Which one have you been saying for 30 years?

[Steve Ballmer]

3rd 180:

Funk: "The revolution was predicted to fail."
Funk: "You can't predict something like a revolution."

This is simply. Too. Easy.

[Steve Ballmer]

[Steve Ballmer]

His plans are that only a Soviet Russia could end the war, carry out land reform, and introduce elections.

This is an opinion, not a plan. You're cracking.

[Steve Ballmer]

Anything is easy when your debating consists of cherrypicking. But it means nothing.

I'm simply asking you to defend your claims, yet whenever you try, you systematically change what you are saying. This is called "running from the debate". Incidentally, according to Trotksy's text on A=!A, your distinction between is and is equal to is fallacious, and your attempts to explain that things can be and be equal to themselves for "an instant" makes you a sophist. His word, not mine.

So, according to the "fucking genius" Trotsky, you're a fallacious sophist. Seems about right, albeit a little superfluous.

[Steve Ballmer]

Hey look everybody, I don't know how to answer a simple question without posting strings of off-topic quotes!

[Mint Invader]

Can we just have a no holds bar cage match out in international waters and settle this once and for allski.