this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
-1 points (33.3% liked)
Memes
45901 readers
1453 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, you're saying that the Global South (either Africa or South America) has made major, concerted attempts at creating effective capitalist states?
There's a few examples. Australia, of course, though Leftists will obviously discount it.
Chile very deliberately adopted capitalism, though it was under an oppressive dictator. Even so, it's #3 on the list of South American countries for per-capita GDP these days, and is topping the list for political freedoms.
Uruguay, with it's famously beige recent politics, is #1.
Of course, you have Indonesia, which has been doing pretty well recently. I wonder why? (/s)
Malaysia and Singapore are technically in the northern hemisphere, so they don't count I guess...
Most of South America has historically swung radically back and forth between left and right (yes, in part due to US pressure). There's a leftward swing again. Let's see how it goes this time! Good news is that if it fails, they can just blame external forces yet again.
and now your making a strawman argument. do you try to play some sort of bogus-argument-bingo?
What is said was: "what a did was not an ad hominem atack"
now your comment starts with: "So, you’re saying that the Global South (either Africa or South America) has made major, concerted attempts at creating effective capitalist states?"
and you even dare to start with: "so what your saying is ..... "
no thats not at all what i said, i didnt mention the globale south, i didnt metion capitalism, i didnt even agree with OP on his meme.
but thats what you argue against. Do you really not see this or are you a troll?
Well this is a blast from the past. I can't even load the context anymore.
I was engaged in an argument, and staying focused on the argument instead of getting sidetracked by semantics. But anyway, you claimed "it's not ad hominem, he said you were wrong therefore you are stupid!" That rests on the assumption that I was wrong, so I was assuming that was your assertion.
I think. This was, after all, months ago, and apparently the account I was arguing with got deleted or something?
Yeah, just saw i had unread messages and replied.
My point was that you are using ad hominem wrong.
It would be an ad hominem Argument if he would take your personality/looks/person as an argument against your talking point/what you say.
This is not the case here. He argues against your talking point/what you say and uses that as an argument against your person.
It doesn't matter what side of you both is right content wise, its not ad hominem either way, as you botth argue about the information itself. (Plus making [unnessesary] assumptions about each others personality based on the opinion they have in the information)
As homin is ONLY if you use the person saying the opinion against the opinion.
If you use the opinion the person says as an argument against the person, that something totally different and quite logic frankly.
For example: If trump says: poc are violent
Ad hominem would be: this is wrong BECAUSE trump said it.
Normal arguing is: trump is saying this, therefore he is a racist/dumb/wrong.
Two very different things.
And atacking others for caring two much about semantics when you make false (semantic) allegations is another sign of bad discussion style IMHO
I have no hard feelings about this thread, but it bothers me when people are discussing in awaty that is bound to fail, so I wanted to clarify this