Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Is Communism Moral? | 5 Minute Video" video.

Jesus' teaching are moral. Marx' are not.
3
@BalrajSingh-ky7se In capitalism, people can choose who they work for. Their labour is not stolen, at least not as a principle of capitalism, which is about freedom. Of course anything can be abused.
2
@davidscott5903 I once saw an atheist say that Communism was like Christianity in wanting all to do well, except that Christianity taught to do it voluntarily while Communism forced you to do it. Which is a very significant difference.
2
@blackknightjack3850 Which claim? That Marx' teachings are not moral? On the basis that they contradict Jesus' teachings.
1
@blackknightjack3850 Because Jesus is God, and God is good, and cannot lie. If you want to argue that Jesus' are bad or Marx' is good, I'd ask you to first explain on what basis you judge good from bad. With something external to humans (i.e. God) being the standard by which to judge, there is no basis for it beyond human opinion.
1
@blackknightjack3850 First you answer the question that I asked first: "I'd ask you to first explain on what basis you judge good from bad."
1
@blackknightjack3850 Oh I do know; in fact I've already explained that. Perhaps you should read what I wrote a bit more carefully. But do you know on what basis you judge good from bad? I asked that first, and that is very relevant to this topic.
1
@blackknightjack3850 "No you didn't. You said Jesus was God..." And that is the answer that you said that I didn't supply. You asked "...what gives this "Jesus" any more authority than any other human being"? That Jesus is not just human, but is also God, I said. That is the answer. "...then failed to demonstrate on what basis you could make that claim" So? That would be your next follow-up question. That wasn't the question that you falsely claimed that I had not answered. And contrast that you you who has not answered my prior question. You falsely accuse me of not answering a question when you haven't answered a prior question, which makes you not only wrong, but also a hypocrite.
1
@blackknightjack3850 Yes, you did. And I have not yet answered that. But then, as I have said, that is because I asked you to answer a question, which you have not done. So until you answer my prior question, I'm not answering your subsequent question. You answer mine, and I'll then answer yours. I promise.
1
@blackknightjack3850 Absolute nonsense. You think that's what this is about (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there). I know that that's not what this is about. But then why don't you put me to the test by simply answering my question? Then, if you're right, you'd have actual evidence instead of your baseless opinion.
1
Nothing wrong with getting funding by billionaires. You'd rather get it from taxpayers? And you haven't shown that it's propaganda.
1
@blackknightjack3850 "They were literally funded by fracking billionaires." So what? There's no crime in that. It's not even immoral.
1
@blackknightjack3850 No, not so. There is nothing in principle wrong with being funded by billionaires. If someone wants to argue that the money influences the views, that person has an onus to show that. You have not done so.
1
@blackknightjack3850 Given that I never claimed that they said that, I am under no obligation to show you that. Further, if they genuinely believe that fossil fuels are good, they are under no obligation to suggest that they might be bad just simply to disprove your opinion that they say that they are good because of the influence of money. It is up to you to demonstrate that the money has influenced them, but you don't seem keen on doing so, trying instead to reverse the onus of proof.
1
@blackknightjack3850 Because you say so?
1
@blackknightjack3850 First, you're completely wrong and of line to assume that I don't watch anything other than PragerU videos. Second, so-called "real educators" don't say that X might be wrong if they don't believe that. That is just arrant nonsense.
1
@blackknightjack3850 What arrogance! And completely false. And you're failing to support your own claims.
1
@blackknightjack3850 Again, you're showing that you don't know how to have a rational discussion. You claimed that I only watch PragerU videos. The onus is therefore on you to substantiate that claim, not on me to refute it. But of course you can't, because you have no idea what other videos I might watch. So that was a completely arrogant (and false) claim.
1
@blackknightjack3850 I never said that I can't distinguish Dennis Prager as indistinguishable from a "real" educator. You simply made that up. And even IF you were correct, it simply doesn't follow that I don't watch other videos. So despite trying you have completely failed to substantiate your claim, again you don't seem to know how to have a rational discussion. But what "real" educators on the right acknowledge that PragerU has never been anything but braindead propaganda? And how could that be anyway, when they have on real professors/scholars/etc. to make their arguments? Or are they not "real" educators simply because they say things you don't agree with? Further, are you talking about PragerU or Dennis Prager? You seem to be conflating the two.
1
@blackknightjack3850 You've not shown that there is anything "magical" about it, nor that it is "propaganda" with the negative connotations of that word. Did you think of the possibility that perhaps the benefactor supported it because he supports those views? That is a very likely (but non-sinister) explanation. Why do you assume that a benefactor supporting something he agrees with is somehow bad? And what's your evidence that I don't watch other videos? You've failed to support that claim, but neither have you retracted it. Are you hoping that I'll simply forget about your inventions? Rational argument requires facts and logic, not inventions, abuse, and contradictions.
1
@blackknightjack3850 What makes you so sure that that is the only thing that justifies that sort of comment? Lots of people have that view, and most, I would suggest, are not being paid by fossil fuel interests. One reason for saying that is that fossil fuels, unlike solar and wind, are very good for providing baseload power, i.e. not subject to the sun shining or the wind blowing. And you're still not justifying most of your claim. Rather, you make a claim, get challenged on it, then ignore that and make another claim. On the few occasions that you do try and justify a claim, it's on the basis of baseless assumptions, such as in this case of reckoning that there could not be any other reason for his views.
1
False. Some people are parasites. Some of those people may be capitalists, while others may be socialists. It's not something inherent to nor unique to capitalism.
1
@WisdenWard Are you trying to demonstrate your ability to copy and paste? Or what???
1
@BalrajSingh-ky7se Under capitalism, the workers have the freedom to do that, if they so choose.
1
@ConMan4 Example of what? A worker owning the business? The general store over the road from my house, for one. Most small businesses for millions of more examples.
1
@blackknightjack3850 You have no idea how to make an argument, do you? That is a completely baseless question.
1
@blackknightjack3850 At the time I made my comment, you had not made any sort of argument showing that the OP's definition was wrong. You have since done so, but even that was simply an assertion that he was wrong, with no actual argument or evidence. But it was actually worse than that, in that it also baselessly (there's that word again) ascribed motive to the poster. So my point stands, that you have no idea how to make an argument.
1
@blackknightjack3850 I would like you to point out what the OP got wrong, given that you claimed that without evidence. If you think the best way to do that is by giving a "correct" definition, go ahead. But if your definition is worded differently but doesn't actually contradict the OP's definition, then you still haven't shown what's wrong with his. Although I'm not sure that it's fair to say that the OP's comment was a definition so much as a description.
1
@blackknightjack3850 Well, the OP didn't mention the word "government" either. But what else would "publicly owned" likely be referring to, or even could be referring to?
1
@blackknightjack3850 It seems to me that you've been so brainwashed that your brain can't comprehend the concept of having a rational debate without abusing the person you are debating with. That's really sad. I notice that you didn't answer my question either. Again, showing that you don't know how to have a rational debate (or knowing by arrogantly refusing to; take your pick). Syndicalism is not "publicly owned". So no, that doesn't fit the definition you gave. So you have completely failed to show that the OP's description was incorrect, which is what you claimed. Clearly your claim had no merit.
1