Commies: if you haven't read Dianetics, how do you know E Meters aren't a useful and scientific instrument?
It seems that commies almost categorically believe that if you can't empathize with Marx then you can't understand or criticize the LTV.
Well, assuming most commies here haven't read Dianetics, are you all pretty agnostic about the scientific usefulness of E Meters? After all, the E Meter is just a way to empirically study a person's moral wholeness....
Since nothing can be taken for granted in this "debate" forum, the analogy being made is that commies almost daily declare that nobody can criticise any of the individual pet theories of Marx because they haven't attempted to wholly empathize with Marx and put everything in context of everything else he's ever written.
Petty philosophers and their bourgois logic certainly cannot claim to stand on the rock of empiricism that Marx and Hubbard can.
Posted Mar 23, 2018, 11:23 AM UTC
It seems that commies almost categorically believe that if you can't empathize with Marx then you can't understand or criticize the LTV.
What? No we don't. But we do think that if you want to represent an in depth critique of something, you have to have read it. You can't raise a criticism of Marx based on what you know about the USSR, as an example. To criticise Marx, you have to criticise Marx, not something else. Ofc. you can declare yourself in opposition to what Marx writes, but for a meaningful critique, you have to "go for the ball", so to say.
And here we see an honest online debater wasting minutes of their life attempting in good faith to reason with ignorance-coated trolling reactionaries.
Communists have wasted over a century trying to peddle their bullshit, what's a few more minutes?
Why write the initial argument if you’re going to ignore what everyone writes in good faith?
I specifically responded to him with an example of why he's lying AND repeatedly provided rationale. What are you fucking talking about you cultist kook
Literally you:
"Have you actually read Marx?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/86d4a8/request_for_good_criticism_of_capitalism_not_marx/dw44adi/
Nope. All that's necessary is the evaluate the premises and conclusions, not the meandering sophism meant to appeal to the reader.
Literally nobody needs to "evaluate the writing" of a study that has bad methodology in it. All you need to know is the methodology is bad. That's literally how fucking science works and this is just yet another example of you blindly arguing along ideology premises.
You of all people should not be arguing for Appeals to Marx lol.
But in this case, you don't even know what much.
Yes, because, as I said in the comment, in order to direct any meaningful critique directly at Marx, you would have to have read Marx. It's entirely within the premises of my comment.
I realize youre incapable of rejecting your Savior but once again, one need not Read Marx TM to be able to conclude his methodology is shit.
The person you told to Read Marx TM was literally criticizing his shit methodology and your response was a screed about how scientific and in-depth Marx is and that you can't just conclude his results are bad because his methodology is bad.... Literally the most ironic claim to ever follow a statement about the scientificness of analysis.
Again, you're a total brainwashed fucking idiot and I can't emphasize that enough but actual god damn science tells us that if the methodology is bad the results are invalid and no amount of shrieking about how the author is a Prophet makes results based on bad methodology valid.
If I do a study on the average color of apples and my methodology is only to blindly taste them then no further reading into my nonsense studying, no matter how many pages I write is needed.... The methodology is wrong and the study is invalid.
The fact that you're actually arguing with me is fucking insane. You're in a cult.
This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here. How do you know anything about the content including its methodology and conclusion if you haven't read the material yourself? I should have just told my college professors that and saved myself the trouble lol.
Marx didn't use dialectics and historical materialism for his analysis?
Yes. How did he use historical materialism to structure his theory? In what context is it used? What examples? How does it tie in with the rest his concepts?
First of all, you do it all the time. Second, you don't speak for the Commie hive mind.
You make a claim, now back it up. The Burden of Evidence is on your shoulders.
I cite your comment history and lack of psychic powers to mind-link up with all other Commies. BOOM!
Please, come with a comment. You still have yet to provide evidence.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/86jvij/commies_if_you_havent_read_dianetics_how_do_you/dw5o97t/
Usually I don't even bother replying to this fucking idiot but I knew I'd only have to go about ten comments into his history to find him shrieking at someone about reading Marx.
I mean, he'll keep shrieking and getting upvoted for lying and we'll keep getting downvoted for proving he's full of shit but sometimes it's worth it lol
You will see that that comment is entirely within the premises presented in my comment, that in order to raise any meaningful critique of Marx, you would have to have read Marx, which is why I questioned it, since his critique was of Marx directly. And I accepted that he has read it, and that he critiques it from a standpoint build directly on the critique of Marx he raised from reading Marx. Therefore it does not fit into the point made in this post.
Wrong.
If the methodology is bad then the results are bad. Nobody needs to read volumes of evidence evaluated using bad methodology.
Hmmm...so we dared to touch his sacred cow?
Bingo