Black Comrade@lemmygrad.ml to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoJesus and Capitalistslemmygrad.mlimagemessage-square147fedilinkarrow-up1568arrow-down164
arrow-up1504arrow-down1imageJesus and Capitalistslemmygrad.mlBlack Comrade@lemmygrad.ml to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square147fedilink
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down7·1 year agoYou made the claim, you should back it. Or you should acknowledge that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Either way works for me. ♥️
minus-squareCandelestine@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·1 year agoWhat claim did I make that I now need to back? That Stalin took over the USSR, or something else? Regardless, I can’t help but point out how obviously you are avoiding my single, very reasonable question.
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down4·edit-21 year ago What claim did I make that I now need to back? a Stalin that takes advantage of the situation to seize power. You don’t get to duck my question by asking a question.
minus-squareCandelestine@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·1 year agoYou quoted part of a sentence. That was part of a question. Questions and claims are not the same things. But sure, this should explain how Stalin rose to lead the USSR: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin's_rise_to_power
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down4·edit-21 year ago You quoted part of a sentence. That was part of a question. Questions and claims are not the same things. It was not a question. This is the full quote of your original claim: Figure out a way to implement communism without creating a Stalin that takes advantage of the situation to seize power, and we can talk. Your implications are: that Stalin was bad. that Stalin wrongly “seized power”. that Stalin wrongly held onto power. I asked: “If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?”. I think that neutralizes all three of your implied claims. You have not answered.
minus-squareCandelestine@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoI actually have addressed that one with other commentators, if you check out the rest of this thread.
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down3·1 year agoI don’t agree that you have. I’ve seen you make unsupported speculations as to what caused him to resign, and why those resignations were refused. It’s ok to admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
minus-squareCandelestine@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoI think my argument about how it’s not actually physically possible to be unable to resign was rather compelling. Regardless I have answered your question, even if you dislike my answer. I have certainly tried at least. Can you answer mine yet?
minus-squarediegeticscream [all]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down3·1 year ago Regardless I have answered your question, even if you dislike my answer. I just said that I don’t agree that you have.
You made the claim, you should back it.
Or you should acknowledge that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Either way works for me. ♥️
What claim did I make that I now need to back? That Stalin took over the USSR, or something else?
Regardless, I can’t help but point out how obviously you are avoiding my single, very reasonable question.
You don’t get to duck my question by asking a question.
You quoted part of a sentence. That was part of a question. Questions and claims are not the same things.
But sure, this should explain how Stalin rose to lead the USSR:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin's_rise_to_power
It was not a question. This is the full quote of your original claim:
Your implications are:
I asked: “If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?”. I think that neutralizes all three of your implied claims.
You have not answered.
I actually have addressed that one with other commentators, if you check out the rest of this thread.
I don’t agree that you have.
I’ve seen you make unsupported speculations as to what caused him to resign, and why those resignations were refused.
It’s ok to admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think my argument about how it’s not actually physically possible to be unable to resign was rather compelling.
Regardless I have answered your question, even if you dislike my answer. I have certainly tried at least. Can you answer mine yet?
I just said that I don’t agree that you have.