Athias

Christian;  My child is dying from smallpox, Praise the Lord!

Intelligent Man:  Let's find a cure for smallpox!

Christian:  My child is dying from Bubonic plague, Praise the Lord!

Intelligent Man:  Let's find a cure for the Bubonic plague!

Athias, I pray you find Humanism.

The  point is that God might have started everything by creating 2 dimensional strings, but after that It had no affect on the Universe 

except to give people an opiate.

That violates his oath of office. And is a hair short of treason. 

except it has been by every single court and law enforcement agency that has looked at this. And that is alot of courts and law enforcement agencies. 

no, his supporters picked up guns, spears and pipe bombs etc. and led an armed assault on the capitol resulting in the deaths of several people. 

what? there is tons of footage of police being attacked by the insurrectionists. Once they had already breached the building the police pulled back to defend the people inside the building. 

he incited an insurrection against the US government. His actions as that violent insurrection were being carried out are important. He did nothing to stop it for hours. And even then egged them on by repeating the lies which triggered the attack in the 1st place. 

yes. there are lots of cases in india where someone claims they saw someone eat beef and that person gets lynched. The lie caused the murder. Trump lied and told his cultists that he really won the election and it was being stolen. And that they needed to use strength to prevent this. The cultists then attacked the capitol resulting in the deaths of at least 5 people. His lies and incitement caused that attack. His lies triggered a terrorist attack. 

of course. he incited an insurrection against democracy.

He has been feeding them a pack of lies for months about he won in a landslide but it was secretly stolen.

He told that crowd they had to do something about it.

He told them they had to retake their country with strength.

His personal attorney told them that same morning they needed a trial by combat. 

And that doesn't even get into his actions during the riot. He reportedly resisted calling in the national guard and pence needed to do it.

He failed to make a statement for hours while people were dying.

When he finally did make a statement, he repeated all the lies that were causing them to attack the capitol in the 1st place thus egging them on even more. 

Religious people are less intelligent on average than atheists because faith is an instinct and clever people are better at rising above their instincts, researchers have claimed.

The theory — called the 'Intelligence-Mismatch Association Model' — was proposed by a pair of authors who set out to explain why numerous studies over past decades have found religious people to have lower average intelligence than people who do not believe in a god.

I don't know why religious people are so against abortion. God had no problem killing babies.

1 Samuel 15:3   Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

Good point.

Just because I took my pitbulls to the playground and let them off the leash doesn't make me responsible for the dog bites that followed.

To answer your last question first, because you have no idea what your talking about.

Pro-choice is the take that the one impregnated has the choice of what develops in their body.. pretty straight forwards that's just the freedom of anatomy.

Raising the age of consent is typically argued for the same reasons that raising the age for drafting or drinking is, because the brain is not fully developed. The argument typically goes along the lines that having sex with someone under the age of consent is statutory rape

but people object to that specific line... 18, is arbitary, thus, they want to raise the line to something which isn't arbitrary. Someone who is seeking abortion is seeking to correct something that has happened to them - whereas the age of consent is speaking of someone's physical and mental fortitude to do x or y.

Obviously people who aren't 18 have had sex and can handle it fine, but the problem is to protect the masses, so speaking from a policy perspective, the choice is either: Leave it at a line which was arbitrary in the first place, or raise it to somewhere that makes sense. Of course, some would argue that's lower, and some would argue that its higher. But the fundamental point is that the difference is correcting a state that they are in, and doing something with lots of potential bad consequences. the two things aren't equatable.

You have made a false comparison, congratulations. 

Um.... no, did you not understand the point? The proper point is that, there are tenents being preferred, the actual specific tenets don't actually matter - just that there are some. That was what I was talking about. You are right in a manner of speaking, theism is of "tenets", but rather than what ones, as you seem to believe, its a question of if there are any at all. This entire point was about how- as long as your believed in that god, you don't have to necessarily adopt all of the positions that, say, the bible supports.

Look at the guy, misunderstanding another word! Give him a clap on the back! Yes, some principles are axioms, others are not. Some principles are axioms - and as such people can be incorrect about what axioms logically lead to, such is every logical fallacy. But still.... axioms are nuanced, things which are true still hold nuance. An axiom is a thing which is self-evidently true, established, or accepted - nothing about that is absolute, I suppose you could argue that something which is self-evidently true is absolute, but I would say that logic can be nuanced... so again, incorrect.

Your entire point is based on faulty reasoning, such as false equivalences and non-sequiturs. Again, an ideology is just a system of idea and ideals, what about that is absolute? What about that can't be misinterpreted, what about that must stay consistent? I would argue that progressives have the same core values, and whether a policy reaches that goal is what depends if something is of that ideology, just like principles can be applied differently and be correct or incorrect based on the circumstances - that seem thing applies to how ideas are under a ideology. Sometimes things can be more aligned or less aligned, that's a basic part of any "ideal" because its necessarily subjective and relative. What you stack on top of that is the objective part. Most of your ideas can be aligned with progressisvm and you can not at all be a progressive I agree, if your fundamental goal or end result you seek is not that of progressivism then you aren't one - that is true, but again, people can disagree what best gets you to those ideas, and you don't even address that point, you literally hand wave it away and try to use red herrings as if their arguments.

Someone isn't paying attention - we are talking of political ideologies no? If an idea is just a system of ideas and ideals, you argued for something to apply to a political ideology you must agree with all tenets... except... those tenets will always be up for debate, of course there may be a true set of tenets that will lead you to a goal, but there may be another way to get to that goal, to accomplish it. To get from 4 to 6 you could add two, or you could subtract negative 2, either way gets you to 6. You could multiple 4  by 1.5 and get 6. My point - is that there are multiple ways to get to a goal, therefore, each progressive might have different ideas on what is the best way to get to the goal. Thus debating between progressives is deciding which tenets, even principles are the right way to get to a goal.

Mmhm, it actually is - the preponderance of evidence or the likely hood of something can point in a direction, say to either x or y, and the other be technically true, so I am careful with my language in that regard.

.. and I explained it above.

Do you mean how someone can only partially adhere to a goal? Gladly - let's say the goal is to eat some cake.

Technically both things would get you closer to eating a cake, but buying one premade is more aligned with eating a cake, as all you have to do is... buy then eat the cake. Whereas baking the cake makes eating it a secondary priority, otherwise x would have just bought the premade cake.

you can do something towards the first goal which interferes with the second, but the end result and intention still being the first goal.

Because it doesn't and I thought that would be more apparent

So people who believe in christ aren't christians? Is that what you're arguing?

This is basing off of the holy book described, which effectively defines christianity for us. 

If someone were to follow all of Christ's teachings but not believe that he existed,

so in the hypothetical that the christian god exists, and follows the principles of the bible, that's how that would go down.

I explained in the lines above, notice the entire thing is a paragraph? That's because each sentence leads into the next. 

An assumption? That's most likely the case, that is if to say that whenever the cheese is on the counter, that someone left out that cheese is an assumption. And... considering that it was in exodus in a long list of rules.... that is at least a tenet of Christianity. 

Gonna explain yourself?

Mmm. no, I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so I'm sticking to what I said before.

Wow, that's interesting, Do you have any thoughts about that in particular?

Doesn't this make the State de facto OWNER?

I agree.

However, there is usually some individual who wields outsized control.

Either a CEO or a Chairman, or a 51% stakeholder (Corporate Raider).

The point here is that the workers themselves do not get a vote.

So, DEFINITELY NOT "THE STATE".

Primarily I'd like people to UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

Putting a single organization (river-corp or river-authority) "in charge" of the river can often be WORSE than "nothing".

Doing "nothing" is obviously very bad.

AND policing water usage and dumping is ridiculously resource intensive.

What you'd hope would be that people would "respect the river" and "play nice" and "only take what they need" and "not be idiots".

But what we end up with is THE FREE-RIDER PROBLEM.

More specifically, if the cost of a resource is shared, then people who don't use that resource or under-use that resource are "penalized" and those who over-use that resource are "rewarded".

HOLACRACY SEEMS TO BE A "BETTER" FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING SHARED RESOURCES.

I'm curious how you, personally, might approach this "problem".

Yes.  Isn't this a marvelous feature?

It's simple, people bid for jobs.  The lowest qualified bid gets the job.

I'm not sure what SPECIFIC SYSTEMS you're trying to compare and contrast.

HOLACRACY

Most corporations are controlled by a 51% stakeholder.

You can get arrested for sleeping in a "public" park.

Who does the State rent from?

Who does the State rent to?

Please present your personally preferred definition of "public".

2a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state public law

b : of or relating to a government

c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation

River water is a good example.

Do upstream farmers "own" the river?

If upstream farmers divert the flow of the river to irrigate their crops and thus deprive downstream farmers of adequate water for their crops, is it "stealing"?

If upstream factories dump chemical waste into the water making it dangerous to plants and animals downstream, is that "vandalism"?

Who is the "owner"?

They did seem to suggest that perhaps the numbers are coded letters.

Perhaps it's not a "sequence of numbers" but rather a "sequence of letters represented with numbers".

Even Mr A our resident philosophical scholar and wordsmith is baffled by something so simple.

And yet, it was shockingly popular.

Why is that?

So semantics. I got ya. 

What if myself (and everyone else in society) disputes your analyses of rights? Whose alleged "rights" do we honor then? 

I can appreciate that. You remind me of myself in my early 20s. I read every publication by Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Engels and Rothbard I could get my hands on. I even read some anarcho-syndicalists and communists for funsies. I was very libertarian (practically an-cap) for a good portion of my life, and of course when I was in college got very into philosophy. Who doesn't get a lil boner by Ayn Rand when they're 19, amirite? I thought abiding by the laws of logic were paramount and got annoyingly anal about axiomatic truths so I get where you're coming from. I even had Huey as my debate icon for the longest time lol. So I actually find this conversation very endearing and was only curious where you were at in your thought processes, that's all. 

This is what I was getting at. The TLDR is that any idea on rights (as it pertains to government, property or commerce) essentially boils down to might makes right. If you're the only one who believes X then your views don't really matter insofar as being applicable. It comes down to what ideas you can defend and enforce among people. When you ask  "how meaningful is enforcement when the enforcement itself undermines the right(s) it is intended to protect" I completely understand that paradox and question that many philosophers have tried to resolve.

But here we are, and I expect if we go down a Socratic rabbit hole you'll come to similar conclusions most have had regarding the "necessary evil" of government and overriding of strict individualism for a functioning society.

But one is compelled. Ignoring arguments for determinism and against free will (i.e. predisposition through genetics or environment compelling choices), what about babies? Would it be immoral or against what one ought to do or has a right to do if they give an infant medicine or life saving treatment? I think if we acknowledge any rights concerning infants regards the discretion of their parents or the state, we recognize how arbitrary our conditions for the existence of rights are - that's why I was asking about other species and non humans.

We just make up the criteria as we go along, and because there is no moral absolute or moral imperative it's not necessarily immoral to do certain things  in the name of government just like we "allow" certain things to be done for babies in the name of good parenting. 

I'm probs not explaining this properly in between work calls. I almost forgot about this thread. I'm confident if you think about your "ideal government" or rather ideal society without government though, certain circumstances or conditions would arise where you wouldn't be able to apply some sort of straight edged logic as easily as you think. I suspect you'll figure that out in due time and probs not in this thread. I'm enjoying the conversation though.

I'm not sure actually... I'd have to really think about that one. I've already made the point that I think as long as your general goal aligns with the philosophy of the political ideology, you are said ideology. Now, if you disagree, that's fine, that's just what I'm talking about when I say progressivism. How about this, just give me what you think some core tenants are, and then I'll respond ya or nay and why. That sound fair?

Eh, that's more along the lines of Deism, to be a theist, you have to assign attributes to said god, and which attributes are the tenets I'm referring to. As most theists say they should strive to be like god, or that they're made in god's image. This implies that these characteristics are preferable. A couple extrapolations and bada beem bada boom.

Using context it was fairly easy to tell what I was referring to, so yes, that was a nitpick. 

See, now you're being arbitrary, assigning a dichotomy along which an idea can lay, why? Can things not be nuanced?

What I was saying there is that how I determine how progressivist I am by identifying the center or main goal of progressivism and seeing if my goals align. If yes, I am, if no, then I'm not. People can think there goals align with progressism the center idea and be right or wrong, therefore they may appear and label themselves progressive and not actually be progressive, but no one would be able to tell until they're thoughts and ideas were weighted for valid or consistency. I am not deeming it inconsistent with my goals, but the goals of progressivism essentially. That is what I meant people can disagree. 

Ideology - "A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

Here you are simply factually incorrect.

Naive - "showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement."

Here we see a lack of judgement, at least on this subject, it arbitrarily limits what an ideology is, even though the dictionary specifically disagrees with you. Why do you limit like so? Ideology does not mean what you seem to think it does.

Once again, locking it in a binary, while it is true that you either believe a proposition to be true, or you don't the same can not be said for systems of thought or ideas. Certain ideas can be less or more aligned with an ideology, people may believe it to be a goal, but not the most important, there are lots of ways of measuring this. Again, arbitrary. 

But.... you literally did, I already provided a definition that specifically doesn't back your approach. 

That's also wrong... because it doesn't fit the people who would still make it to christian and don't apply those principals. Are these people not "Christians"?

Even though they get to make it to heaven and forever are rewarded?

Is a person who is sent to hell because they did not believe in christ, yet follow his teachings closely a christian?

Is the murderer who only converted in his last moments (truly repented) and never followed christ except for those last moments a chrsitian?

No. You're rebuttal falls short.

Though if we assume that the bible is informing the government which they governed over, and people are commanded to kill a man who sleepeth with another man, its not far to say stoning.

And the bible explicitly says you shouldn't steal, yet it doesn't say the same of slavery? Just tell them to stop slavery, that was never commanded therefore, an endorsment.

Throw out some principals and I'll tell you if I agree or disagree. Then you decided if I am a progressive or not.

There are no "worker unions" in EMPLOYEE-OWNED companies.

The workers are the management.

There is absolutely no reason to form a completely new organization to "negotiate with management".

Corporations cooperate all the time.

They can make and break these non-contractual alliances at will.

Almost everything about the STATE is functionally PRIVATE.

The STATE owns property that is not available to all people.

The STATE controls resources that are not available to all people.

The STATE controls services that are not available to all people.

The absolute best possible STATE acts like a "benevolent" corporation that is funded by "subscriber fees" (taxes).

You've just managed to prove that STATE run libraries are NOT PUBLIC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Fellow conspirators in a syndicate do not share ownership.

No.  It most certainly is NOT.

The State is a public enemy.

That's better.

Workers negotiating wages and individual internal company policy is no more "anti-free-market" than Private-Individual-Owners setting wages and individual company policy.

Internal corporate policies are NOT "REGULATIONS".

STATE = MONOPOLY ON FORCE

PUBLIC = FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE

PUBLIC = NOT OWNED OR OWNABLE

PRIVATE = REQUIRES EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM OWNER TO ACCESS

When you have a command structure where each level ONLY listens to those ABOVE THEM, there are some systemic problems that tend to crop up.

For example, since nobody listens to the lower levels, many problems (and potential problems) go unreported.

This leads to executive overconfidence.

Also, good ideas are rarely acknowledged, except when they are stolen by a superior.

AND since executives are guaranteed "golden parachutes", they tend towards reckless pursuit of short-term gains.

I guess some individuals are more sovereign than others.

Individual-Owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.

In-fact, the State has become a naked puppet of these syndicates of Individual-Owners.

Nope.

By what definition?

Employee-Ownership is more like a private-club.

There is no aspect of socialism (EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP) that makes socialism incompatible with a FREE-MARKET.

The same faults as FEUDAL HIERARCHY.

CAPITALISM = FEUDAL HIERARCHY

OWNER = GOD-KING

SOCIALISM = DEMOCRACY

SOCIALISM = EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP

You'd first have to understand Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is the production and dissemination of goods and services by private [INDIVIDUAL GOD-KINGS] entities.

Socialism is the regulation of production and dissemination of the aforementioned by a collective [EMPLOYEE OWNERS] (typically a State

[REGULATION BY THE STATE IS CALLED "STATE CAPITALISM" WHICH IS WHAT CHINA CURRENTLY HAS].)

As it happens, Capitalism and Socialism are [NOT] diametrically opposed.

"Truth and logic exists, untrue and illogical things cannot exist"

OR, you could just call it an AXIOM.

Not only after but during the election there were cries everywhere of "Hilary would have been a worse president!" and "She is actually evil!" People essentially saying that the country would have gone down an even worse path if Hilary was elected in 2016, do people think this is true?

How would you have reacted to Hilary Clinton winning?

How do you think general America would react?

Would she be a good or a bad president, why?

How would her presidency affect America?

How would her presidency affect the world?

Perhaps puzzles aren't an American thing.

The second puzzle, tells you the answer...All that is required is a bit of General Knowledge.

As for your puzzle......Applying basic puzzle formats, one initially doesn't need to come up with anything other than 6.....

As I've stated previously, it's a standard puzzle.  It just requires a little bit of thought, and any keen puzzler would work it out in seconds.

Even in instances where there is no privilege at all?

For example, if your friends tell you they robbed a bank and someone died, but they're pretty sure they got away with it, you don't think it's right that you're under legal obligation to report it, or be considered an accessory of some sort?

Obviously.....That's the whole Idea of a puzzle....You're supposed to work it out.

So do you actually possess the where with all, to be able  tell me why the answer is 18?.......I somehow think not.

One is only as clever as what one knows, and how one is able to manipulate that knowledge......I.Q.......Currently, yours isn't looking very formidable.

So ditch the excuses and prove me wrong.

THE 18 COMES FROM ADDING UP 1,2,5,1,4,5=18, LIKE I SAID, YOU MADE IT UP.

If the claim "truth does not exist" is correct, it is a truth that exists

Thus "Truth does not exist" contradicts its own statement

If the statement "I exist" is objectively a truth I could not claim that

A logical argument against logic is contradictory

An illogical argument against logic would be subjective

This is a forum, logic must be present

2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements

This one is interesting. I first want to explain what that statement means. Logic takes at least two truths/bits/numbers and "creates" a new truth/bit/number. The nature of logic is that it is 100% reliable and predictable. So far, science has proven that anything we thought of as "not logical", are just emerging features of logical systems. Randomness is just a product of complex physical laws that are nearly impossible to predict. Some mathematical functions and irrational numbers are used in order to "calculate" randomness inside our computers. We also know that chemistry is purely logical, there is no randomness or free will involved. Our brains, however, have properties of both randomness and free will, emerging features of a super complex chemical system. True randomness has never been confirmed, neither has true free will as a spirit or supernatural soul. One could believe in illogical decision-making systems like these as part of one's own faith. 

Let me use God as an example, defined by having the ultimate free will.

How does God make decisions, logically, random or using free will? Someone has yet to explain what free will is, if not for emerging features of randomness emerging from logic. God would be the ultimate reality, and must thus be made of ultimate truths. As shown above, only logic can satisfactory explain how truths create other truths.

For instance, if I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable? And if you don't agree, explain why you think the 1st amendment does not apply to rape or child abuse.

Santa Claus is St. Nicholas. Osiris doesn’t look anything like Santa.

Either way, this representation is mistaken even if it is correct back then.

We define what festivals are and I doubt your telling can define such a commercialized festival.

interesting theory

"Nothing" is variously defined.

Nothing has been substantiated...That is the ongoing issue....And if you want to be picky...Nothing has not been substantiated either....That is the ongoing conundrum.

The profit motive for Capitalists causing a number of harmful (minimising worker salary) or inefficient behaviours (Massive amounts on marketing to buy a drug X that is fundamentally no different from drug Y),

the alientation of workers from their labour,

the concentration of wealth also being a de facto concentration of political power which runs counter to democratic tendencies, etc.

What are you referring to? I'd guess the USSR if I had to hazard a guess just because that's the usual go-to example, but that doesn't really fit.

Few people actually argue for pure socialism or pure capitalism, though I'm one of the former and believe Capitalism has inherent flaws that cannot be constrained and must be checked with socialism giving superior outcomes though I don't advocate state control as the best method for governing the means of production and prefer worker co-operatives.

Just being realistic...

The limits of human perception are such that one cannot truly say otherwise.

That is not to say,  that what cannot be perceived is not of the same stuff as you and I.

Evolution has taken billions of years to create what a designer should be able to do in a day, or two.

And evolution is still ongoing and there is still no perceivable designer.

There are two ideas I want to discuss in this forum, the idea of a fallen world, and a finely tuned Universe.

The idea of a fallen world is a defense against the Problem of Evil, saying that evil entered the  world when people sinned. thus, the Problem of Evil does not bring into question God's goodness and power, because it's man's fault. This "fallen world" idea is strictly contradicted by the Teleological Argument

The Teleological Argument (or the fine tuning argument) says that the world is so perfect, that a God must have created it. 

So what is the problem with these two mindsets? 

The fallen world describes an imperfect world around us, and the fine tuned world (from the Teleological Argument) describes a prefect world around us. These two ideas contradict each other, so the Christian must either drop  the teleological argument (one of the best arguments for God), or drop the idea of a fallen world (the best response to the Problem of Evil)

if you think the world is so fallen and bad because of sin, stop trying to find design in everything!

I say virtually as I'm generally aware of some European conversations on a purely trivial note.

You don't seem

to understand the distinction between a word and a term. 

How do you know you aren't making the same mistake of applying the term to people who simply meant, having ownership of capital (to the exclusion of others)?

As you can see, the word (not just the term) was virtually unheard of until the late-1800's, around the time Das Kapital was publicized.  The implications seem fairly obvious.

Because healthcare is the system that allows modernization. Without ways to prevent illness, fix injury, or treat afflictions; not only would productivity plummet, but the age of living would also be reduced. Not only that but in order to have any morality at all, the state of other's beings is implicitly needed. Therefore, in order to declare anything "wrong", you must have an assumption that human regard matters, and would thus be morally inclined to take care of such things. The marketization and order for product only hinder that goal, the exploitive cost, the idea that there should be profit in the organization at all, all of that, hinders that goal.

Except... you can be partially free... You can be regulated to the laws of physics and technically not be "free". You can have the right to do as is with the law and technically be "free". Clearly, there is more nuance to freedom that you do not include, to look at it binarily is like to look at lots of things through a binary, that simply isn't. It is simplistic and not the case. I could be a criminal that is allowed out of prison, but with an ankle monitor, I am "more" free than I was before unless you're saying there is no difference? Clearly, freedom is relative to your experience. 

Honestly, I could try to rebut you, but I definitely feel ill-prepared to speak purely economics, lol, so I took a step back and saw what other people thought. From my perspective, its as simple as making some systems or markets owned by the state and others not. I don't know if there something beyond the obvious, "how would we pay for that" that makes that some kind of problem. Some things shouldn't be treated as a business, certainly not healthcare, insurance, or education. That's my views though.

Well pure socialism and pure capitalism are poles on the left to right aspect of the political spectrum. So an economy can have socialist aspects, but remain mostly capitalist. So it's not completely accurate to say that an economy is socialist because it entails some regulations. That really just means that it is pulled a little left.

If you were so interested you can look up definitions for socialism and communism, but you won't find capitalism in an American dictionary prior to the Civil War.

 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=capitalism&year_start=1800&year_end=2019

The systems of market regulators determine socialist and capitalist policies in different markets. So as pure extremes they are juxtaposed, but in practice systems display aspects of each idea. Pretty much everything is a mixed economy in practice

As for socialism? I think people are much more familar with it's failings, I'll go with one of the most apparent: Its lack of incentives. 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/why-socialism-always-fails/

Except I didn't assume that was the only solution, I said it is a possible solution.

I also suggested mixing and coming up with something new

awfully selective reading you have there.

If I were to say: "Because it is not either of them the answer must lay in the middle" You would be justified in saying that,

Why do people continuously insist: "Either Capitalism or Socialism", clearly both economic systems have their faults. Why is it that in other regards can we see that there are middle grounds, third options, etcetera, but in this specific field I've overwhelmingly seen support in one or the other way. I think that the faults of either are inescapable in their purest forms.

A) The fact that we already kind of do that,

B) That isn't what I said, your fallacy is an example of the fallacy fallacy. 

Capitalism 

I could list them out, but I think this source does it much better than I could explain it currently: (GEH)

1. Inequality

The benefits of capitalism are rarely equitably distributed. Wealth tends to accrue to a small % of the population. This means that demand for luxury goods is often limited to a small % of the workforce. The nature of capitalism can cause this inequality to keep increasing. This occurs for a few reasons

• Inherited wealth. Capitalists can pass on their assets to their children. Therefore, capitalism doesn’t cause equality of opportunity, but those born in privilege are much more likely to do well because of better education, upbringing and inherited wealth.
  
• Interest from assets. If capitalists are able to purchase assets – bonds, house prices, shares, they gain interest, rent and dividends. They can use these proceeds to buy more assets and wealth – creating a wealth multiplier effect. Those without wealth get left behind and may see house prices rise faster than inflation.
  
• The economist Thomas Piketty wrote an influential book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which emphasised this element of capitalism to increase inequality. As a general rule, Picketty argues wealth grows faster than economic output. He uses expression r > g (where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate.)
  

Capitalism relies on financial markets – shares, bonds and money markets but financial markets have a tendency to cause booms and busts. In a boom period, lending and confidence rise, but frequently markets get carried away by ‘irrational exuberance‘ causing assets to the spike in value. But, this boom can quickly turn to a crash when market sentiment changes. These market crashes can cause economic downturns, recession and unemployment. At various times, capitalism has suffered prolonged recessions (the 1930s), periods of mass unemployment and a decline in living standards.

In a free market, successful firms can gain monopoly power. This enables them to charge higher prices to consumers. Supporters of capitalism argue only capitalism enables economic freedom. But, the freedom of a monopoly can be abused and consumers lose out because they have no choice. For example, in industries like tap water or electricity supply, which are a natural monopoly, consumers have no alternative but to pay the prices charged by consumers. In the Nineteenth Century, monopolies like Standard Oil bought our rivals (often with unfair competitive practices) and then became very profitable.

Monopsony is market power in employing factors of production. For example, firms can have monopsony power in employing workers and paying lower wages. This enables firms to be more profitable but can mean workers don’t share from the same level of proceeds as the owners of capital. It explains why with increasing monopsony power we have seen periods of stagnant real wage growth while firms profitability has increased (2007-17 in UK and US)

In a free market, factors of production are supposed to be able to easily move from an unprofitable sector to a new profitable industry. However, in practice, this is much more difficult. E.g. a farmworker who is made unemployed cannot just fly off to a big city and find a new job. He has geographical ties to his birthplace; he may not have the right skills for the job. Therefore, in capitalist societies, we often see long periods of structural unemployment.

In capitalist economies, there is limited government intervention and reliance on free markets. However, market forces ignore external costs and external benefits. Therefore, we may get over-production and over-consumption of goods that cause harmful effects to third parties. This can lead to serious economic costs – pollution, global warming, acid rain, loss of rare species; external costs that damage future generations.

The nature of capitalism is to reward profit. The capitalist system can create incentives for managers to pursue profit over decisions which would maximise social welfare. For example, firms are using theories of price discrimination to charge higher prices to consumers who want to jump the queue. This makes sense from the perspective of maximising profit. However, if we have a society, where the rich can pay to jump a queue at a Fairground – or pay to see Congressman quicker – it erodes social norms and a sense of ‘fair-play’

The pursuit of the profit motive has encouraged some law firms to aggressively pursue litigation claims. This has created a society where we devote resources to protecting ourselves from being sued.  Further reading – “Moral Limits of Markets” by Michael Sanders

David Riccardo is associated with capitalism today, and certainly capitalists have been referred to since the 1700's in the original context of investment, but I haven't come across evidence pointing to a Marxist conception of laissez-faire from him.

I grew up in an ultra conservative bubble where I believed women should not vote, work outside the home, or go to college. I wore skirts down to my ankles and my social life was exclusively church or people who believed just like me.

I had no access to the internet until I was 17 years old, and so I had zero exposure to pop culture or basic children's movies.

Joining DDO in like 2014 was a crash course in the world for me. I left it about four years ago because it was dying and I recently found this site hoping that reading other people's opinions will help me grow further.