Fabianism

[MikeNovack]

Only one of us really should be answering. I wonder why you can't...Are you ashamed of your definition, or just devoid of one?

It has been made perfectly clear. To use definition of "cat" as an example, you think you are defining a term that represents all breeds of a certain domestic animal and I think a term to represent all critters of the family Felidae Then no point to compare or argue about our definitions since we already know not about the same thing.

This is a really good example (cats). You are arguing "my definition of cats is correct" because in effect, nothing in the rest of felidae (the number of individual domestic cats is probably many times the number of individuals in all the other species in felidae combined). I am saying, so what, those other species exist. The definition should/must encompass them.

[Immanuel Can]

Only one of us really should be answering. I wonder why you can't...Are you ashamed of your definition, or just devoid of one?

...no point to compare or argue about our definitions...

There's very much a point. You've been critical of my definition, which certainly implies you have a different one -- presumably one you believe is better in some way. I'd just like to know what it is, because your belief is obviously that your definition is NOT the same as mine.

But if our definitions turn out to be the same, your earlier criticisms of my definition were false. And if they turn out to be different, well, then it's essential that I get a clear sense of what you think I missed.

So...your definition of "Socialism," please.

[MikeNovack]

There's very much a point. You've been critical of my definition, which certainly implies you have a different one -- presumably one you believe is better in some way. I'd just like to know what it is, because your belief is obviously that your definition is NOT the same as mine.

No, let's stick to cats, the problem is clearer. You want to define DOMESTIC cats. You argue that the other cats are irrelevant (there are 10 million domestic cats in the UK and perhaps under a thousand other felidae (say remaining wild F. sylvestris still roaming the hills of Scotland). But that stresses DOMESTIC, what they have in common with other domestic animals. I am insisting on defining cats in terms of what all genera/species of cat have in common, arguing that more of those than the few species that combined make up domestic cats.

THAT is the problem we are having with "socialism", the same we would have with "cats" Just as my definition of cats would include nothing about being domestic (not a characteristic in common of cats EVEN THOUGH most cats, by numbers, ARE domestic) this is something you are seeing as essential in the definition (because of the numbers)

[Immanuel Can]

There's very much a point. You've been critical of my definition, which certainly implies you have a different one -- presumably one you believe is better in some way. I'd just like to know what it is, because your belief is obviously that your definition is NOT the same as mine.

No, let's stick to cats,

No cats. Definition.

No more excuses.

[MikeNovack]

Cats, because presumably you do not have the same emotional involvement. If you cannot see this is the SAME logical issue, there is no point talking about my definition of socialism.

You are defining "cats" to mean "domestic cats". Your argument is sort of like:
a) There are more individual domestic cats, orders of magnitude more, than individuals of all the other things people like me put together want to call cats (lions, tigers, lynxes, etc.) So those "other cats" might as well not exist.
b) More bizarrely, you seem to want to argue any that did exist would have to be domestic.
c) DOMESTIC is a major part of your definition.

I would be defining "cats" very differently. I would be basing ONLY on what is common to all felidae. DOMESTIC would not be any part of my definition because almost all species in felidae are NOT domestic. That's not a characteristic in common. Domestic is the exception.

If you can't see this is exactly the same as our disagreement about "what is socialism" no point in proceeding.

[Impenitent]

socialist cats: the hell/utopia of jazz playing government servants

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Cats, because presumably you do not have the same emotional involvement.

I don't have any emotional involvement. But I know how to define "cat." If I didn't, I couldn't even find one.

Just like you don't know what a "Socialist" is.

[MikeNovack]

Cats, because presumably you do not have the same emotional involvement.

I don't have any emotional involvement. But I know how to define "cat." If I didn't, I couldn't even find one.

Just like you don't know what a "Socialist" is.

Let's see -------- L. pardinus has been extinct in the UK for almost a thousand years. There is talk of reintroduction, or possibly introducing L. lynx instead, because more generalist a hunter (we have the same situation over here with our two species f lynx).

Is the lynx a cat? If you say no because not DOMESTIC or no because currently extinct or no because its numbers were never anything like the ten million domestic cats in the UK -- then tell me what do you want to call the set of the lynx, all other felidae, AND the domestic cat. If you say yes, then why are you treating defining "cats" different than defining "socialism" << Are the also extinct Shakers, an example of religious communism, to be included in "socialism" >>

Until/unless you can consider that, we are in no position to discuss "socialism"

[Iwannaplato]

I do understand why the conversation is now focused on cats, with the intention of going back to socialism.
But it's still funny.
All this gymnastics when it all likely comes down to how the two groups like things to be.

Socialism vs. Capitalism comes down to flavor of ice cream and you each think the other likes butterscotch ice cream.

I do realize that there are much more important issues involved in the ism disagreement, but it's as if it is some other kind of disagreement.

It'd be great if the capitalists, those who love that, could have their own planet.
And the socialists, those who love that, could have their own planet.
And we'd have to make sure neither group could travel to the other planet and knew where it was.
Then it's like ice cream.
Of course, everyone on each planet, in this utopian cosmology, had chosen its ism.

[Immanuel Can]

Cats, because presumably you do not have the same emotional involvement.

I don't have any emotional involvement. But I know how to define "cat." If I didn't, I couldn't even find one.

Just like you don't know what a "Socialist" is.

Is the lynx a cat?

What you can't define, you can't talk about. You don't even know how to find one, then.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Socialism vs. Capitalism comes down to flavor of ice cream …

A categorically false statement right down the line.

Though:

1) It is possible to institute social benefit programs and often aids in social health.

2) Capitalist systems, and corporate systems are not without defects and have sone destructive outcomes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is the lynx a cat?

Your dog should know.

[MikeNovack]

I do understand why the conversation is now focused on cats, with the intention of going back to socialism.
But it's still funny.
All this gymnastics when it all likely comes down to how the two groups like things to be.

You get get it, but I don't think IC is yet getting WHY I am mapping the definition problem to "cats". It's a really good mapping. In terms of number of individuals, "domestic cats" ARE almost all of felidae, but we easily see that there are many other sorts of cats (I think he does also), so "domestic" not a property in common for "cats". Then why can't he see it's the same for "socialism", many sorts than just the "state socialists" (misleading term but the usual one used by socialist opponents for what he is defining as "socialist"). What he is doing is equivalent to:

other sorts of cats don't exist (they are an irrelevant fraction of "cats" so leave them out of the definition)
if they did exist, they would be "domestic cats"

Yes how the two groups like things to be but he isn't seeing all of one* of the groups. Too emotionally bound up in dislike/hate of the part of the group that he does see? Hey, most of the rest of the group dislikes/hates them too.

* possibly both, possibly not seeing all of either group. We've not yet considered who the anti-socialists are.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think IC is yet getting WHY I am mapping the definition problem to "cats".

Oh, it's dead easy to see why you're doing it. It lets you avoid having to define your terms...and clearly, you feel very vulnerable on that point, and probably justifiably so. I don't imagine you have much of a definition, if you're so scared to offer it.

[phyllo]

My definition is bigger than yours.