@Vilageidiotx Didn't notice that you replied to me. Here's my belated response.

People who don't like communism? Propaganda doesn't mean "Evil conspiracy theory." Most beliefs have somebody out there producing propaganda for it.

I'm not saying the numbers were made up whole-cloth btw, i'm saying they are being too liberal with how they calculate causation and it makes for oversimplified history.

1. That really does not answer my question in the slightest. Maybe people don't like communism because of the actual facts they have easy access to opposed to the evidence that it was a lie in any regard. I know what you're saying, but you've given literally nothing here to extend the conversation. :/ I want a link of evidence. Or names of people who miscalculated the numbers or the real numbers...Not everyone "dislikes" communism so those real number MUST be somewhere.

I'm on board with this. I also think we should be more nuanced with causation, because oversimplification means we failed to truly understand history and are susceptible to the same failures.

2. I have a slight feeling I'm getting into a "Not Real (insert opinion which has a lot of damning evidence against it here)" argument right now. Millions of death is something to avoid...regardless of how many millions it is...(Feel like a one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic discussion.

If I say this is basically the only system that's killed 100 million people. Through awful famines and guns pressed to mothers and children's heads and the reaction I'm getting is "Well actually those numbers are probably lower than that!" 1. Is that remotely a good defense? 2. Sounds in poor taste to disregard the dead. 3. Seems like the can be nothing gained from the rest. I'm not hearing many pro's, just strong denial of the (SEVERITY) of the cons.

I feel like if you don't deny what communism has done. That's all it has under it's belt. So I don't understand why it is worth defending...

Communism is the primary topic of the conversation. I have made direct comparisons to several things that happened in communist countries. But I do need to draw from other systems if I am to make comparisons.

I don't recall, did I say the United States specifically? I'm out here making more general comparisons. I didn't pick democracy and capitalism because the US, I picked those because they are the status quo at the moment.

3. But why attempt to tell me about fringe examples of "democracies and (monarch run)capitalists" if not to draw comparison to the united states...You did them together as well? When everything else has been single examples. And argued I was being pedantic when I said we were not a democracy, instead of telling me I was correct but that totally wasn't what you were saying. So it seems like that's exactly what you did that for. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I don't quite understand what evidence you need me to produce, because my argument is about methodology. I'm not saying they are inventing deaths that don't exist, I'm saying they are playing too fast and loose with causation.

4. Without any evidence to back up an argument, it completely falls apart. I assume what you're saying has no evidence to back it up, basically making it conjecture at best. That's why I wanted evidence...it's necessary for this conversation to go farther then. "Here's evidence" "oh well...that's wrong! Because I say so." Doesn't really "a great debate/discussion" make.

I disagree; malicious effort is worse than inefficiency.

5. I wouldn't argue that, but that doesn't change that neglect still gets your children taken away of you...if you don't save a drowning kid outisde of places in the U.S, and you can swim, you can be legally punished for that...Neglect isn't always/often blameless....

Also I asked you, who is to blame the dicatator and government people running it? Or is it a byproduct of the system? I can tell you it's not neither, it's happened in every single one of them. So the question is which is to blame...which is a question I would like answered.

The Revolutionary government of France was a Republic too btw.

If they aren't making the point I assume they're making, Then do they have a point to begin with?

^ I HAVE to assume, that was a writing/posting mistake because it makes no sense asking me what I asked you. :I

Once again, I feel like that doesn't help or add anything relevant here. :P

What I am saying is those stats defy common sense. I've been to the south, and if Britain is doing as bad as that, they'd be a third world country.

Which is why I severely doubt their methodology but don't have time to dig through it.

6. Once again your refusing evidence that I've provided...just because it "feels" like it's wrong. Well I'll refrain from an obvious quote I have i mind. But feelings but have much substance.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736056/B..

There we go found a link that says it's NOT as poor as mississippi, but everywhere else.



However the data, produced for The Spectator, also showed that without London the UK would rank far below even the most deprived state in the US.

When all the wealth generated in Britain each year is divided out equally among the population, it comes to just $36,202 each, compared to Alabama at $36,356 and Mississippi on $35,157.

All three are behind Missouri, where riots have been taking place, on $45,721, and far removed from the most well-off state, Alaska, which generates $80,741 dollars per person per year.

Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, said: 'If Britain were to somehow leave the European Union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of the poor states.

'If you take our economic output, adjust for living costs and slot it into the US league table then the United Kingdom emerges as the second-poorest state in the union.

'We’re poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama and well below Missouri, the scene of all the unrest in recent weeks.'

The Mirror also calculated that without London, which accounts for around 22 per cent of the UK's GDP, we would have a GDP per capita of $25,224 - almost $10,000 per year worse off than Mississippi.

The figures were also adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity, meaning researchers took into account how much you can buy for your money in each country, ensuring the fairest result.

Google: What is the average house size in the UK?

UK house size is relatively small at 76 m2 (818 ft2) while Canadian houses are quite big at 181 m2 (1,948 ft2
alabamanewscenter.com/2015/11/05/alaba..



Alabama has the smallest houses in the nation and have bigger houses than the average home in Canada...

Reading through that, he doesn't seem evil exactly. To quote...



7. Called him an asshole. Which is more accurate. Another part of that link. Hate to see a defense for this. :/
But what GOOD did all of those people do? And HAS creating communism ever done anything GOOD?

Or all the deaths in the American Revolution on a Democracy death toll for that matter.

8. You're doing it again. :P But seriously is germany and hitler just misunderstood in ww2? Is the war that he caused and was the forefront of, was he not responsible and was it a super complicated buisness?

Yes, if you know for a fact you will cause violence and say it's inevitable with your system. That's probably not a good system to go with...I don't even know what else to say...

So yeh, all three have the essential problem. Communism couldn't retroactively cause a famine ten years prior to its implementation. But the second famine is put on Commie death tolls regardless of the extenuating circumstances.

Just haven't read any books that go into it in enough detail to make me feel comfortable.

9. I'll just throw up some conjecture for once and say, I doubt the communism helped much...

I feel like there hasn't been any detail for me to sink my teeth into. I've gotten a debate sandwich that's pretty light on actual meat.

Can you tell I haven't eaten any breakfast yet? Maybe I should go do that.

@Vilageidiotx
What I am saying is those stats defy common sense. I've been to the south, and if Britain is doing as bad as that, they'd be a third world country.

Which is why I severely doubt their methodology but don't have time to dig through it.

6. Once again your refusing evidence that I've provided...just because it "feels" like it's wrong. Well I'll refrain from an obvious quote I have i mind. But feelings but have much substance.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736056/B..

There we go found a link that says it's NOT as poor as mississippi, but everywhere else.



However the data, produced for The Spectator, also showed that without London the UK would rank far below even the most deprived state in the US.

When all the wealth generated in Britain each year is divided out equally among the population, it comes to just $36,202 each, compared to Alabama at $36,356 and Mississippi on $35,157.

All three are behind Missouri, where riots have been taking place, on $45,721, and far removed from the most well-off state, Alaska, which generates $80,741 dollars per person per year.

Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, said: 'If Britain were to somehow leave the European Union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of the poor states.

'If you take our economic output, adjust for living costs and slot it into the US league table then the United Kingdom emerges as the second-poorest state in the union.

'We’re poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama and well below Missouri, the scene of all the unrest in recent weeks.'

The Mirror also calculated that without London, which accounts for around 22 per cent of the UK's GDP, we would have a GDP per capita of $25,224 - almost $10,000 per year worse off than Mississippi.

The figures were also adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity, meaning researchers took into account how much you can buy for your money in each country, ensuring the fairest result.

Google: What is the average house size in the UK?

UK house size is relatively small at 76 m2 (818 ft2) while Canadian houses are quite big at 181 m2 (1,948 ft2
alabamanewscenter.com/2015/11/05/alaba..



Alabama has the smallest houses in the nation and have bigger houses than the average home in Canada...

As a Brit I found this interesting. I do think the north of England, where I live, has strong parallels with the American rust belt or perhaps the south. There are a lot of former mining towns here that face similar issues of de-industrialisation and all the social problems that entails. I don't think the poverty is as extreme here though. The problem with the use of GDP, as you've used here, is outlined in this article that you linked to earlier:

'The critics at TIME (and other publications) correctly pointed out that if one is going to draw broad conclusions about poverty among various countries, GDP numbers are arguably not the best metric. For one, GDP per capita can be skewed upward by a small number of ultra-rich persons.' - mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-b..

This article tried to remedy that problem by focusing on the median instead, but that isn't a very good measure either. The median, like the mean, ends up focusing on the people around the middle. It does put half of the sample above and half below that wage, but it doesn't tell us how far above or below they are or how they're distributed. The median alone just isn't a good measure to judge the entire population on. I'd be interested to see the range and standard deviation to accompany it.

@SleepingSilence

1. That really does not answer my question in the slightest. Maybe people don't like communism because of the actual facts they have easy access to opposed to the evidence that it was a lie in any regard. I know what you're saying, but you've given literally nothing here to extend the conversation. :/ I want a link of evidence. Or names of people who miscalculated the numbers or the real numbers...Not everyone "dislikes" communism so those real number MUST be somewhere.

That would take way more effort than I have the time to expend. I'm not trying to revise the list, i'm arguing that the lists that keep getting posted are too liberal in what they count as a killed-by.

2. I have a slight feeling I'm getting into a "Not Real (insert opinion which has a lot of damning evidence against it here)" argument right now. Millions of death is something to avoid...regardless of how many millions it is...(Feel like a one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic discussion.

If I say this is basically the only system that's killed 100 million people. Through awful famines and guns pressed to mothers and children's heads and the reaction I'm getting is "Well actually those numbers are probably lower than that!" 1. Is that remotely a good defense? 2. Sounds in poor taste to disregard the dead. 3. Seems like the can be nothing gained from the rest. I'm not hearing many pro's, just strong denial of the (SEVERITY) of the cons.

I feel like if you don't deny what communism has done. That's all it has under it's belt. So I don't understand why it is worth defending...

I'm not defending the malicious deaths, or any deaths tbh. I'm defending a less politically-motivated reading of history. I've said a half dozen times that if someone was literally murdered, then yeh, count the murder.

3. But why attempt to tell me about fringe examples of "democracies and (monarch run)capitalists" if not to draw comparison to the united states...You did them together as well? When everything else has been single examples. And argued I was being pedantic when I said we were not a democracy, instead of telling me I was correct but that totally wasn't what you were saying. So it seems like that's exactly what you did that for. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Because I have to make comparisons to something, and that something best exists in this period of history, which limits us a bit to what comparisons we make.

4. Without any evidence to back up an argument, it completely falls apart. I assume what you're saying has no evidence to back it up, basically making it conjecture at best. That's why I wanted evidence...it's necessary for this conversation to go farther then. "Here's evidence" "oh well...that's wrong! Because I say so." Doesn't really "a great debate/discussion" make.

I don't understand what evidence you mean. I'm making the arguments myself. I don't need a link to a guy saying the same shit I am saying. Like I said, we are talking methodology, I'm not accusing anybody of inventing numbers whole cloth, so evidence is more an argument for an appeal to authority.

^ I HAVE to assume, that was a writing/posting mistake because it makes no sense asking me what I asked you. :I

Once again, I feel like that doesn't help or add anything relevant here. :P

Ah, I accidentally wrote in the middle one of your quotes, so some of that is your words.

6. Once again your refusing evidence that I've provided...just because it "feels" like it's wrong. Well I'll refrain from an obvious quote I have i mind. But feelings but have much substance.

Economic statistics is a hazy field, and if they don't describe reality, you can bring them into question. I don't have time to dissect them, so this line of conversation will go to nothing. I still stand by where I was before; statistics that describes rural southern states as wealthier than the wealthiest European states are using a flawed methodology. If you produced Stats saying Nigeria was wealthier than the United States, I would have to say the same thing no matter how many graphs are involved.

8. You're doing it again. :P But seriously is germany and hitler just misunderstood in ww2? Is the war that he caused and was the forefront of, was he not responsible and was it a super complicated buisness?

I think he is to blame for the war, but putting all the deaths in that war at his doorstep would be overzealous history.

I feel like there hasn't been any detail for me to sink my teeth into. I've gotten a debate sandwich that's pretty light on actual meat.

I am working seventy hours a week right now so I don't exactly have time to spend hours researching shit. I had to throw this answer together in five minutes before eating.

I feel like we should probably just stop this argument by the way, because we aren't really going anywhere. Truce?