>Communism is a subset of socialism
and
> Socialism always results in tyranny.
but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes.
Does that mean that:
> Square is a subset of rectangle
so
>rectangle always results in four right angles
given that my only examples of rectangles are squares?
Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subset of socialism is plainly incorrect.
By your own admission:
>Humans will always create a hierarchy
Socialism could not have been tested, because it would require social ownership of the production of goods, and co-operative management of those resources. Hierarchy means they did not have co-operative management of resources, they had hierarchical management of resources.
When the site guidelines ask you not to call names, "nonsensical mindless garbage" is the kind of thing they have in mind.
Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself.
If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."
Premise:
>Za is a subset of Z
>Za always results in behavior1
Conclusion:
> Z always results in behavior1
How does this argument prove that behavior1 occurs in all instances of Z, when you've only shown us that a subset of Z (in this case Za) exhibits behavior1?
How do you plan to prove that other subset Zb, Zc, Zd, etc follow this same rule when you've failed to provide even a single example?
Or if you still are unable to answer that question, can you please show us in what way i misrepresented your argument to create a strawman?
you not only have yet to actually address this point, you also have yet to address my point concerning your own words on hierarchy and the incompatibility with that and the idea of co-operative management of resources.
Once you can make your argument make sense, you can begin looking at counterarguments for fallacies and semantics, else you will have this situation where you are digging yourself a deeper hole by misunderstanding counterarguments and rashly trying to mislabel them as fallacies.
Editted formatting
Edit: As was The Third Reich.
Was it socialistic in name only, or actually socialistic in structure and policy?
Was Nazi germany not a dictatorship? How is that compatible with socialism at all?