<p>Pythagoras theorem is a FACT
No matter whether Socialism is valid or not, it is not a fact</p>
<p>
Everyone being equal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s possible. It’s certainly not true and never will be true, but it’s possible. I don’t think that’s really an assumption made in pure Socialism though…</p>
<p>Everyone can’t be equal?</p>
<p>It’s not possible, because everyone would then have to have the exact same genes, proteins, cells, etc. in the exact same location such that their resources would be given out in the exact same fashion. Therefore, they must all be in a location that is uniform and that is uniformly distributed exactly. Each person must have an equal chance of everything happening where there is absolutely no variability.
To make assumptions for Pythagorean theorem to work, you must draw a perfect right triangle that is measured perfectly up to its infinite nth digit.
Both are certainly not true, never will be true, and are certainly impossible.</p>
<p>Why do people need to be clones to be equal?</p>
<p>If socialism needs this for it to work, it is pretty damned useless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t remember Marx writing about this…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The theorem has nothing to do with measurement or drawing anything.</p>
<p>Because it is because of slight differences that in the long run changes people to be different from one another. Slight changes in geography is the main influence to what caused Anglo-Saxons to become the most powerful, what eventually caused racism, what eventually caused UK to form, what eventually caused America to form, and what eventually caused different minority groups to form. Certainly everyone is not equal. This is only one argument by changing slight resources in geography.
If everything were equal and a very long time passes, everything that happens would occur to the same people and they would all still be equal. If a long time comes and people aren’t exactly the same with exactly the same resources, then there will be cause in change in people such that they will no longer be equal.</p>
<p>It is 12:00 over here in my time, and I should go to sleep for school. I will happily pick up where we left off tomorrow, but until then, have fun. :] See you guys until then!</p>
<p>Everyone can not be equal! You guys have completely lost me.</p>
<p>Idk, I was only here to talk about Pythagoras</p>
<p>Lol @TCBH. You would come to a socialism thread to talk about math :p</p>
<p>i literally punkd u guys. i ■■■■■■■ =u guys down. what a useless argument. all i had to do was mention socialism and i got 8 pages in response in less than a day. good job, nxt time dont waste ur nights on collegeconfidential arguing about stupid economic theories. who cares anyway?</p>
<p>In case you forgot about the last 200 years of history (really the last 14,000), economic theories are pretty important. In fact, there are plenty of people who dedicate entire lives to argue about economic theories. On the other hand, I’d be ashamed if we spent eight pages arguing about Tiger Woods.</p>
<p>^^Do you really think any of us would have argued if we didn’t enjoy it?
Could you please create a few more of these ‘■■■■■’ threads. They are much more fun than the HS related threads. :)</p>
<p>harvard, you wasted your life by posting this thread and yet you tell us not to waste our lives? Many of us like to debate… it’s not “wasting” anything.</p>
<p>I love to debate. I wish my school had a debate team, but alas.</p>
<p>Anyway, I didn’t realize people thought pure socialism was actually a viable economic system. Well, that’s not quite what I mean. I didn’t realize people actually wanted to put pure socialism into place.</p>
<p>Waste? 
Stupid economic theories?</p>
<p>Well, then, what would you consider to be non-wasteful in a discussion? Something about…what, this girl who doesn’t like you back omg? And you hope to get into Harvard with that mind frame lol?</p>
<p>Oh, and please don’t post like that. You sound rather angry at life. That’s not cool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a not-so-fine line between saying that each person must be equal and that each person’s economic condition must be equal. When people are fighting for equality, they’re not fighting for us all to be clones…</p>
<p>In fact, strictly speaking, for two people to be equal, they must be composed of the exact same matter. You see, there are multiple senses of the word “equal,” and you’re just using the wrong one to try to make socialism look silly.</p>
<p>Of course, there’s also a huge difference between “fair start” and “fair share,” but I won’t get into that right now.</p>
<p>You don’t seem to understand what I’m arguing. I’m saying
that socialism I only faulty in practice and this is one of the conditions that must be met. To have equal economic opportunities throughout time, you must have equal everything so that there would be no change that will distort the equatable economic opportinies in the long run. Socialism is fine in theory but faulty in practice because many condoions cannot b me. Oh and I’m ongoing this by phone so forgive for all my typos</p>
<p>
Yes by causing an intellectual debate you definitely ■■■■■■■ us. Stupid economic theories? I can already forecast your admissions decision for Harvard come April.</p>