Can't we ? We can certainly run simulations with different laws of nature. In fact we do it all the time in order to design things. After all, the world is simpler to calculate if you deactive the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces and replace them with "springs". And we have a point-gravity source at infinite distance. Calculates a lot easier you know.
That's how we check buildings hold up in the real world. In reality we're just putting down a building in our own little universe and then allowing a few hours to pass to check what happens. Enough time to let some (hard) winds, appearing out of nowhere blow by. Making this floating infinitely strong plane that's called "the ground" shake a little bit,...
Some people even like to run simulations with completely different laws of nature. Can't we invent them ? We do it all the time.
The problem with that is, look up those quotes in the quran... they're not out of context (and yes I find this as distressing as you do, but they aren't).
Worse there are actual stories telling the behavior of the prophet that you can look up. And they don't just confirm the "bad" interpretation, they actually worsen it (such as you're not going to find an excuse for killing critics in the quran, however... parallels with the cartoon idiocy are just too obvious to even be mentioned)
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Can I say that any Christian who engages in pre-martial sex is not a Christian?
No, you can say that a Christian who engages in pre-marital sex, damages someone by that (e.g. pregnancy and poor conditions for the child), and doesn't regret that isn't a Christian.
Maybe any Christian that charges interest on a loan isn't a Christian.
Again you need to take the full picture into account. If a person says "I give you X now, you give me 2X tomorrow or I kill you", certainly you can say he isn't a christian.
And don't even get me started about all those people working on the sabbath....
You really haven't read the bible, have you ? What does it emphasize, and what does it de-emphasize. First anyone who works in infrastructure "stuff" is exempt from this rule. So docters, road repair workers,... all exempt. Furthermore the essence of the rule is that people are with their family, and everyone having a day off together is only to simplify this.
So the only people you can blame are the ones working on sunday, that purposefully prevent themselves from being together with family/friends during that time. And for those, yes, you can say that their behavior is very unchristian.
You don't know anything about any of these religions, not about Christianity and not about islam. Islam = opression (literally, the word islam means opression). Please get yourself informed. There are 6 muslim "interpretations" of islam ( 4 sunni, 2 shi'a ). ALL call for extermination of non-muslims by violent means. The shi'a ones say in addition to doing this, they should lie about it. ALL say that there can never be peace (but muslims can sign peace treaties, they just can't enforce them to their armies and/or people).
If quotes from the quran don't define islam, then what does ?
"fight until there isn't a single non-muslim left, and allah reigns supreme" (quran 8:39)
fairly meditate between palestinians and israelis ?
You do realise that the palestinians refuse to shake hands with israeli's as peace conferences, right ? WHO doesn't want peace here ? If this isn't the worst kind of racism, then what is ?
There can be no peace with people who want war. And any muslim who doesn't want war is not a muslim (quran 2:219), this is to be interpreted literally (quran 3:7). Also did you know that you are "less than an animal" to any muslim (quran 8:55, again whoever disagrees with this is not a muslim, so speaks allah)
I'm starting a new post because I'd like to respond to all 3 posts. All of them are irrelevant to the subject at hand. This is not about abortion, but about merely stating that the earth is older than 5000 years.
Muslims kill you for that Christians don't
I do not claim that Christians are perfect, I am solely interested in the truth. The semi-relevant article is about a single nutcase, acting CONTRARY to the wishes of a Christian "extremist" group, to say it is a corner case is beyond a mere understatement.
In muslim countries it is not an understatement to say that critical opinions will get you killed. It's a fact, and several states have made this their default policy (amongst many others, indonesia, pakistan, saudi, iran, UAE,...), because of it being an essential part of the muslim religion to execute critics (quran 5:33 clearly states that execution is the only punishment for any criticism, you will, however hard you try, find no equivalent in the bible)
Then again, compared to the communists, Putin is the saner and more honest person. Which is not to say he is either very smart or very honest, but mostly to say something about the commies.
You REALLY need to look up "exegesis". What you say may be true for islam, but it is not for Christianity or Judaism.
But obviously we both know you attack Christians because you know they won't bite back, when it's really only one "abrahamic faith" that encourages racist violence. And we all know which one.
Except you misunderstand the law passed in extreme. IF YOU SPY ON YOUR USERS you are liable, otherwise no. So if you open up your wireless this bill in effect criminalizes spying on the traffic.
Which, to me, seems very reasonable, and perhaps even positive.
You already *are* guilty if you neglect to report crimes you know about (no not copyright infringement, which is exempt from this).
It doesn't really matter -> in small doses (ie. 1-2 hours MAX) -> for longtime adults (ie. someone 30 or older)
For this class of people it does indeed matter little as long as they keep to this.
It's also not violence per se that is dangerous in a society. In fact a violent populace can be very beneficial, as long as the violence is directed. Say you follow Christian dogma and are violent within it's limits. And you follow it to the letter. This violence, protecting the weak, will improve the society.
If you use violence to get your way, this will destroy society.
Now why don't you tell me... of which kind is videogame/tv violence these days ? The "I want to get my way, I like it" kind or the "I don't like it, but SOMEONE needs to stop you" kind of violence...
No I haven't. I just make the point that slashdot is at least as against free speech as anyone they accuse of being against liberty. It just likes to pretend otherwise. But there can't be any compromise involved.
I'll just let people read your comment and get the stupid contradictions inside it. "little leeway to punish kids" "can have them incarcerated" seems like a bit of a problem, doesn't it ?
I'm not saying copyright violation is a good thing. I'm questioning your sincerity.
Parents are responsible for children's actions. They get full leeway to punish the child as they see fit, but they have to compensate any damages the child did. So they can be sued, and I see nothing wrong with this.
And everybody makes mistakes. This does not change the morality of things. Last november a car blew up in the middle of a muslim quarter of jerusalem. Why ? Because the bomb maker used summer time, and the delivery guy used winter time. The fact that they blew themselves up does not change the fact that they're monsters, and guilty. Likewise the fact that the police sometimes falsely accuses, does not mean they should be disbanded.
Besides we all know that both you and I have made false accusations. The only thing this changes is that they should be more careful, and they owe an apology to this woman. It obviously does not mean you or I or anyone else deserves immunity from civil lawsuits, which is what you're trying to push.
There's a UN climate conference in Bali. The airport is worries. Apparently they don't have the parking space required to house all the private jets that will land for that conference.
-> Okay first, the quran is both a LOT shorter than the bible (even without the new testament) AND contains a LOT more violence (have you read them both ? Really ?), so per volume the situation is even worse. Also the bible contains STORIES with violence, the quran contains ORDERS to be violent. To say there's no difference is beyond stupid. Different religions are different, okay ? Is it really that controversial a point ? And yes, that means that some are more violent than others, some a LOT more violent. Furthermore the prophet was a military conqueror, obviously he was a LOT worse than Jesus. He stole, raped, he was a paedophile, and worse, according to muslims own texts, while Jesus, according to christian's holy texts, was either sinless, or VERY close to it. At best there are a few controversies over some things Jesus SAID. With the muslim's prophet, well he massacred amongst a lot of other people his own family ("tribe"), so it's not really debateable whether he was a moral abomination or not. He also fucked a 9 year old girl against her will, and that's still called paedophilic rape. (Citations needed ?)
-> look you cannot agree that there is a correlation and then say that is an unsupported conclusion. I mean, that just truly makes no sense. The people who study this say that there IS a correlation, and that preventing exposure helps. At the very least, I think this justifies whatever measures are necessary to let parents decide whether their child gets to see it, in an easy way. Something like the v-chip. (again if you need citations, no problem)
-> I really fail to see the point you want to make here. I could also make the point that congress's poll ratings are worse than Bush's. So I guess all democrat candidates are even worse. To say hillary is worse than Bush is right now would imho be a serious understatement. I could perhaps like Obama if he truly was who he says he is, but this seems to me unlikely in the extreme. He is a lyer.
-> 200 years ago abortion was not an option, so there was NO DIFFERENCE in saying human life begins at birth and at conception. It didn't have any practical implications. Besides 200 years ago you got convicted for double homocide if you killed a pregnant women, so I guess you're at least partially wrong.
-> to be honest I couldn't care less about global warming. It's a storm in a glass of water, so to speak, and I say WAY too many scary indicators of foul play on BOTH sides. I suggest ignoring it, or at the very least keep the government's paws OUT OF IT. So let's just drop this. I know very capable people in meteorology that say that 6 degrees rise won't make shit hit the fan.
-> an occupation is if the occupying force decides any and all politics, which the US obviously doesn't do. The terrorists dream of becoming an occupying force, but the US is not.
-> I just would like to make the point. If you truly prefer Saddam to Bush, why don't you go to Syria ? There baathists (the muslim's version of nazism, in case you wonder about what this is) are still in power. The current president is responsible for at least 80.000 executions, and his daddy once killed a million palestinians for being "uppity". Clearly you prefer this situation to living under Bush. The entire population is (literally) terrified. Since you obviously say that this situation is preferable to "American occupation", how come you're living in America, which obviously is under "American occupation", and not in Syria, which is not ? You're just a hypocrite, nothing more.
* Copyright violation (at least as far as taking credit for others' work; we'll ignore the issue of piracy) is bad for reasons that don't warrant an explanation
This is not true. Unless you want to argue that they're beyond merely naive. You and I both know that p2p wouldn't exist if you couldn't "steal" other's works with it (i somewhat agree that it's stealing, it's stealing money, not the amount the riaa claims, but it *is* stealing money).
* The RIAA is bad because they're suing innocent people, and suing for much more than actual damages
You and I both know they're not innocent. I agree the riaa overstates the damage (obviously), but to say these people are innocent is beyond stupid. And while I don't agree with spying on people, i fully agree the riaa has the right to "trap" p2p networks and sue the people who download from them.
When it's about -> violence in muslim holy texts and the violent life of the paedophile prophet -> the relation (that indeed exists) between violence on tv/video games and violence in real life -> anything related to bush -> discussion of the fact that abortion does indeed kill a human being and is thus not a laughing matter -> science that contradicts global warming (it exists, and like everything in science, the true answer is "we don't know"), or even the science that states that a 6 degree rise in temperature will generate exactly 0 "extra disasters" -> anything related to the iraq war (e.g. stating that over 95% of the deaths are due to muslims killing other muslims because "they don't believe" would get you modded down) -> any mentioning of the fact that in order to change things, you HAVE to go out and make it happen, sometimes even with violence -> any mentioning that it is cowardly in the extreme to "protest bush", who you know won't retaliate, and protesting at a local mosque against the "jihad" in darfur would be the very least that could be expected.
No it did not. It set it back 10 years, not more than that. Agreed it was a disaster but if you want to see the difference between "toppling" an economy, first check what happens in zimbabwe (and what's going to happen in Iran soon) THEN compare it.
Okay... the basic way this proof goes is like this. You have a singular entity that runs the state, right ?
There is a chance this entity fails "catastrophically" in a year. It's not 0. Let's call this chance x. Then it will fail at 1/x years. The basis of socialism and communism is this centralisation.
Capitalism doesn't have this problem because you have many competing entities, which means the chance of one failing is larger than the chance a communist state will fail in a given year. Let's call this chance y (it can be quite high, like 20%). However the chance for a catastropic failure of a capitalist state is y^n (n being the number of companies, divided by 5, because you assume that 20% failue in economy is already catastropic).
Now since we have historical data we can predict how long it takes. It seems to depend on the population size. For capitalism to fail we're talking thousands of years. For socialism... we're talking some 60-80 years tops.
The way communism (and socialism) works is by just using violence to do everything the way "it should be done".
What definition are you using? Note that some things called by these titles are not really these titles.
Further, some "socialists" claim that the existence of capitalism ruins the socialistic systems, keeping them from working to its full potential by shortcutting the process via flooding the marking with goods from over-caffeinated over-worked de facto indentured servants. (It is hard to test this without nuking all the capitalistic countries.)
Sure just destroy all the other systems (how ? nukes ? military force ? "revoluation" (which is the same thing) ?) and socialism will work.
Well yes, perhaps, but so will cave dwelling.
Obviously even when all other systems get destroyed socialism will claim it's share of bodies.
This is what you're advocating.
No I didn't. I am just saying its a subjective choice. Science will not and should not dictate how people "should" behave. At best it is a predictive tool, like "if you do A and B, then C will happen". Whether A, B, or C "should" happen is another matter.
Well then science states this : if you create a socialist state, it will fail. It may take an arbitrary long time, but it will fail.
Since you will have civil war starting the moment the economy collapses (history teaches us this), advocating communism/socialism is advocating what the consequences of it are... death and destruction for perhaps a little short term gain (that in history has never been realised).
Slashdot Mirror
Can't we ? We can certainly run simulations with different laws of nature. In fact we do it all the time in order to design things. After all, the world is simpler to calculate if you deactive the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces and replace them with "springs". And we have a point-gravity source at infinite distance. Calculates a lot easier you know.
...
That's how we check buildings hold up in the real world. In reality we're just putting down a building in our own little universe and then allowing a few hours to pass to check what happens. Enough time to let some (hard) winds, appearing out of nowhere blow by. Making this floating infinitely strong plane that's called "the ground" shake a little bit,
Some people even like to run simulations with completely different laws of nature. Can't we invent them ? We do it all the time.
The problem with that is, look up those quotes in the quran ... they're not out of context (and yes I find this as distressing as you do, but they aren't).
... parallels with the cartoon idiocy are just too obvious to even be mentioned)
Worse there are actual stories telling the behavior of the prophet that you can look up. And they don't just confirm the "bad" interpretation, they actually worsen it (such as you're not going to find an excuse for killing critics in the quran, however
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_bint_Marwan
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Can I say that any Christian who engages in pre-martial sex is not a Christian?
... all exempt. Furthermore the essence of the rule is that people are with their family, and everyone having a day off together is only to simplify this.
No, you can say that a Christian who engages in pre-marital sex, damages someone by that (e.g. pregnancy and poor conditions for the child), and doesn't regret that isn't a Christian.
Maybe any Christian that charges interest on a loan isn't a Christian.
Again you need to take the full picture into account. If a person says "I give you X now, you give me 2X tomorrow or I kill you", certainly you can say he isn't a christian.
And don't even get me started about all those people working on the sabbath....
You really haven't read the bible, have you ? What does it emphasize, and what does it de-emphasize. First anyone who works in infrastructure "stuff" is exempt from this rule. So docters, road repair workers,
So the only people you can blame are the ones working on sunday, that purposefully prevent themselves from being together with family/friends during that time. And for those, yes, you can say that their behavior is very unchristian.
You don't know anything about any of these religions, not about Christianity and not about islam. Islam = opression (literally, the word islam means opression). Please get yourself informed. There are 6 muslim "interpretations" of islam ( 4 sunni, 2 shi'a ). ALL call for extermination of non-muslims by violent means. The shi'a ones say in addition to doing this, they should lie about it. ALL say that there can never be peace (but muslims can sign peace treaties, they just can't enforce them to their armies and/or people).
If quotes from the quran don't define islam, then what does ?
"fight until there isn't a single non-muslim left, and allah reigns supreme" (quran 8:39)
fairly meditate between palestinians and israelis ?
You do realise that the palestinians refuse to shake hands with israeli's as peace conferences, right ? WHO doesn't want peace here ? If this isn't the worst kind of racism, then what is ?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26424077.htm
There can be no peace with people who want war. And any muslim who doesn't want war is not a muslim (quran 2:219), this is to be interpreted literally (quran 3:7). Also did you know that you are "less than an animal" to any muslim (quran 8:55, again whoever disagrees with this is not a muslim, so speaks allah)
I'm starting a new post because I'd like to respond to all 3 posts. All of them are irrelevant to the subject at hand. This is not about abortion, but about merely stating that the earth is older than 5000 years.
...), because of it being an essential part of the muslim religion to execute critics (quran 5:33 clearly states that execution is the only punishment for any criticism, you will, however hard you try, find no equivalent in the bible)
Muslims kill you for that
Christians don't
I do not claim that Christians are perfect, I am solely interested in the truth. The semi-relevant article is about a single nutcase, acting CONTRARY to the wishes of a Christian "extremist" group, to say it is a corner case is beyond a mere understatement.
In muslim countries it is not an understatement to say that critical opinions will get you killed. It's a fact, and several states have made this their default policy (amongst many others, indonesia, pakistan, saudi, iran, UAE,
Have you read the article ? Muslims threaten their own academics (with death) about creationism. Please show me some Christians doing the same ...
It was at best a cheap "I'm better-than-you" shot. And that's giving it a lot of credit.
Hmmm one wonders what religion you're defending ... clearly you're not a muslim ... I noticed a distinct lack of threats in your post ...
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/05/09/creationist-thugs-in-turkey-allied-with-american-creationists.htm
(that's physical attacks and murders they're talking about, just in case you were wondering)
Is it fun ? Attacking reasonable people irrationally ?
Then again, compared to the communists, Putin is the saner and more honest person. Which is not to say he is either very smart or very honest, but mostly to say something about the commies.
till Aiko does the same in real life ?
( http://youtube.com/watch?v=yomx7bXMf2U )
5 years ? I doubt it.
You REALLY need to look up "exegesis". What you say may be true for islam, but it is not for Christianity or Judaism.
But obviously we both know you attack Christians because you know they won't bite back, when it's really only one "abrahamic faith" that encourages racist violence. And we all know which one.
Except you misunderstand the law passed in extreme. IF YOU SPY ON YOUR USERS you are liable, otherwise no. So if you open up your wireless this bill in effect criminalizes spying on the traffic.
Which, to me, seems very reasonable, and perhaps even positive.
You already *are* guilty if you neglect to report crimes you know about (no not copyright infringement, which is exempt from this).
It doesn't really matter
... of which kind is videogame/tv violence these days ? The "I want to get my way, I like it" kind or the "I don't like it, but SOMEONE needs to stop you" kind of violence ...
-> in small doses (ie. 1-2 hours MAX)
-> for longtime adults (ie. someone 30 or older)
For this class of people it does indeed matter little as long as they keep to this.
It's also not violence per se that is dangerous in a society. In fact a violent populace can be very beneficial, as long as the violence is directed. Say you follow Christian dogma and are violent within it's limits. And you follow it to the letter. This violence, protecting the weak, will improve the society.
If you use violence to get your way, this will destroy society.
Now why don't you tell me
No I haven't. I just make the point that slashdot is at least as against free speech as anyone they accuse of being against liberty. It just likes to pretend otherwise. But there can't be any compromise involved.
I'll just let people read your comment and get the stupid contradictions inside it. "little leeway to punish kids" "can have them incarcerated" seems like a bit of a problem, doesn't it ?
Please try again, and think first, post after.
I'm not saying copyright violation is a good thing. I'm questioning your sincerity.
Parents are responsible for children's actions. They get full leeway to punish the child as they see fit, but they have to compensate any damages the child did. So they can be sued, and I see nothing wrong with this.
And everybody makes mistakes. This does not change the morality of things. Last november a car blew up in the middle of a muslim quarter of jerusalem. Why ? Because the bomb maker used summer time, and the delivery guy used winter time. The fact that they blew themselves up does not change the fact that they're monsters, and guilty. Likewise the fact that the police sometimes falsely accuses, does not mean they should be disbanded.
Besides we all know that both you and I have made false accusations. The only thing this changes is that they should be more careful, and they owe an apology to this woman. It obviously does not mean you or I or anyone else deserves immunity from civil lawsuits, which is what you're trying to push.
About global warming : mostly I question the motives of the UN :
http://www.balidiscovery.com/messages/message.asp?Id=4112
There's a UN climate conference in Bali. The airport is worries. Apparently they don't have the parking space required to house all the private jets that will land for that conference.
-> Okay first, the quran is both a LOT shorter than the bible (even without the new testament) AND contains a LOT more violence (have you read them both ? Really ?), so per volume the situation is even worse. Also the bible contains STORIES with violence, the quran contains ORDERS to be violent. To say there's no difference is beyond stupid. Different religions are different, okay ? Is it really that controversial a point ? And yes, that means that some are more violent than others, some a LOT more violent. Furthermore the prophet was a military conqueror, obviously he was a LOT worse than Jesus. He stole, raped, he was a paedophile, and worse, according to muslims own texts, while Jesus, according to christian's holy texts, was either sinless, or VERY close to it. At best there are a few controversies over some things Jesus SAID. With the muslim's prophet, well he massacred amongst a lot of other people his own family ("tribe"), so it's not really debateable whether he was a moral abomination or not. He also fucked a 9 year old girl against her will, and that's still called paedophilic rape. (Citations needed ?)
-> look you cannot agree that there is a correlation and then say that is an unsupported conclusion. I mean, that just truly makes no sense. The people who study this say that there IS a correlation, and that preventing exposure helps. At the very least, I think this justifies whatever measures are necessary to let parents decide whether their child gets to see it, in an easy way. Something like the v-chip. (again if you need citations, no problem)
-> I really fail to see the point you want to make here. I could also make the point that congress's poll ratings are worse than Bush's. So I guess all democrat candidates are even worse. To say hillary is worse than Bush is right now would imho be a serious understatement. I could perhaps like Obama if he truly was who he says he is, but this seems to me unlikely in the extreme. He is a lyer.
-> 200 years ago abortion was not an option, so there was NO DIFFERENCE in saying human life begins at birth and at conception. It didn't have any practical implications. Besides 200 years ago you got convicted for double homocide if you killed a pregnant women, so I guess you're at least partially wrong.
-> to be honest I couldn't care less about global warming. It's a storm in a glass of water, so to speak, and I say WAY too many scary indicators of foul play on BOTH sides. I suggest ignoring it, or at the very least keep the government's paws OUT OF IT. So let's just drop this. I know very capable people in meteorology that say that 6 degrees rise won't make shit hit the fan.
-> an occupation is if the occupying force decides any and all politics, which the US obviously doesn't do. The terrorists dream of becoming an occupying force, but the US is not.
-> I just would like to make the point. If you truly prefer Saddam to Bush, why don't you go to Syria ? There baathists (the muslim's version of nazism, in case you wonder about what this is) are still in power. The current president is responsible for at least 80.000 executions, and his daddy once killed a million palestinians for being "uppity". Clearly you prefer this situation to living under Bush. The entire population is (literally) terrified. Since you obviously say that this situation is preferable to "American occupation", how come you're living in America, which obviously is under "American occupation", and not in Syria, which is not ? You're just a hypocrite, nothing more.
* Copyright violation (at least as far as taking credit for others' work; we'll ignore the issue of piracy) is bad for reasons that don't warrant an explanation
This is not true. Unless you want to argue that they're beyond merely naive. You and I both know that p2p wouldn't exist if you couldn't "steal" other's works with it (i somewhat agree that it's stealing, it's stealing money, not the amount the riaa claims, but it *is* stealing money).
* The RIAA is bad because they're suing innocent people, and suing for much more than actual damages
You and I both know they're not innocent. I agree the riaa overstates the damage (obviously), but to say these people are innocent is beyond stupid. And while I don't agree with spying on people, i fully agree the riaa has the right to "trap" p2p networks and sue the people who download from them.
Perhaps some kind of DRM on harvard's videos is in order ?
Are slashdot writers truly this hypocritical ? If nobody gets to enforce copyright (especially not riaa) then why does slashdot get to ?
When it's about
-> violence in muslim holy texts and the violent life of the paedophile prophet
-> the relation (that indeed exists) between violence on tv/video games and violence in real life
-> anything related to bush
-> discussion of the fact that abortion does indeed kill a human being and is thus not a laughing matter
-> science that contradicts global warming (it exists, and like everything in science, the true answer is "we don't know"), or even the science that states that a 6 degree rise in temperature will generate exactly 0 "extra disasters"
-> anything related to the iraq war (e.g. stating that over 95% of the deaths are due to muslims killing other muslims because "they don't believe" would get you modded down)
-> any mentioning of the fact that in order to change things, you HAVE to go out and make it happen, sometimes even with violence
-> any mentioning that it is cowardly in the extreme to "protest bush", who you know won't retaliate, and protesting at a local mosque against the "jihad" in darfur would be the very least that could be expected.
And for over a year already.
No it did not. It set it back 10 years, not more than that. Agreed it was a disaster but if you want to see the difference between "toppling" an economy, first check what happens in zimbabwe (and what's going to happen in Iran soon) THEN compare it.
Okay ... the basic way this proof goes is like this. You have a singular entity that runs the state, right ?
... we're talking some 60-80 years tops.
There is a chance this entity fails "catastrophically" in a year. It's not 0. Let's call this chance x. Then it will fail at 1/x years. The basis of socialism and communism is this centralisation.
Capitalism doesn't have this problem because you have many competing entities, which means the chance of one failing is larger than the chance a communist state will fail in a given year. Let's call this chance y (it can be quite high, like 20%). However the chance for a catastropic failure of a capitalist state is y^n (n being the number of companies, divided by 5, because you assume that 20% failue in economy is already catastropic).
Now since we have historical data we can predict how long it takes. It seems to depend on the population size. For capitalism to fail we're talking thousands of years. For socialism
Sure just destroy all the other systems (how ? nukes ? military force ? "revoluation" (which is the same thing) ?) and socialism will work.
Well yes, perhaps, but so will cave dwelling.
Obviously even when all other systems get destroyed socialism will claim it's share of bodies.
Well then science states this : if you create a socialist state, it will fail. It may take an arbitrary long time, but it will fail.
Since you will have civil war starting the moment the economy collapses (history teaches us this), advocating communism/socialism is advocating what the consequences of it are