Are you finished with your rant? Notice how this person attacks a misspelled word, but offers no substantive examples of where they might disagree. There is no reason, only absolutes with Slow. I figured any discussion would lead nowhere, particularly with an absolutist.
Especially when said "Absolutist" provides substantiating evidence to everything he claims.
Bummah for you, sweet for me.
Yes, I have stated that there are people who need to be controlled. I have offered examples, religious people--needing to be told what to believe and how to live their life.
#1. Not the focus of your statement on control. Your approach was to signify that there is a distinction of classes wherein a higher caste can tell subordinates how to live and breath. This, you believe, is a necessity in a functional "social unit".
#2. Religion is not about "control", rocket scientist. Religion is about acceptance of a faith. People do not cling to religion to be told how or what to do. In fact, various faiths preach "free will" as part of their core message, and the ability to follow a specific religion, and to believe its message as a core part of their existence, as "faith". Maybe you have heard of it.
Individual responsibility is not a core human value, it is a construct.
When the numbers were inevitably low in regards to human population, and at the beginning of our being, people were not independently responsible for their own survival.
I see.
Your logic is astounding.
Astoundingly bad.
And that construct is used as a tool by individuals and organizations, such as, religious organizations, and politicians to negate collective responsibility.
Yes, because there are no individual actions. When people go on shooting sprees at schools, it is everyone elses fault. Stupid, bad society.
All we need is some more "social filtration" under your model, then all will be peachy keen.
No personal responsibility for ones own actions.
Gotcha Beretta.
I know that the notion of collective responsibility is foreign to you.
Oh but your sociological understanding is horridly weak padewan.
It is the composition of many individually responsible wholes electing to contribute through various means that creates a "society". Not a delusional belief that we are to dedicate ourselves to a collective whole as part of our fabricated being.
My oh my somebody missed out on Anthropology classes.
When the "Individually responsible" ones do well and contribute to society, you have a flourishing society.
When the "Collective Socialists" do well, digging in their collective mines, and handing out bread equally, the social structure collapses, as has been proven repeatedly throughout history, with more examples than a stick can be shaken at.
Instead of considering the broader ramifications of your contribution to society you assume that the concept individualism you desperately cling to solely affect you, and it doesn't. You are not your own Universe.
Ah no, young one.
I believe that my deep individual responsibility creates a better foundation from which to create a solid foundation for my social relationships.
Yours is based on "give it away, give it away, give it away now", which sad to say, is not only ethically and morally irresponsible as a whole, but hilariously unrealistic.
Are you saying that you are a plumber by trade? Just another example of some thing that you cling to Mr. Boast-a-lot. Asserting that you have a "firm understanding."
Oh that and the whole citing links, and various sources to back up my commentary while you provide literally, a bunch of nothing.
To be honest, it's quite sad to watch you do this to yourself.
and it is derived from a "educational standpoint he(?) commentary." Instead of offering an in-depth explanation of any stance you take, you offer generalizations, insist that you are educated, and we can't forget your undying commitment to reminding every individual that you disagree with that they are wrong and you are right. As if there is some thing fundamental, or Divine about your understanding of what is 'right,' and 'wrong'.
Ah yes Beretta, so long as you consistently call into question the tangibility and reality of facts, you can keep your circular debate going for years, convincing yourself of your positioning by twisting, skewing, or contorting the hard line. After all, if you can cloud the facts at hand, like the various links, quotes, and citations I have provided before, you can go on and on about whatever you like without addressing reality.
Hell you can just make your own!
Much like you had to twist and contort one of my posts to actually make it degrading, because by itself, it was not whatsoever.
Your character is in the limelight. Center stage.
"semi-closet." I have made it clear that there are aspects of Socialism that benefit the whole of society. There is nothing closeted about that, or about my stance.
Well let's see,....
-"
Individual responsibility is not a core human fundamental" |MMhhmmm
Check|
-"Socialist programs are beneficial" |Mmmmhhmm Gotcha...|
-"
The 'Sloviet' Union is doing well and is a standing example of a recovering socialist economy" |mmhmm wow, gotcha|
-"
People need to be controlled and told what to do." |Oh wow! This is so interesting
...*lol*|
Please share with us the forty examples you have of me changing my argument.
Uh oh, fundamental reading problem detected. Beretta malfunction detected.
Please reread the statement I made utilizing the English language for appropriate translation instead of making your own.
Thanks!
It's not even cheap, it's free...it's called the 'ignore' button.
WOW,..you're
fast! :lol: