You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: #punchanazi - Antifa - BAMN
I am not a communist, I am a Democratic Socialist. If you are too lazy to do your homework and learn the difference, I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you.
Same result. I wouldn't take education from you if I was paid. Insults do not constitute reason.
I am not living in a democracy, thank God, if there is one, and socialism is only communism by a subtly different means.
You've apparently wasted all the time that you've lived so far. I'd recommend that you actually do the work to gain the knowledge you need to understand what you are talking about.
Please go back and start with the Trivium, the Quadrivium, and natural law. This is only the basics needed for an understanding of the atrocities of democracy and socialism.
Not exactly sure what Trivium and Quadrivium philosophies and theologies have to do with the conversation. Are you part of some classical education movement? I'm not really a fan of liberal arts. I'm more of a practical kind of guy.
As far as "natural law" is concerned, Democracy and Socialism are very much a part of nature. We see it in nature all the time.
If insults do not constitute reason, you are clearly being unreasonable. Either that, or a huge hypocrite.
So, what you are saying is that you don't see what part grammar, logic, and classical rhetoric has in every argument. Did I get that right?
I have no theology to sell. Keep exposing your ignorance for all to see.
I can tell that you are no fan of classical liberal arts. Unfortunately, for you, this means that you don't even know what 'practical' means.
Democracy and socialism can be understood through the use of natural law. It's just that this understanding shows these ideologies to be catastrophically flawed, and unworkable in a human society. Democracy is the mentality of the mob, like a stampeding herd, or a plague of locusts, and socialism is the domain of slime mold and biofilms, not People.
I'm saying that I don't see what 13th century century principles of grammar, logic, and rhetoric have to do with a 21st century argument about current events. Why is it every time I argue with a Libertarian, they resort to talking about ancient history? I would think that at least the crypto-currency enthusiast Libertarians would recognize when an obsolete system is no longer viable. Globalization is a thing, and will be from here on. You want to attempt an experiment with classical economics and laissez-faire capitalism, go do what the idiots at Galt's Gulch did. Go be Amish or whatever, just leave the rest of us alone.
The Trivium goes back way before the 13th century. The truth has no expiration date. Useful thought tools do not fade with time. Your statement is another appeal to novelty.
Then there is your assumption that I am a Libertarian. I'll add it to the list of your mistaken assumptions.
The rest of your comment is an illogical mix of ad hominem and straw man fallacies.
Could I get just one reasoned argument, please?
Concepts and theories become antiquated and irrelevant over time.
You want reasoned arguments, read my blog. It's got lots of reasons.
I'm going to make money playing video games now.
The facts of the dynamics of the function of natural law do not change. New understandings are achieved, but the facts remain.
Maybe if you gave me one, just one, reasoned argument I might have a reason to justify the time it would take to deal with the nonsense that I expect I would find on your blog.
I just told you to find the reasons in the blog. Here's the link again. Be a good horse and drink the water I led you to.
https://steemit.com/politics/@chalidore/a-relatively-brief-recollection-of-events-and-experiences-responsible-for-shaping-my-current-political-affiliation