You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: My problem with Communism
Hmm, you excluded the begining of Hirearchy, which was your "problem word" to point out, otherwise known as selective bias fallacy, that it says authority, and I pointed out that you're selective bias was a fallacy, and now I have a PROBLEM WORD?
Yup, your brain is actually not processing correctly if you don't see the contradiction in that.
What is the contradiction (facepalm)
I really don't know what you are trying to say here, bro. I think I broke you. Sorry, I tend to brake things I play with :)
Asshole said what:
For some reason you tried to bring camp- thinking and a vs-mentality into the debate with me. Not sure why you are so triggered.
I said this:
Demonstrate I did that asshole.
lol, I have committed a "selective bias was a fallacy" by copy pasting the definition of organization. Sorry that I did not include the parts that were meaningless.
"What is the contradiction (facepalm)" Nah at this point my social self is fed up. Use your abomination of a brain to figure it out yourself.
You copied the definition of Organization, or of Hierarchy, which exuded the very first paragraphs on it, explaining it exactly as I refereed to it:
Therefore you selected only what helped your stance, (hardly), and claimed that is what hierarchy meant. It's meaningless because you will not see that when you said "System of Authority" you didn't use the word authority as authority is used in the context of systems, to describe a system of organization but to erroneously point to authority as a system. If you do not understand why you were wrong and how, you won't understand the point that I made when I called Hierarchy a system of organization, or when you avoided posting the paragraphs before your quote, where it said
Arrangement of items is not a System of Authority, even if you believe authority implies an arrangement of items. An Arrangement of items is A System of Organization.
I'll resurrect the numerous points you tried to abandoned with your strawman of "System of Authority"
You have no freaking pity! There's evidence of this right here:
I asked what the contradiction was, after you told me that my brain is actually (actually) not processing correctly, I ignored the ad hominem, and asked about the contradiction, thinking.. contradiction??
And now you're fed up? After you attacked my character and now you want me to use my brain, which you just used to attack my character, you have no pity, no wonder you want vengeance, and believe restitution to be impossible because you cannot go back in time, there is only one option, and this I have presumed from the get go, and now it's concluded here finally, you believe there is only vengeance and nothing else, only option a.
You have no pity, I don't want your pitty, you're pathetic yourself, you get attacked by labels like idiot after I demonstrated how and why you're an idiot, then fight with the windmills of my big bad dragon self, trying to attack my brain, since resolving what a person said about your self is "he called me an idiot, I got to call him an idiot back", keep reflecting and all that.
Well, I only turn the cheek so often. But I am no person that does not grant merci:
"Vengeance can imply retribution, they mean exactly the same things."
"can" is the import word here, it indirectly states that vengeance does not imply retribution at least some of the time. Therefore the only none contradicting statements you could have made are:
"Vengeance implies retribution, they mean exactly the same things."
"Vengeance can imply retribution, they sometimes mean exactly the same things."
I would rather agree with the 2nd statement but anyways getting hung up about what is the right definition is not healthy. We should just agree on one and move on to actually discussing topics instead of words.
There is something to discuss? You cannot agree that punishment is defined as retribution, and vengeance, that is what we were discussing, I've demonstrated by definition, they complementary define the same act, you cannot have retribution without punishment, or vengeance, you cannot have punishment without retribution or vengeance, if you take them out of their definition they are non act, yet they all describe each other.
Are you a idiot that cannot see that simple thing?!
Vengeance and Retribution means the same thing, they are always punishments.
Punishment means Retribution and Vengeance, or mistreatment, but without retribution you cannot define punishment, nor can you define vengeance, and you refuse to believe that those aren't the same concept, they mean the same thing, one complements the other.
... you agreed on the punishment of outlawing murderers (Vogelfreiheit). Yet you still argue that punishment is wrong as a concept.
Definitions in dictionaries are just a mere reflection of the most common definitions. So we just need to get the definition straight for us at this point. Punishment is for me preventing the incident to happen again and resocialize the person in question. I don't want to condition criminal humans, I want to help them
It's not a punishment, they agreed not to respect the rights of others, by their act, and said by the golden rule this is what we want other to do onto us.
I didn't say "punishment" or implied vengeance or retribution.
That's a very sweet idea of punishment, you should do some mental experiments you idiot and validate it before you utter it again.
You moron, you want to help them how, did they ask for your help! What if they want to simply make things right and ask for forgiveness, they will be punished regardless or else everyone just keeps making things right and asking for forgiveness.
Punishment is wrong you idiot because we agreed in the beginning it doesn't work. We agreed that forcing people to rehabilitate doesn't prevent or help prevent anything. It doesn't prevent stealing, it actually encourages a free ride behind some bars instead of starving on the street, yeah asshole, it's abused, internal, external, from every hole that would be exposed were you to examine the concept of PUNISHMENT, especially how you want to make it, you let the murderers go and be outside the law, to prevent them from killing again. You'd impression people to prevent them from stealing. You are a MORON. idiot. examine the concept, what is right about punishment you moron?
You want to help them, you decide what help is, when is help, much, what kind of after help, and help in between. Fuck you.
I never agreed on that. Who is this "we"?
Who do you think this we is now?
How do you suppose punishment works if people do it in spite of it, and even intending to end up there, they will steal just so they can go to prison, or worse. The prison being there is an incentive, and not a deterrent at all for someone that would steal, or murder or rape, just like laws, just like every other threat and bullshit force, because good people don't need laws to tell them how to act and bad people will always find a way around them, that is why laws, don't fucking work, and enforcing laws is always slavery. You don't get to decide for other people, if people agree to these things that opens up the fact that they can disagree on the laws later and remove themselves from the system but you don't allow that, or it wouldn't be a system, you must use force, it can not be voluntary, and more so you have the impression that fixing a cancerous "rule by force" into "less" is somehow ok, because you advocate socialism, or me paying for your kids school, and when I don't, I get kidnapped or killed.
Fuck your "apology" come again when you have a fucking time machine.
'Making a thing whole again' or what you call 'resituation' is a concept that has been frowned upon in any decent philosophy. Things change, I hope you do too some day
You're a fucking idiot, and this is more proof to that end
