Centrism (Come hither Jesus)

Can you be more boring? seriously? I mean, you could have replied real simply and with some interesting text, but nah not the case, not gonna read that. It will be the same bullshit you always say anyway, Communism=Dream that's it

Jesus wrote:

Can you be more boring? seriously? I mean, you could have replied real simply and with some interesting text, but nah not the case, not gonna read that. It will be the same bullshit you always say anyway, Communism=Dream that's it

Dialectical defeat for you. Thank you very much. You concede my point.

Don't come here and waste others' time. If you won't read others' posts then you have no place here.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Can you be more boring? seriously? I mean, you could have replied real simply and with some interesting text, but nah not the case, not gonna read that. It will be the same bullshit you always say anyway, Communism=Dream that's it

Dialectical defeat for you. Thank you very much. You concede my point.

Don't come here and waste others' time. If you won't read others' posts then you have no place here.

I don't concede shit, i'm just tired of your strategy of writing a lot of non-sensical shit so you can dodge the point, or turn the conversation away, or simply bore the others to hell.

Jesus wrote:

I don't concede shit, i'm just tired of your strategy of writing a lot of non-sensical shit so you can dodge the point, or turn the conversation away, or simply bore the others to hell.

If you're unable to refute an aguement you defacto concede its validity.

Dodge the point? Sir, I'm pretty sorry but you're being a retard here. I'm deconstructing your poorly established reply trying to get to a consensus on whatever you might have tried to express and giving a reply to each of what seemed the possible meanings of your otherwise incomprehensible "assertion" (question).

The only one dodging here is you by blatantly discarding a reply that, apparently, goes beyond the boundaries of your understanding and to which you'd be unable to intelligently reply due to your lack of dialectical and linguistic proficiences the implications of which you don't have the least intention to correct.

Unfortunately for you, anyone with at least a tadbit of reasoning (and there are not few of this kind in this forum) and time to read this conversation will notice that you're completely wrong in your assertion and that your points are rather poorly expressed and ambiguous forcing those who try to understand them to literally guess what you have tried to mean.

Damn, again you do it, won't read it, pile of huge non-sensical stuff again, seriously? Can you get a job or an hobby? So that you don't have actual time to construct those uselss long ass post that you could actually resume in 1 or 2 sentence.

And by your acting you proove my point. You are so stubborn that communism is the best thing, you won't make a better decision, just because it won't be communist, or you simply won't believe it's the best thing. Communism can be good, but not all of communism is superior, that's why we need a mix. Anyway.

Jesus wrote:

Damn, again you do it, won't read it, pile of huge non-sensical stuff again, seriously? Can you get a job or an hobby? So that you don't have actual time to construct those uselss long ass post that you could actually resume in 1 or 2 sentence.

Massive dodge. Just so you know, it's completely idiotic, not ignorant, not careless, but idiotic to say "I won't read it, but I know what it is". It's simply idiotic. Just so you don't get suprised you've made a real idiot of yourself. And that's something anyone that reads this conversation will notice.

Jesus wrote:

And by your acting you proove my point. You are so stubborn that communism is the best thing, you won't make a better decision, just because it won't be communist, or you simply won't believe it's the best thing. Communism can be good, but not all of communism is superior, that's why we need a mix. Anyway.

And this part wasn't less idiotic. For an instance, retard (and you've defacto given me all the right to call you that way because your actions go beyond the realms of ignorance) I don't use subjective terms like "good" or "best" for they reflect personal opinion. I reserve to objectively say "communism is this and in my perspective it's good for this" period. Nothing more. But you wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you don't read what you're "replying" to.

If you bothered yourself to acquire knowledge, for example, you idiot (as demonstrated by yourself) would know that communism and capitalism are as mutually exclusive as "full" and "empty".

How convenient "I won't read what you post because I know beforehand its invalid".

Also, you haven't refuted any of my points nor clarified yours, therefore your point is nil and you concede reason.

Don't waste your time Z. He's lethargic like nobody's business. He did the same thing when i tried to get him to explain why he joined the anarchists (who knows, maybe he just can't read).

You won't stop won't you? I think your blind, keep telling you i won't read your huge ass pile of contradictive stuff, but you can't seem to be able to resume it in 2 sentences, anyway, this conversation is pointless and i'm tired, peace out.

Jesus, maybe you should stop posting here altogether.

Jesus wrote:

You won't stop won't you? I think your blind, keep telling you i won't read your huge ass pile of contradictive stuff, but you can't seem to be able to resume it in 2 sentences, anyway, this conversation is pointless and i'm tired, peace out.

1. If you don't read, you don't know what's it about or overall what it is.
2. If you don't know what's it about or what is it you can't criticize it.
3. If amidst an arguement all you have to say is "tl;dr" denoting that you didn't read it and thus you don't know what is being said, you nulify entirely your capability to reply, that is, anything you reply in regards to the quality or essence of the content is invalid.
4. If your reply is invalid its value is nil.
5. If the value of your reply is nil you can't refute the arguement. The same applies when you don't adress it or don't know what the arguement is.
6. If the above condition is fulfilled you are unable to refute the arguement.
7. If you can't refute the argument you defacto concede its validity.

MightyObserver wrote:

Jesus, maybe you should stop posting here altogether.

You should really take into account this suggestion Jesus. Don't forget though that your failure at refuting my points, your constant dodging and your false assertions make you concede my points' validity.

I'd try to redeem though... I wouldn't like to leave a discussion having made an ass of myself.

As for me, I apologize for my coarseness and the insults employed which I won't erase for they should be kept as a representation of the truthfulness of my character.

A party leader of centrism(as Jesus says is) decides the program of that party, and if he thinks that's the best then that is a matter of opnion
Which comes out that every centrist party differs because of opnion, some fellow can say that that's the best to do, and a other guy say that's the best thing to do etc.

Its just a matter of opnion, and after a program is made, its obvious that you can see if its a right-wing or left-wing party.

But I think centrism is really diffrent then what Thy said Jesus.