For the anarchists.

Jesus wrote:

I answered blind person, i said i won't mind reply when you won't be 1 vs 7 and No that's no conceding a point, debating agaisnt 7 guys at once is just unfair

Oh I hadn't noticed this "reply".

If you have a good, well-founded arguement you can discuss with 10 million people and they won't beat you dialectically unless they got a more solid position. You haven't got a solid position so... you can't even "win a one on one discussion".

Life doesn't work that way, someone can destroy a well founded argument just by saying ''your a fag'' and most people would consider he'd win

Jesus wrote:

Life doesn't work that way, someone can destroy a well founded argument just by saying ''your a fag'' and most people would consider he'd win

Only the idiots.

Jesus wrote:

Life doesn't work that way, someone can destroy a well founded argument just by saying ''your a fag'' and most people would consider he'd win

MightyObserver pretty much summarized it.

If you say this is because you lack argumentative proficience and, apparently, will to employ reasoning.

The example you said is a fallacy known as ad hominem, that is, when in order to "disprove" the locutor's arguement the interlocutor attacks his person without adressing the arguement. It fails completely to disprove the arguement. Only persons that are not reasoning or paying attention to the discussion would consider an ad hominem as a valid reply.

Either way all you're doing here is dodging.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Life doesn't work that way, someone can destroy a well founded argument just by saying ''your a fag'' and most people would consider he'd win

MightyObserver pretty much summarized it.

If you say this is because you lack argumentative proficience and, apparently, will to employ reasoning.

No, me mentionning something doesn't imply i will use it. Wtf ! ...

Jesus wrote:

No, me mentionning something doesn't imply i will use it. Wtf ! ...

Yet another example.

I never said you will employ this. I said that if you say that someone can destroy an arguement by telling to the interlocutor "your a fag" is because you don't have the argumentative proficience to understand it is a fallacy or the will to engage in reasoning to conclude that the arguement is not even being adressed and therefore can't be "destroyed" or invalidated that way.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

No, me mentionning something doesn't imply i will use it. Wtf ! ...

Yet another example.

I never said you will employ this. I said that if you say that someone can destroy an arguement by telling to the interlocutor "your a fag" is because you don't have the argumentative proficience to understand it is a fallacy or the will to engage in reasoning to conclude that the arguement is not even being adressed and therefore can't be "destroyed" or invalidated that way.

And apparently will to use it. Yes your statement implies that you suspect me of doing it. ... seriously? Did i really HAD to show it to you?

Jesus wrote:

And apparently will to use it. Yes your statement implies that you suspect me of doing it. ... seriously? Did i really HAD to show it to you?

What? Try to make some sense please! Or at least try to read and understand what you're replying to (even though I know you love to reply without reading or understanding).

What you're doing now is called "strawman fallacy" where you create a whole new arguement by stating that your interlocutor said or adressed something he didn't say or adress to.

I said that if you say that ad hominem is or can be a valid way to debunk an arguement is because you have a quite limited argumentative proficience or will to use reasoning or apply common sense to the discussion. That's all I'm saying.

And again, you're dodging.

Dodging what? This has nothing to do with the original point, because you always bombard my way of arguing instead of my actual sayings. So yeah you DODGE too.

Jesus wrote:

Dodging what? This has nothing to do with the original point, because you always bombard my way of arguing instead of my actual sayings. So yeah you DODGE too.

Not only was this nonsensical, as anyone else can see, it's not true.

I destroy your ay of arguing while deconstructing your message and disproving your "point" (sometimes you do it yourself). And then yo simply dodge by saying "this is BS, I won't read it" which further cancels your posibility to present a valid point.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Dodging what? This has nothing to do with the original point, because you always bombard my way of arguing instead of my actual sayings. So yeah you DODGE too.

Not only was this nonsensical, as anyone else can see, it's not true.

I destroy your ay of arguing while deconstructing your message and disproving your "point" (sometimes you do it yourself). And then yo simply dodge by saying "this is BS, I won't read it" which further cancels your posibility to present a valid point.

Ok you win, i'm tired of fighting. But i feel that most of the time, i get bombarded because i have an actual opinion and do not do like all the other socialist puppets and simply agree or nod every time a topic talks in good of socialism.

Jesus wrote:

Ok you win, i'm tired of fighting. But i feel that most of the time, i get bombarded because i have an actual opinion and do not do like all the other socialist puppets and simply agree or nod every time a topic talks in good of socialism.

Many things are not matter of opinion like the definition of socialism, whether it has been applied or not and whether it was succesfully applied or not. These are objective truths that do not depend on the individual's point of view. Whether socialism is good or not is an opinion, something subjective that depends on individuals but either of these must be based on a real premise on what socialism is otherwise it is invalid. Whether it is workable or not, that is up to speculation, history and logic, not to personal taste.


If you read what we write, you'd notice that we're not even saying that socialism is good. We're simply desc ribing what socialism is and how it has worked where it has worked. Pure objective truths, not subjective.