More from the ongoing "Christian" vs video games drama
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
Ah yes, the classic intellectually fallacious and lazy fallback position of "I have no retort, so I'll just criticize the them on anything I can grasp onto". You have no problem with length. You're only criticizing it here because you can't respond or refute, so you try to sling any criticism you can in the hopes that your critic or the audience (which has now left this discussion), will be manipulated into a fallacious argument, away from the pertinent discussion. If you're so monumentally retarded that you view all long form discussion as inherently bad, you've been completely brainrotted by short form dopamine driven social media (engineering), then it casts doubt on all your other positions.
Even though an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, reality shows us that source absolutely matters. It's how people can recognize patterns, determine what's good or bad, and make sweeping judgments upon the groups that are good or bad.
If you think libertarian "volunteerism" is the same as collectivism (grouping up for mutual benefit, goals, and commonality), you're a moron. I explained the differences above, but since you apparently don't like to read, well, that's on you. I won't explain it again. Perhaps if you ever undo the damage that short form content has caused you, you might reconsider your asinine position that anything longer than a 10 second quip is inherently bad.
Government is force. See, this is why I know you're an idiot. You have no clue what government is, how it operates, or why it exists. I attempted to explain above, but again, you can't read. Government operates to enact the will of the governed (or when corrupt, the will of the people in charge). Government comes about precisely because people group up (collectivize), because all groups must (if they wish to survive) enumerate rules for that group, and enforce those rules for the benefit of the group and constituent members. Government, by its very nature, relies upon force (i.e. violence, or the threat of violence). Rules are meaningless if there is no force to back them up. Rules and laws are foundationally and inherently "do this, or else". If rules/laws aren't enforced, there's zero reason to have them in the first place, zero effectuallity of government or the need to keep it around.
If you're arguing that force is inherently bad, it ultimately means you're an anarchist. By this position you've espoused, you've displayed your ignorance to the subject (again), not knowing that what you're advocating for is anarchism, not libertarianism.
Yes, thank you for noticing. My positions and arguments on government are logically sound and consistent, so they work, and my position even allows a wide breadth of possible governmental forms, so long as they follow the basic tenets of what government should be and how it should operate, and remains uncorrupted. When government does become corrupt, it ultimately requires men to retake their own responsibilities, and use their natural right of violence against their oppressors in government, to reform the government, and shape it and man it to enact their will.
It's sad how easy it has been to get you to write paragraphs and paragraphs about how much you really want to engage in violence against people that want to unironically be left alone and engage in voluntary and consensual co-operation. Like it's clear that I'm not reading this because I don't care what you have to say, but you're so hell bent on winning an internet argument that you bite the bait every time. Which funnily enough shows just how poorly you would do at any sort of "governing" since you can't even show enough self control to not respond to obvious bait.
I can type fast. What may take long for you, is quite quick for me. It's a habit I've practiced for many years.
Furthermore, you're signaling your ignorance to why debate is good, even when it's not being conducted properly. Debate (whether good or bad), enables a man to practice his habits in good debate. Debate lets a man practice his arguments and explore his ideas. Debate lets the audience hear different viewpoints. Debate lets a man challenge his ideas against an intractable opponent, to truly determine if he is correct. Ideas, like men, are honed through hardship and challenge. Weak men hold weak ideas, and for the same reasons.
Since you shirk away from any challenge to your views, since you refuse to participate in a thorough examination of your ideas, if you refuse to challenge your own ideas, if you refuse to participate in good debate, you inherently weaken your own position, because all of your ideas are unchallenged, unexplored, unreflected, and weak.
That's not what I've been advocating at all. All groups, regardless of size or context, must be homogeneous. Government should, at whatever level its at, only enforce rules along the lines of agreed homogeneity of the people it rules.
However, this position can only work so long as the government and the people (nation) are healthy and uncorrupted. This isn't the case currently, as the people in power hate us, have been intentionally propagandizing our own people against us, have been importing people who are not like us, and are intentionally diversifying us in philosophy, habits, traditions, language, religion, politics, morality, and race. In every conceivable way, the people in power are taking away our natural homogeneity, and destroying it, to weaken our collective bonds, to weaken us, to make us easier to control. Thus, it becomes necessary for people to enforce their views upon the wider whole, to rebuild the homogeneity that was lost, and fight back against the intentional diversification of their people, and violently fight back against the people doing it (and their supporters). In this, I openly admit and condone the use of violence, because violence isn't inherently wrong. You will, of course, latch onto this as a perceived victory, without acknowledging the reasoning.
I'm sorry you refuse to see this, because you're holding onto one facet of this argument with such a fervent stranglehold that you refuse to see the bigger picture.
You further admit that you're brainrotted, incapable of reading or engaging in any content longer than 15 seconds, and hold inherently weak unchallenged ideas.
Good debate requires all parties be civil, logical, honest, and pursue truth above all else. In this way, even if one side, or both sides, is proven wrong in the debate, in part or whole, they can accept the truth openly and proudly. That's how you "win" a debate, by coming closer to the truth. Only fools think they "win" a debate by the standards you profess. But, to be fair, there are a great many fools in modern society that think that's how debates are won, so at least you're not alone in your foolishness.
And to repeat what I said above, which you will also not read, I intentionally challenge my ideas in long form debate, because I don't want to hold weak ideas, I want to know if I'm right or wrong, I want to explore my ideas, I want to practice my views and arguments. I want my ideas to be strong and practiced. I want to be sure. This takes time and length. It's identical to exercise, which takes a lot of time and dedicated effort. You can't do short form exercise and see massive results. It takes time and effort, which you actively refuse. People's views shape their entire reality, so I must also reason that you're also fat, unfit, unpracticed, and lazy.
On the contrary, my habits would make me worlds better at governing than someone like you, who are an admitted fool. And, weirdly, you tacitly admit that all of your responses have been "bait", meaning that you've been behaving disingenuinously this entire time, thus every word you said must be taken as a lie or manipulation, in one regard or another.
In any case, I don't care if what you said was "bait". All of the above reasons for why debate is needed and meritous, that I outlined above, still work when you engage an opponent in a debate who is "baiting" or being disingenous. Most of the best, long form debates I've ever had have been with people similar to you, practicing bad debate, who prioritize themselves above truth, who cling to their views like an anchor, who would rather die than admit wrong in any form, who are being disingenuous.
Keep it going. You're so close to being the mental god you believe you are. Just one more response and it will prove me wrong, and not only will you change my ways in a deep and profound matter, you'll actually change every single person reading it. You're making a massive difference in this niche corner of the internet through your big brain.
Your own view on this is reflective of how you espouse it. You betray your own inadequacies, and don't realize you are. You say that length is inherently bad, and show how thoroughly that thought pervades your entire life and worldview.
Why would I stop doing something that is meritous, necessary for strong ideas and men, and something I enjoy doing?
Satan is called the great accuser. Do you know why? He accuses people to shame them, to burden them in their guilt so they don't come to God, believing they are incapable of being saved. He also accuses those of things he is guilty of. You are doing the exact same here.
It is you elevating yourself to godhood. If you are incapable of self reflection, self doubt, admitting you are wrong, and changing your mind, it means you wholly reject your own humanity, because you're making the claim that everything you think and say is correct. Humans are finite, mortal, and imperfect. We can't be correct on all of our views. For reference, I've changed my mind on several things over the last several years, many of which were deeply held beliefs (like egalitarianism, race realism, jews, rampant individualism, and libertarianism).
The very purpose of debate is to challenge our ideas, to make sure we're right, or to figure out if we're wrong, and adjust accordingly to the truth. If you refuse to participate in the best means of discovering truth, it means you reject truth, and consequently promote yourself to godhood. You, again, betray yourself as a hypocrite.
My responses change nothing. All I do is enumerate and explore truth. You are free to reject it, or not. I can't force you to change your mind. Feel free to cling to your hypocrisy if you like.
No one else is reading this. It's only you and me here. But, as stated previously, debate (even bad debate) still holds great value when there is no audience.
This is a tangential logical fallacy to an appeal to popularity. You're suggesting that large numbers are required for anything of importance, and if large numbers of people are not involved in a thing, that thing is therefore invalid. You crap on the merits of individuals improving themselves, because they're not "popular" enough.
Every response you give further details your own failings. You're not alone in that, though. When pressed, people are quite eager to display their own inadequacies, and especially in debate, they delight in those inadequacies, clinging to them like an anchor, letting it drown them, refusing to budge an inch, acting like the person who challenge's their ideas is an attack on their person, responding with violence and vitriol, refusing to self reflect or question, declaring themselves to be God. You, apparently, are no different. If you participated in debate, at all, you'd see the same thing. But, you don't, and continue to fail in the same ways as many others. But hey, according to your own logic, at least you're part of the popular crowd. Good for you!