How could a thread about some bitch's greasy hair contain so much wrong

rick reuben wrote:It is socialism that exalts the will of the collective

Socialism doesn't acknowledge that a collective exists. Socialism is concerned with the interplay of lots of smaller social groups. You're thinking of collectivism. Which you'll notice is called Collectivism because it believes that there is a collective value, not Socialism which is called Socialism because it concerns itself with the affects of social groups.

I swear I did not copy this. Socialism is a form of fascism.

This shit just gets better and better.

Fascism is about the states power. Not the collective's, not the army's, not the corporations. Specifically the state.

jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.

Ouch.

"I have had to lecture people before..."

"I swear I'm not trolling."

One of these statements is false. Can you spot it?

bigc wrote:Now you're just not making any sense at all. You're saying that the efforts to keep the planet livable for human beings are anti-human, and that the decimation of our natural resources provides us with things we can use...after the human race is no longer able to occupy the planet?

Scientists have yet to prove that global warming is caused by humans. Even if they, do restricting the scope of business activity is not the answer. If you'd read my posts instead of hand-picking statements at whim, you'd know that I'm not for polluting the environment. I'm against a blanket government policy that strangles the economy.

bigc wrote:Saving natural beauty, resources and the planet, as well as curbing pollution, is quite rational. Sacrificing those things at the feet of profit is what's irrational.

These are moral issues the government has no business interfering with. If you pollute someone else's property, you should be punished.

big_dave wrote:Socialism doesn't acknowledge that a collective exists. Socialism is concerned with the interplay of lots of smaller social groups. You're thinking of collectivism. Which you'll notice is called Collectivism because it believes that there is a collective value, not Socialism which is called Socialism because it concerns itself with the affects of social groups.

Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.

Fascism is about the states power. Not the collective's, not the army's, not the corporations. Specifically the state.

Let me repeat: Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.

jlamour wrote:Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.

Explain this fantastic leap of logic. How does being a part of a group instantly destroy the individual's "will" and create the phantom "collective".

Let me repeat: Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.

Amazingly, this manages to be stupider the second time.

DrAwkward wrote:

jlamour wrote:I'm saying human life itself depends on property rights.

What?!

This statement causes me to use interrobangs.

Explain how it doesn't.

big_dave wrote:

jlamour wrote:Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.

Explain this fantastic leap of logic. How does being a part of a group instantly destroy the individual's "will" and create the phantom "collective".

Let me repeat: Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.

Amazingly, this manages to be stupider the second time.

Because there is no such thing as a collective will. A collective is merely the sum of the individuals. There is no actual entity that is the collective.

jlamour wrote:

big_dave wrote:

jlamour wrote:Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.

Explain this fantastic leap of logic. How does being a part of a group instantly destroy the individual's "will" and create the phantom "collective".

Let me repeat: Groups, collective, either are pitted against the will of the individual.

Amazingly, this manages to be stupider the second time.

Because there is no such thing as a collective will.

Exactly. So how does the "collective" or the "group" act on the individual? If it doesn't exist, why do we have to protect the individual against it?

We have to protect the individual from the whim of a mob. Give me an example of a mob or gang that doesn't act on emotion.