- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
fascist will quite happily tell you that his political opposition are the fascists.
You're finally getting it. Not only will the fascist tell you that his political opposition are the fascists, but he will tell you that he is against them, or "anti" if you will.
Nazis were a product of their chosen ideology. White people are a product of pigment. Ask a Nazi today and he will defend the Holocaust. Ask a white person today and he is unlikely to defend slavery.
You can't oppress by virtue of your race. You can support oppression or be oppressive based on your ideology.
The human race decides its own goals
No. Humans decide their own goals and dictators pretend to decide for the human race.
Which has already been responsible for the extinction of countless other species
Your really getting out there. Collectivist species go extinct just as easily and often as more individualistic species. Our species didn't really start to flourish until after the enlightenment, and the individualism that came with it. All you have in opposition to me is insults and accusations of lying.
if you are only concerned about your own life while a doctor next to you drowns then the next time you get sick you are probably going to die.
This one is actually pretty funny. It's as though your superstition dictates that you better risk death to save a drowning person, for if you don't and he is a doctor, you will get sick and die.
It is a demonstrable fact that you are a lying Jew
theft can only occur in systems in which personal property is legally recognised in the first place (i.e. capitalism)
That's like saying murder can only happen in system where you have the right to life. Mao would be proud of you.
So people "created" more planetary resources (i.e. wealth) with the power of their minds, did they?
This question illustrates your ignorance of basic economics. An iron bar is more valuable than a chunk of iron ore. More valuable still is an iron gear. Adding value to resources, by enhancing their utility, creates wealth. You would have us believe a man in a grove of trees is just as wealthy as a man in a cabin.
What actually happened is the individual profit incentive was introduced
No, it's always been there.
You yourself have proved this and indeed have banned every person who has so far been brave enough to debunk your rather myopic beliefs.
This is rich. You have multiple accounts, which have served to debunk nothing, and now you want to call yourself "brave" for your effort. Of all the words that can describe a keyboard warrior, "brave" isn't one of them tough guy. To add to the joke you do this all while carrying on about my supposed dishonesty. Your trollcraft needs improvement.
Individualism benefits the collective more than collectivism?
Absolutely. Compare the US to North Korea.
It simply made some people richer and other people poorer
If you had any economic literacy, you would know that trade is not a zero sum game. It would also help if you understood wealth. You don't really think gold gives one wealth on a deserted island do you?
you never bother to actually produce any evidence that the scientific revolution of the 17th century had anything to do with worshipping individual greed
Malthus was correct for much of history leading up to his theory. He was disproved after the theories of Adam Smith and the like were embraced.
People don't compete for the same resources willingly. They do it because they are forced to do it
You really drank the punch. People compete for scarce resources because they are scarce, not because someone says they should.
If it were true that "Collectivism was observed to be inferior to individualism" (hint: it isn't) after 99 thousand years of collectivism, then that would NECESSARILY mean someone must have forced individualism onto society
Your problem here is that I have the worst tyrants of history as examples against collectivism (including Nazis and Fascists). So far you've presented nothing but empty assertions.
Good one, and the collectivist is lonely
And if you don't think individuals (and the philosophies that promotes them) are social, what are you even trying to achieve?
a system which benefits those kinds of people rather than the altruists
Altruists don't exist. People who demand altruism (collectivist) are the people who demand things from others while calling them greedy. Preachers of altruism are charlatans or fools.
If I don't see you before the ban, then thanks again