- 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.
In a debate about Marx, you literally couldn't even refer to anything he said even once. So you lost.
Ask any Marxist who's right about Marx and they'll choose me, because I am a Marxist who has studied Marx. Sorry bro, but I've got commie cred, you just have quotes from the internet that you don't understand in a Marxist context because you were told what to think about communism long before you ever started cherry picking quotes about it.
Reason may be objective, but the most reasonable path for human action depends on values. You cannot reasonably determine what is reasonable for every aspect of other people's value structures.
In the first sentence you say reason is objective, but your second sentence claims that what is reasonable changes based on whatever subjective values shape someone's outlook. This is because your values are not aligned with reason or objective truth, they are based in the subjective. But since mine are aligned with reason I know that subjective cultural values are not valid unless reason is what they value in and of itself. You see it as a tyranny to be correct because you value opinions and superstitions, I see at as a tyranny to perpetuate opinions and superstitions because I value facts and reality. You see it as an issue of individual choice, but it is all to obvious to one who has the IQ befitting of a human being that the values you speak of which go against reason are not a choice, they are dangerous cultural programming that is perpetuated in human cultures rather than critical thinking skills because humans are type 0 ape monkeys who live in conceptual worlds of bullshit.
Furthermore, no one person has at there disposal all necessary information. This is why reasonable people disagree.
That's why we need socialism, there will be much more think tanking and information pooling.
If there were entire societies predicated on this idea, it would behoove us to teach people about them.
That doesn't change the fact that it is fucking retarded.
This is awesome. You literally don't know what integrity means.
You think that having a society based on the rule of whoever has the most money is morally and logically superior though. You're a joke.
How is need determined?
By the amount of money someone has.
If resources are not sufficient to supply everyone, who decides who gets what?
Reasonable people can disagree. Whose reason do we rely on?
Money decides who's reason you rely on.
Those would be my answers if I was a capitalist, in order to even begin to understand socialism, you first need to be not retarded enough to understand the problems created by the above.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!