```What is this mythical god thing you speak of, youjust made this in to the vagues description of god
and yes god would be part of teh ppl wouldnt it
so if you stomp those gods you stomp the ppl
you are clearly a sfacist```

Idiot. My argument is that *gods are NOT people*.

And worshipping a particular set of gods is in no way inherent to people.

**I'm accusing YOU of repeatedly accusing me of wanting to 'stomp on people and their gods' when I said 'stomp on gods'.**

***You are the one making this leap and straw man.***

```Implying it offends me
Yiou are not even concise
i wouldnt even know what would offend me as you are vague```

Projection all over again.

You're the one referring to vague concepts and then retrospectively trying to justify what you meant as if that was your original point...

You speak with a lexicon which even common dictionaries don't use, while I am saying that I'm using definitions which are more in line with Marxist definitions.

...as well as the common and academic ones!

```>"I only talk about God because the maximum of your 'freedom' is only applicable to God rather than to us"
you started to talk about god in vagie concepts
you started talking about stomping gods```

Isn't it obvious? Idols, mythology-derived beings which symbolise various kinds of things and are elevated into metaphysical niceties in superstitious worldviews.

I mean, seriously, for someone who claims to know nuances, you seem like you're suspending your better judgement to try and trip me up.

```Non of this is true
as the god that is truelly free has no limitations nor needs or threats, theer is nothing bigger or more powerfull or encpmassing
so this is truelly and complete freedom
something mere ppl would never obtain
As i have explained.
As you so readily purposly forget
A person is never truelly free```

That's precisely why I criticised your idea of 'freedom', and why it means fuck all with regards to politics.

If it's impossible for anyone but *gods*, why even bother trying to reach it?

Why even bring up this idea?

You claim that *this* is the freedom that I'm talking about when I very clearly said that true freedom is provisional and dependent on history.

I repeated this shit over and over again. You're a fucking sciolist and this point (yeah, look that up).

```Even more so if that person has a corrputed ego and chooses to oppres himself
As i have explain what , 3 times now
O so readily forgotten
```

And what constitutes 'oppression'? Following a collective goal *wilfully*?

Anyway, the reason why I bring up the Nirvana fallacy is simple: you claim that we will always be living in class society and that we should give up any projects which attempt to reach this Nirvana which you think I'm describing.

You have never explained why my idea of freedom is 'false', instead just plugging in your own definitions and then calling me a 'fascist' - and the irony is that you too are a 'fascist' because all politics in bourgeois society needs a state.

Racial segregation, the respecting of gods and all of that - **one needs a state for this because this is quite literally the politics of warring causes**.

Dude, you manage to do it every time

read one line

bam its something not logicial nor sound

"And what constitutes 'oppression'? Following a collective goal wilfully?"

it isnt willingly if you are corrupted. And if you are doing it willing ly totots because you want to. You stil want it or do it because eiter your expirances or your biology. You are not free

And even more so if you have litteral oppresors like you walink around stamping ppl evolution and revolution of mind because you dont liked their gods

And how in the world are you implying that i have even a thought of nirvana whilst saying this.

I am been logical and realistic.. Your gods idea is unrealistic . Yet you accuse me of tnirvane fallacy

you are such a jew

Holy shit what the fuck is this

^

hes a troll that reads things and uses terms he remebered incorrectly as he doesnt knows what they mean

Nirvana fallacy comparing actaul things with fantasy

lol

im liek saying all this factual measurable stuff. ehe talks about stomping ppls god with a fluid state of gnetic biology or some shit

its entertaining in a fucked up way

```Dude, you manage to do it every time
read one line
bam its something not logicial nor sound
"And what constitutes 'oppression'? Following a collective goal wilfully?"
it isnt willingly if you are corrupted.
```
And **yet again**, what's 'corruption'? Do you mean to say that it's 'doing whatever one doesn't want to do' or 'the wrong thing'? __Then there is INFINITE corruption if one takes a god's-eye-view because there is always something that one is doing 'wrong' by any metric.__ You know very well where this will go since you accuse me of taking such a position when I am in fact describing your own. You also assume that people aren't actively involved in reproducing their conditions of survival and lifestyle - you hide behind 'muh social engineering' for this, but this still dodges the point. Remember the 'infinite studies' argument? I used that to show that human behaviour cannot be wholly and causally attributed to anything beyond human subjectivity itself. So even if people are tossed into the Matrix, there is still something about the Matrix that they want to keep. Will is *always* involved in some way, regardless of how miniscule that way is.