i wouldnt even know what would offend me as you are vague

>"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

> You use this truism to justify the notion that we must uphold concretely-limited societies and political landscapes which are optimal only for a large faction of the bourgeoisie - this is your giant Nirvana fallacy.

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

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

```
Where do i ever say we should have concretely llimited socitied.```

Is racial segregation not a limit of some sort, Dummkopf?

Even worse: you literally argue in favour of class society and designated roles for people. You're the one harping on about how inherent specialisation is and how experience is so limited and inconvertible - how hard it is to gain.

***So it's hardly a fucking 'character attack'. This is literally what you believe in, and your only way out is to pretend that you didn't say that as usual.***

```@Garbage#8853 what questions, i only read the lower line and already seen flaws```

I wanted you to talk about what corruption concretely means. You don't do this, continuing to refer to an ultimately tautological standard which **always** applies. There is *infinite* 'corruption' everywhere if you apply this standard of 'corruption' without a standard of what isn't corrupt and tautological.

So what's your standard for what's corrupt or not? People not acting in accordance with what they want? But then what do they want? And do they not also at least partially desire the continuation of what they're acting in accordance with?

```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).