You can't just make new definitions *and expect me to use them for my own argumentation after I've said what I mean*. You should expect me to explain why your definitions are inadequate with regards to deciphering what I mean.

```It is you who makes up new "nuances" to definitions to fit your half assed strawmen```

So sayeth the fool who admits that he doesn't read half of what I say.

I've already explained how your concepts are so abstract that they lack concrete grounding. You're working from ahistorical premises to arrive at a conclusion which concerns our practice (i.e. history, which does not refer exclusively to the past).

**You don't get to say 'oh, look, this complete freedom which only God can have is impossible for us' and then screech that - because achieving this frozen freedom is impossible - finding concrete freedoms is also impossible.**

You start from an uncontroversial premise (which you think I'm trying to argue against but hilariously end up agreeing with you upon) and then make this huge jump, saying shit like 'freedom cannot be expanded' and so on.

But even to conceive of this abstract god's-eye-view freedom requires some defined concepts when this abstract freedom is supposed to escape all definitions by its own definition. Moreover, what about the freedom to not be completely free in that abstract way? **The concept cannot exist as a frozen thing: it's impossible. It has to evolve to contain new freedoms.**

No one even cares about 1/3 of what you say so me not even reading half is a whole lot 😄

>No one even cares about 1/3 of what you say so me not even reading half is a whole lot 😄

So why argue against it?

As for your freedom, you are crazy to think that the oppression of oneself true the corrupted self is freedom

And again, in what ways does this corruption happen?

We are always 'corrupted' in some way. There's always something that one can pull out of one's arse or concretely demonstrate as an example of 'corruption'.

You don't get to say 'oh, we're always corrupted' **while ignoring anything that deals with actually-existing forms of this corruption**.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/134/Nirvana-Fallacy

Mining quotes (which you've almost always taken out of context) and substituting my historicised terms with your frozen and self-destructive frozen absolutes is not an argument, by the way.

**Whether or not I'm using a very unusual set of nuances is irrelevant. In fact, whether I'm backpedalling or not is irrelevant too because I can still justify my original point that you have less reasons to call yourself a Communist than I do. You still have to deal with what I'm saying now.**

At once you pull out the 'semantics' card to say that we're not using the same definitions and that I'm floating around in my own assburgerian universe of nuances and then you accuse me of not using the definitions that you want me to while bolting on your own to little snippets of what I'm saying.

...all while failing to justify why you're using those definitions in the first place at every turn besides this idea that they're the ones in common usage.

**I know that it's difficult for you to think in the same terms that someone else is thinking since you're not interested in it, but __if you don't understand half of what I'm saying, then why argue against what you do understand when you haven't shown that you don't need to read what you haven't read to understand my points *despite me specifically telling you that it's part of my argument*?__**

Can you get over your appeals to (the impossibility of) Nirvana?

implying i sated that it is possible 😄 lol again with the assuming

And why do you make this in to a compitition of "who is the biggest communist"

And again arguing over semantics in order to strawmen

how many times do i have to say that it doesnt matters what kind of corruption

thinking you made your own decision because you being corrupted is not free will it is not freedom

you can nuance and strawmen digress all you want but this isnt changed

>implying i sated that it is possible 😄 lol again with the assuming

You said it was possible for God and only God.

But I never said that you said that it was possible for humans.

```And why do you make this in to a compitition of "who is the biggest communist"
```

My point is that given the actual movements as they exist today, you shouldn't be calling yourself a Communist any more than I should, and your beliefs are in line with third-positionists.

```And again arguing over semantics in order to strawmen
how many times do i have to say that it doesnt matters what kind of corruption
```

But then *everything is always 'corrupted' in some way*...

So to even speak of a 'pure' state is laughable.

I have never spoken of pure 'uncorrupted' states. That doesn't mean that people don't have some kind of responsibility.

```thinking you made your own decision because you being corrupted is not free will it is not freedom
you can nuance and strawmen digress all you want but this isnt changed```

But what constitutes being 'corrupted'? What makes a decision 'not mine', for example?

If I do something, I can come to know what I'm doing and I can choose to either reinforce it or not.

So by having a stake in it, I immediately gain some degree of responsibility over it.

I know that I can't get to Alpha Centauri now, for example. That doesn't mean that I never can.