```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.

Do you mean to say that I'd be acting against my own will? But I'd be complicit in that too. Part of my will would precisely be to act against this other 'me'.

Same with anyone else.

**You literally have to posit that there is some kind of 'best possible will' for people to follow in order for your standard of 'corruption' to make sense.**

But to impose such standards requires a political movement to do so, and in our times, this requires a state.

***It's no wonder that when I say 'we're gonna stomp on gods rather than on people' you immediately screech that I'm advocating that we slaughter and marginalise people themselves.***

ll, look at you implimenting backpeddaling true nuance

you names very concrete things that would be "god" and with stomping thos you stomp on ppl

You had so long and all that you could come up with was bait. You couldn't even answer my questions.

```
ll, look at you implimenting backpeddaling true nuance```
Your word salads become increasingly ridden with assumptions which you dare not challenge despite me having done all the hard work for you in destroying them.

```
you names very concrete things that would be "god"```
I only talk about God because the maximum of your 'freedom' is only applicable to God rather than to us. 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.

```
and with stomping thos you stomp on ppl```
\>implying that specific gods are an inherent part of people and not just things which they use but fundamentally misconceive *again*

**Are you offended by the ruthless enslavement of gods to the needs of people? Is this what offends you? Oh yes it is.**

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

considering yoru consitent bullshit i dindt read any of that

yet

that last line

you are dodging on it 😄

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

You follow it up with slandering charckter by lumping me as a supporter for the bourgeosis. Maybe because its a buzzwords that might gain you some support

eitehr way it is a fallacy strawmen as i dont try to justify any notion

you made this up

yet again making shit up slamndering me whislt doging points

foggeting the actaul points i made

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

Implying it offends me

Yiou are not even concise

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