implying i did stop

You didn't give me any arguments that weren't crushed.

implying what you said after that was actaully worth of even being read 😄 let allone making a actaul point

that had any relation to anything

lol you have a strange thing about things getting crished

>it didn't have any relation

>i know because i didn't read it

Americans.

and i have given very little argument, i nearly stated some flaws in your comments

...which I had addressed by saying that your ideas of 'freedom', 'capitalism' and 'submission' are wrong.

so there wsnt much to "be crushed" and what you did was talking around the actaul flaw that i pointed out

like talk around a lot

so much effort

my ideas of freedom never been expressed

You have never explained why my provisionalised concepts of freedom and submission are wrong.

you assume my ideas then imply that they are wrong

Then what are your ideas?

like thats far out man

You never expressed them at all, then!

lol then how could you have "crushed" them

So you're lying when you said that you had explained yourself over and over again.

you funy

did i explained myself overand over again

You're lying about how I was the amnesiac when you said that I had forgotten about your arguments regarding 'submission' when I kept asking you what you meant.

did i say this ?

i think i nearly said that you go in to a loop of denail and avoidnace over and over agin,, how could you have mistaken this for me explaining myself over and over

If I find it...

good luck 😄

pick up that line of yours in which you said that communisn is fredom to do what you want too okay 👌

Here's one example:

https://discordapp.com/channels/308950154222895104/360983468286410764/594257353163931669

You kept saying that I ignored your shit and 'forgot' about it.

You do ignore and talk around any point i have made about your flaws

talked around a lot 😄

You kept on reasserting your points though. 'Communism is not free, you must submit, resources are finite'...

...when I never claimed otherwise regarding your abstractions.

I said that you were wrong to think about 'freedom' in the way that you were interpreting the term.

You kept on saying that one has to submit to the 'will of the collective', and this is against freedom.

You said that it was about having 'no rules' and it was part of 'anarchy'.

The fact that you said that freedom is incompatible with collective will is enough to tell me much about what you think of 'freedom'.

A frozen absolute which cannot exist.