>You're backpedalling! What about Proposition B?

<I don't agree with that either

>Still backpedalling! Fucking Jew!

<Why aren't you dealing with my new argument?

*You can do one of two things here: you can argue about how anything I say would imply that I'm talking about 'freedom' and 'submission' in the senses that you mean them and prove that I don't know what I'm talking about. You chose to do the second thing:*

>Dude you argued points A and B, you must agree with either one of those!

**As it happens, I don't support either one. Absolute, static freedom does not exist. Absolute, static submission does not exist either. The point of Communism is to expand freedom and remove grounds on which submission is possible, but this is an infinite process.**

**In fact, it's even more complicated than that. __Freedom is in fact self-tyranny__, i.e. the dictatorship of reason and reasoning rather than the dictatorship of something which we've alienated from ourselves over us. There isn't even a binary between freedom and submission or a spectrum as such: if the 'submission' represents adherence to what one's own goals are, then this is freedom; it is self-governance.**

You take this as something that cannot exist because no two people's goals can coincide, but this is false. There is nothing that cannot provide mutual benefits to others even if those benefits are entirely different in form.

***But here I have assumed that I __did__ backpedal. This is what really happened:***

<You're not a Communist

<Propositions C and D are representative of what a Communist believes

>You said A which is wrong, I know because you said C

<C is not A; A is based on an abstract and meaningless generalisation of C; you don't know what you're talking about

>You're assuming what I said, Jew! Also you said B because I know you said D and that's what you said according to my screenshot of your response.

<What do you mean by B? You're not making yourself clear.

<Well, you're screaming about how I'm assuming what you say, so I want you to expand - but you won't do that, will you?

<Just like before, B is an abstract vulgarisation of D. A and B are not compatible, but C and D are.

<Nope.

>Nope.

<The 'anarchy' that you're talking about can't exist, but even anarchists disagree. That's why they differentiate between 'states' and 'governments'.

<Nope. If I bring up other pages, then they still talk about how they're not the same thing.

>I support B BTW like I said before

And so on.

***You have fundamentally assumed that I was talking about 'freedom' and 'submission' in the same way that you meant to use terms. You kept bringing up 'authoritative definitions' when it suited you with the whole 'anarchy' business, only to betray your disregard for such definitions when I made the arguments about how different kinds of force are needed for different intensities of disputes.***

That's why I say you're not a Communist to a greater extent than I am: you don't know how to approach these things. You deal with frozen absolute ideas and you're keen to show how absurd things become when one deals with these ideas, but I was never dealing with those frozen ideas in the first place.

I didnt read your arguments mm8

you seem to just babble most of the time ussuming and implying

so i havent read most of it

mainly because you keep skipping around the very comment you made

Again, that supposed skipping doesn't give you any reason to assume that my points aren't worth reading.

If I did skip and I did backpedal, then I still have a new argument which is undefeated here.

If I did not, then not only do I have that argument, but you've also lost your claim to honesty.

Whichever way it crumbles, *you lose*.

And this whole thing was because you assumed what I was talking about.

This is *you* projecting as usual.

write 3 lines about the argument and your victory. not ones makeing a consise argument 😄

make that 5 lines:D

Sorry, but it takes entire books to state arguments.

what argument are you talking about m8

No it doesnt