That's not the definition at all..

That would assume I'm arguing to use authoritarian methods of doing so. Or that I believe that individualism vs collectivism should necessarily assume collectives to somehow be more legitimate as a foundation of rights. Or, whatever other version of collectivism you're arguing, which I suppose I might conform to, depending on what that definition *is.* Maybe provide your definition of collectivism, please?

The same definition Sargon uses.

Which is?

Thus far my experience has been if you ask MM to actually offer a position rather than complain and claim the end of the world is nigh, what you will get is retardation....

And you think Sargon is the best example to use?

Essentially a belief that the group matters more than the individual.

"the idea of cultivating a new kind of people. "

I don't advocate for a government imposition or mandate on people's reproduction, if that's what you're assuming.

Doesn't have to be authoritarian.

@Weez
>literally creating plant-people

mfw

Would you fuck a plant-person? @SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck

Your advocacy of "cultivating a new kind of folk" implies a certain outcome that is desired by certain collectivist movements.

depends

@Weez depends on what she looks like

Based.

Same.

It implies you have an objective in mind.

Yeah, well, evolution doesn't work that way.

@Miniature Menace I am rather annoyed with myself that I'm not able to dedicate the proper amount of time to theis conversation ¬.¬

Fucking vegetables is actually part of the moral matrix testing Haidt used......

Evolution sans conscious intent, yes. It does not work that way. Nevertheless, selection can, and does. We've been breeding both beasts, and humans, based on human priorities, for a very long time.

Kek.

And both to considerable effect.

Yeah that's not how evolution works at all.

Evolution is just what survives.

"We've been breeding humans"
<:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

Kek.

MM, all it takes is one person to demonstrate the absurdity of your positions, and your rhetorical house of cards comes crashing down.

Demonstrate this.

Read the chat, you fucking lemon.

Most of this isn't actually an argument against my point. It's just an insistence that I address your questions on your terms, based on your erroneous assumptions.

You answered no one's questions.

You replied to a request for an alternative to democracy with absolute woo.

No. It's the goofy shit you say. And that when asked to back any of it up you just say new and different goofy shit.

Indeed. You're a woo merchant.

You're erroneous assumption is that in order to argue Democracy is shit, I must advocate an alternative. I don't actually need to.

You also didn't mean that democracy is shit

https://tenor.com/tvDP.gif

You seemed to be saying that you thought it was just as good as anything else