Message from @The Big Oof
Discord ID: 540599701477654538
you're arguing to boost your ego
You aren't here for discussion, in other words
No I wouldn't
@The Big Oof Though I'd argue there's nothing wrong with necessarily arguing to boost ego, as long as one does it well. It's more if someone does it badly that's the issue.
Every chance I try to give you room to argue the two definitions, you run in circles
They would probably be annoyed by me, when they lose an argument
I told you why the defintion was correct
nib, I'm closer to you politically that probably anyone else here. You lost. Get over it.
You haven't lost the argument, and I know that the dunning kruger effect may have convinced you otherwise, but I don't feel like you've proved anything
Nobody does
I feel like I wasted my time
Place your ego aside
Do you really think you made a good argument here?
I have
Well, I don't, and I think you're retarded.
If I had nothing to say, and wanted to kick you for your views or for me not having an argument, I wouldn't haveopened the door for you to offer a challenge
You don't argue like that in a semantical argument, especially
<:ohno:520006095125872641>
Since it's literally about definitions
Both participants
restating the same one over and ovr
will get you nowhere other than pissing the other person off
This is correct
thank you
I will argue not so.
But not for the reasons you stated
Only in the marxist-leninist definition is it correct
Socialism is seen as the transition from capitalism to communism
Remove marxist-leninism
And it makes no sense
Socialism has it's goals to abolish the market
Market socialism?
Not really
Doesn't exist
i will argue the definition above is incorrect since it only makes sense under one version of socialism
it doesn't exist, but the concept does
Marktet socialism is as real as libertarian socialism
it directly contradicts socialism
That is the purpose of a semantical argument, we're literally... arguing definitions
...but you just said