so did you all see what he did there?

I asked him to define degeneracy, a very vague term

so he defines it with yet *another* vague term

Average probably underaged natsoc

well thats what they are. They are kiddos who want to be edgy

i have yet to find a single one who could defend their views in a mature and coherent manor

it usually boils down to edgy jew memes or 'lol ur degen gay jew'

I know people who actually lived through natsoc ideology. It's not pretty.

And not something people should want back

It blows my mind that it actually is making a comeback like that, I guess it's cool being stupid nowdays

maybe @Bruni can do a little better

It's impossible to debate them

LMAO did you see that he tried to ban me

Folks claim that liberals only speak with feelings instead of facts

so get this

omg its the funniest shit

But when asking them to define their usage of "degeneracy" and such they avoid it

he claims that Jews are trying to censor people like him because they spread the truth

THEN HE TRIES TO CENSOR ME

I guess *hes* the jew

Every natsoc is just a closet jew

Those are some hardcore projections you guys are having there

hurr durr shut up jew ur just degenerate pice of trash!!

I don't want anyone censored, but should defend your ideas with some basic amount of evidence

^

Sure ideology is subjective but some basic reasoning is apppreciated

the problem is all natsoc ideology is subjective

its based around these vague terms

lets look at my favorite

"natural"

Like what does it mean for one to be "natural"

or to act according to nature?

and why is this inherently good in all circumstances?

Because nothing is more pure than the nature

I mean natural is an obtuse but specific term, to act in accordance with nature means to not go outside of mans specific nature as he is born with inhis perfect non pathological state.

as obtuse as these terms are its gaslighting and begging the question to pretend to not understand what these mean in the common sense.

An example is either mental illness or physical disability, natural man is good because he is not corrupted and acts irrationally against his nature (mental illness) and he is complete i all his parts (not disabled)

in order to even beg the question of natural being good in most or even some sircumstances brushes against morality and its objectivity. Hence ultimately its not that we arent defining terms its that we are using a proxy topic instead of discussin morality directly. In which case if your opponent is subjectivist the discussion really just ends there.

hence why I mentioned that in most contexts of society, acceptance, etc. it wil ultimately boil down to morality subjective vs objecive and what is good and bad if toe exist at all. If we argue objectivism then there is something to be discussed otherwise there is nothing to be discussed since its jsut talking past each other

thats not what "mental illness" is

thats not how its defined lmao

are you trying to tell me that disabilities are not natural?

what is the alternative?

if something isnt natural then what is it?