Message from @Sentient23
Discord ID: 677087479555424257
like this is clearly just an excuse cause you are incapable of providing a coherent argument
There's a clear difference between debating the validity of a certain theory by agreeing upon what it contains, and debating what the theory contains and what it doesn't
<:bruh:591181809493082113>
The latter is what i stay away from as that's semantics, the former isn't semantics
<:absoluteretardation:591182455885660178>
"haha pp brain bcs he dont want to debate definitions for 2 hrs haha got him guys"
Go back to uploading videos to your dead channel, maybe one day it will gain attraction
I’m not arguing definitions guy
you should actually check out zorans channel, you might learn something and a situation like this wont happen again
you're arguing what the theory contains and what it doesnt, and the theory is defined as what it contains and what it doesnt
so yes you are
How is this a semantical definition
I just explained
read again
>Situation like this
Situation like what? A zealous idiot not knowing what "I dont wanna debate semantics" means while acting as if he has some arbitrary authority while acting as if i always leave debates in general after a while, despite CONSTANTLY repeating i only stop debates if it gets into semantics
I’m not even summarizing your position or anything your not making an argument you’re just screeching about organicism bad and semantical fallacy
This is more autistic than arguing with an anarchist
I never claimed semantical fallacy, and I never claimed whether organicism is a valid doctrine or not
and yes im not making an argument as ive stated 10 times that i refuse to engage in semantical debates lmao can you read
or are you illiterate
Why do both of you completely ignore the fact I've stated I refuse to engage semantical debates, despite the fact that I've stated this 30 times already. You're acting as if this is a disucssion whether some theory is valid or not. Its not. Its a discussion whether a certain theory contains X or if it doesnt contain X. Thats semantics. And ive stated 30 times I refuse to engage in semantical debates
That simple
This is the 31st time I say this, maybe this time it will get into your head
you can provide excuses about semantics all you want but the nature of organicism in fascist ontology is pretty fucking important when discussing fascism. a fascist rejecting organicism would be like if a liberal rejected individualism, and then said "theres different variants bro"
Monarchist and Fascism
Social Republic would roll in its grave
>excuses
yeah im done, ur a disingenuous little loser
All monarchist deserve to be lobbed in a revolution like Russia or France
Alright edgy teen
Go be edgy elsewhere please
Id curb stomp u irl
``Id curb stomp u irl``
this sentence proves you cant be older than 15
Lmao
He just said he would basically have me killed if he got to power
^
Is that somehow not worse than me saying id curb stomp him in return?
What’s your max bench bro?
Probably Aryan predator dinner
he was referring to a very specific political situation in which **all** monarchists would be lobbed. that is VERY different from a 15 year old on discord telling some rando they would "curbstomp them in real life"
Its not different in any fucking way lmfao