Your mere description of idealism presupposes the rejection of idealism. No person which accepts idealism describes idealism as "a tool of crowd control". Only people that do do that are materialists who already reject idealism. So I'm asking you once again, refute idealism. You cannot keep on presupposing that its false and yet not bring a single argument against it

Well in all honesty - I can't view idealism from a idealist's viewpoint merely from the fact that I have learnt the criticism of it from a materialist viewpoint.

Then present the Criticism of it which you've learnt

I have.

It's function as a tool of control

of masses.

Well your criticism of idealism presupposes the falsity of idealism, thus you presuppose the falsity of a conclusion within the argument against the conclsuion, making it a fallacious argument

You don't ask autists to define autism.

@21ooAB Could you get involved here, please?

Or ask Schizophrenics what schizophrenia is

^

That's a non sequitor

Because their reality is altered

but it's their reality

No that's a non sequitor, ideologies are not the same as mental illnesses

Can you make your point for idealism

I tried

You're asking me to argue idealism from the perspective of an idealist

which is impossible

Well I'm yet to see a refutation of it. You said it was false, and your argument as to how it was false presupposed the falsity of the conclusion, which I assume you know is a fallacy. You cant presupose the falsity of a conclusion within the argument against that conclusion

Also I never demanded that. I demanded an argument against idealism which doesnt presuppose invalidity of idealism within one of its propositions

To suppose that idealism is real for a minute is to be an idealist entirely

That's just ridiculously wrong. I can epistomologically conceive of X without believing X

Varies on if you're an empiricist or not

Let's say it's a warm day

but you're cold

Can you conceive it's warm?

No because you're cold

You can make-believe all you want

it's still cold lol

You are a rationalist

I'm an empiricist

You can conceptually? But again i seem to be noticing a pattern that whenever you get cornered, you start derailing
So, let me ask again. You asserted X was wrong. I asked for evidence as to how X was wrong. Your argument against X presupposed the falsity of X within one of its propositions, therefore making it a fallacious argument. Do you have an argument that's not fallacious against the position you asserted that was wrong

It's human nature to derail when in bouts of confusion

Its a yes or no question, dude

So forgive me for being human

I haven't derailed, i've sticked to the topic in fact

Are you going to answer my question?

I didn't say you were

well you said it was human nature, and im human thus id be bound by that rule, and im evidently not since i havent derailed

are you going to answer my question though?

Its a simple yes or no question