Well you seem to be saying “I don’t know what is meant by x in the theory”

If you know the theory, you are free to explain it here. If you think my question is answered on the theory, you can simply answer it here, assuming there is an answer

And if you cannot answer it, the only rational presumption i can make is that there is no answer

I don’t see how that answers my question

You didn't propose a question, you made a statement, to which I made a statement myself

No the question was about you not knowing the theory

Then I offered some considerations that support you not knowing the theory

Again this is just ludicrous. You cant answer basic questions, when i ask you to quote marx where he addresses my question, you resort to saying "oh well then you havent read him"
If he HAS addressed what I'm asking, QUOTE HIM. I know he hasn't because I've read him and he never defines the term unitarily

Even if your goal here is to "destroy me", and you're right, you can literally quote marx where he defines it. It would demonstrate I haven't read him, instead of doing this rhetorical game

But you cannot, why? Because He has never provided a definition unitarily

It’s not a rhetorical game I’m just trying to understand why you’d claim you knew the theory if you didn’t?

So ill have to restate myself, cool

"If you read harry potter and I said that genocide of minorities is advocated in one of the books, you'd ask me for evidence, that doesn't mean you haven't read harry potter, it just means that based on your knowledge and memory, the book doesn't advocate it"

You don’t seem to know anything about the theory though

LOOL moves the goal post again, yikes dude

Why lie?

I don’t get it

Oh I lied? You know i made a false statement? Quote marx where he says what I said he doesn't say

In order to say someone lies about X, you first have to know the truth about X, so since you know the truth, come on, send it to validate your accusation of me lying

So you do know the theory?

"In order to say someone lies about X, you first have to know the truth about X, so since you know the truth, come on, send it to validate your accusation of me lying"

Is that a yes or a no. I couldn’t tell

Its not an answer because I'm not going to conform to your goal post fallacies

"In order to say someone lies about X, you first have to know the truth about X, so since you know the truth, come on, send it to validate your accusation of me lying"

I must have missed the answer again.

Also how did I commit a fallacy if I wasn’t rendering an argument?

No you haven't missed it, i just havent provided an answer because every time I do conform to your goal post fallacies, you move the goal post again

"In order to say someone lies about X, you first have to know the truth about X, so since you know the truth, come on, send it to validate your accusation of me lying'

Yeah how am I committing a fallacy if I wasn’t rendering an argument

>moves the goal post again

HAHHAHHAHA

Alright dude bye

Thanks for embarrassing yourself

Thanks for the dopamine rush

I don’t understand where the fallacy was

You’ve charged me with committing a fallacy and can’t even tell me how?

He didn’t even make an argument

I don’t get it

Lol

You've charged me with lying and you can't even tell me how?

Lol what