Atlas:
Ma, der usin' dem big werds. GET PAW'S SHOTGUN! Dey’ll be usin’ LOGIC next!!!
Criticising the word use and/or punctuation of the other party is an admission of defeat, isn't it?
: Tragicomic was my attempt to use a word that wasn’t directly insulting, or contrary to the board’s rules. Would “retarded” have made you happier?
Ok, we’ll go with that. Your arguments were retarded. Laughable. Pathetic. So mind bogglingly stupid that I couldn’t help pointing and laughing. So far from reality, if I set fire to reality you couldn’t even see the smoke plume from where you are. So nonsensical you could mash your face into the keyboard 20 times, run it through a spell checker, then an auto-translator from English to Japanese to Finnish and back to English, and it’d still make more sense than the festering assault on the human senses you came up with. Your argument is to rational debate what an obstructed bowel is to the Snowy Mountains Scheme.
Is that better? We cool now?
So, as I said, by your rationale North Korea is democratic? Calling themselves socialists don't necessarily make it so. Weren't you the one going on and on about not taking Hitler’s word for it? What happened to your selective cynicism? Wait! I've got a relevant quote for ya:
"Socialism" wasn't a dirty word back then. To a lot of people it simply meant "provide a basic level of workers' rights". Tacking "socialist" to your party's name was a good way to indicate you were willing to consider unemployment benefits. since we're using Wikipedia today:
Despite many working-class supporters and members, the appeal of the Nazi Party to the working class was neither true nor effective, because its politics mostly appealed to the middle-class, as a stabilizing, pro-business political party, not a revolutionary workers’ party.
See also Hitler's repeated attempts to blame "socialists" among others for the loss of WWI.
It doesn't matter how insulting you try to be to argue that up is down. Yeah, there are good arguments to suggest fascism is a "third way" beyond the left-right spectrum (that’s what the Nazis said, too). There are interesting parallels how, at the extreme of left and right, the results can be quite similar. But there is no-one on this earth that I am aware of - apart from yourself - who has ever maintained that fascism was left wing.
Here's the standard interpretation, as displayed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum and pretty much any Introduction To Politics textbook you can find:
...you're going to need to start promoting your novel theory, though, because there's definitely a dissertation in there.
Sorry, big word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissertation
It... it's a thing? What? Are you using english here?
So... so let's just back up here. Imagine I was inventing a word that meant "not faith". It's the opposite to faith, and designates a lack of faith. With me so far? For ease of use, I'm actually going to call it notfaith.
Right. So someone has faith in the universal goodness of human nature. I have notfaith in this. This person says - sure, I have faith in the goodness of human nature, but your notfaith is faith too! Your faith is in the notfaith of the universal nature of human goodness. See? Notfaith is actually faith!
NOT X IS X.
FAIL.
Do you see why that's dopey? To have a notfish, you must have a fish. To have a notferrari you must have a ferarri.
Atheism is a lack. It is an absence. The lack of a hat is not a kind of hat. The lack of a kidney is not a kind of kidney. The lack of an 10th finger is not a kind of finger. YES, you still have 9 OTHER fingers. But the lack of an 10th finger is not, in itself, a kind of finger.
We'll say that people with a missing their 10th finger (we'll assume that's a thumb) are a-thumbists.
You're saying that their a-thumbism is, in fact, a kind of finger, on the grounds that they have other fingers. That their lack of a thumb is, in fact, a thumb. If you can’t see how this is idiotic, I’m not sure there’s any arguing with you.
An atheist must have a lack of faith in god. That's what an atheist is. An atheist may well have lots of other faiths in lots of other things, but atheism denotes a lack of a faith in a very particular thing. The lack of a faith in a thing is not itself a faith. Arguing that it is, is just flat out ignorant.
You've consistently ignored my question: do you think babies are born with a faith?
Because they are atheists. (One of the links YOU POSTED explains that, if you won't take my word for it). Suggesting that babies (or anything incapable of understanding the concept of god, including dogs, beluga whales and inanimate objects) subscribe to a faith is pure, gold plated crazy. But you must necessarily be proposing just that to insist that atheism is a faith.
You think you know what this word means. You are wrong. Your posting links that directly contradict what you think you know IN THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY’LL PROVE YOU RIGHT just shows how completely divorced from reality your belief in this matter is.
Step back. Forget what you think you know. Relearn, because it’s not possible to be more wrong than you are now.
Yeah, with you there...