Yall need education

>what makes me misguided, my robotic friend
Believing commie lies and/or SJW culture

the ones who are stupid and crazy enough to march with signs about orange men are typically not mentally sound

and we can overcome this evolutionary programming by utilising our intelligence and reasoning, instead of falling trap to fearmongering and smokescreen politics

>to quoque
i said may

Classic Liberalism.

Stop trying to make identity-based aristocracies, and treat one another like the Brotherhood Of Men. (homo sapiens).

Honestly, everybody shut the fuck up. We know what we're doing in the West, the Enlightenment was a good idea. We don't need fucking alternative systems. Christ, we literally named a thing that happened Enlightenment. There is a reason we used that word.

Be Modernists.

Attached: blond.jpg (640x836, 94K)

>and we can overcome this evolutionary programming by utilising our intelligence and reasoning
That takes million years to achieve, and isn't a default in human behaviour. It's more human to fend yourself off from perceive threats to your lifestyle (regardless of merit), even it meant taking drastic steps such as genocide.

>i said may
Irrelevant.

i am neither a commie nor an sjw, i exist in a left-wing political sphere of activism where i associate with these types (mostly unnecessarily) but wish i dont, because they are the cause of this smokescreen, wherein people such as yourselves believe people such as myself are those types, when i also despise idpol

not at all how evolutionary programming works, but okay...

i still can't find this video on google.

Would you rather volunteer sometimes, or be forced into labor constsntly? Checkmate.
-American Libertairan

Attached: Screenshot_20181116-095340_Chrome.jpg (1080x2220, 171K)

millions of seconds more like. it may not be default human behaviour but neither is the vast majority of how we operate in the world today, but sadly we have to do it, and we do. you're talking nonsense - what are you getting at, exactly?

>and we can overcome this evolutionary programming by utilising our intelligence and reasoning

But even if we could do that, why would we do that?
Why is it imperative to create multicultural societies?
Why create a problem that we have to constantly struggle with, rather than just not creating it in the first place?

>millions of seconds more like.
That's not how evolution works.

>it may not be default human behaviour but neither is the vast majority of how we operate in the world today
You have no idea what you're talking about it.

>and we can overcome this evolutionary programming by utilising our intelligence and reasoning
people aren't exactly rational, reasonable creatures. it's actually bad for survival to exercise the two.

>millions of seconds more like
You would've already achieved your goal if that were true.

i don't understand why you guys are fixated on this evolutionary point. i know what you are talking about, but you appear to be applying this basic human trait as a counter-argument to something you don't like when you could also apply it to virtually everything in our day-to-day lives. have we evolved fast enough for our bodies and minds to truly integrate into this economy? with all this technology? the major stressors and requirements to meet human needs?

how can you make this point without considering meeting our human needs come second to earning money?

this is exactly why democracy is a failure, which im sure you all already know, not that there's really a more logical answer

also it's antifafu, if you google or search archives for antifafu you will probably find the video. it was made by the guy who works for infowars who also came into contact with AIDS skrillex and carl the cuck, owen schroyer

>i don't understand why you guys are fixated on this evolutionary point. i know what you are talking about, but you appear to be applying this basic human trait as a counter-argument to something you don't like when you could also apply it to virtually everything in our day-to-day lives. have we evolved fast enough for our bodies and minds to truly integrate into this economy? with all this technology? the major stressors and requirements to meet human needs?
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

>how can you make this point without considering meeting our human needs come second to earning money?
Procuring resources is one of the most basic human needs.

>You really have no idea what you're talking about
okay cuck, can you not explain yourself then?

>Procuring resources is one of the most basic human needs.

the procurement of this resource is immensely complex, interdependent, and requires having a base (capital) in the beginning. hardly comparable to all other resources in human history. the complexities of "procuring" the "resource" that is money today, is virtually incomparable to doing the same thing only two hundred years ago.

your entire point that i "don't understand" is simplistic and lacking nuance of society, this is what people talk about when they mention biological/evolutionary essentialism - consider the world you live in.

>okay cuck, can you not explain yourself then?
If you can't understand the basic explanations given to you thus far, I doubt you're going to understand any further, more complicated explanations.

>the procurement of this resource is immensely complex
Not really. The application varies in intricacy, but the core is very basic and direct.

>interdependent, and requires having a base (capital) in the beginning. hardly comparable to all other resources in human history.
Rhetoric and chronocentrism.

>the complexities of "procuring" the "resource" that is money today, is virtually incomparable to doing the same thing only two hundred years ago.
No, it's not. The industry changed, but not the procurement. Otherwise it's like saying procuring lithic resources and obsidian resources are completely different from each other.

>your entire point that i "don't understand" is simplistic and lacking nuance of society
Nuance fallacy.

>consider the world you live in
Tu quoque.

Yeah why dont you go kill yourself.

#MAGA

OP
FUCKS
N I G G E R S

The enemy exists as the Jewish bourgeoise.

>i dont, but people i know do,
Shouldn't your focus for getting rid of hate maybe start within your own group before you try and fix it on a bigger scale?

>what do you want to know robotic friendo
When will you leave us alone?

>If you can't understand the basic explanations given to you thus far, I doubt you're going to understand any further, more complicated explanations.
lol you're arguing against yourself. you're being intentionally vague, respond re this point with more than one line of text telling me i don't understand

>Not really. The application varies in intricacy, but the core is very basic and direct.
so what you're saying is yes, not "not really", you're making stupid essentialist arguments

>Rhetoric and chronocentrism
no, it's an argument against your incredibly basic points that do not consider anything outside of what you yourself called "the core" which is "basic and direct" - the outcome of the goal, not the journey to the outcome. you're just throwing words around you barely know. to state that my comment that making money today is vastly different to how it was 2 centuries ago is "chronocentrism" is dishonest

>No, it's not. The industry changed, but not the procurement. Otherwise it's like saying procuring lithic resources and obsidian resources are completely different from each other.
>Nuance fallacy.
>Tu quoque.

all of your posts are essentialist and pedantry. you only know how to point what you perceive as flaws in an argument (your reliance on encompassing terms like chronocentrism, pointing out fallacies, and misspelling tu quoque earlier makes me believe your pseudo-intellectualism) not to actually counter the argument

it's a shame you think you know too much, because you could learn a lot

ideally yes, but unfortunately as we all know with politics, as the paradigm shifts, what constitutes leftism shifts more and more left. my opinions are "not okay" to a lot of these people, who outnumber myself and those who believe the same as me. i put effort into activism regarding socio-economic policy which is often co-opted by needless identity politics ("women/racial minorities suffer more" being the most prevalent of the type) but the goal is important and working with people you might not like is reality

i would like for ye robots (of whom i was once a part of) to better understand the reality of actual lefty politics, not just the retards who demand certain/police speech, are utopian in their desires, and hypocritical in their policies

soon

>lol you're arguing against yourself
Forced interpretation.

>you're being intentionally vague
It's called being direct and giving the basics.

>i don't understand
That's rather telling.

>so what you're saying is yes, not "not really"
Forced interpretation and recursion.

>you're making stupid essentialist arguments
Tu quoque.

>no, it's an argument against your incredibly basic points that do not consider anything outside of what you yourself called "the core" which is "basic and direct" - the outcome of the goal, not the journey to the outcome.
Irrelevant rhetoric that means absolutely nothing.

>you're just throwing words around you barely know.
Tu quoque.

>to state that my comment that making money today is vastly different to how it was 2 centuries ago is "chronocentrism" is dishonest
That is a chronocentreic and inaccurate statement. And possibly KITA effect.

>all of your posts are essentialist and pedantry. you only know how to point what you perceive as flaws in an argument (your reliance on encompassing terms like chronocentrism, pointing out fallacies, and misspelling tu quoque earlier makes me believe your pseudo-intellectualism) not to actually counter the argument
>it's a shame you think you know too much, because you could learn a lot
Tu quoque.

your ad hominems are painfully transparent.

actually not such a horrible belief imo, i know too many people who claim the most powerful demographic are white christian men.

despite their absolute (mostly warranted) hatred of capitalism and banks, any mention of THE JEWS is unacceptable

Attached: 1514756384767.png (211x239, 5K)

Can you point them out for me?

how is it possible completely misunderstand evolution-based functions and human behavior in four posts? even the complexity arguments missed the point entirely. :/

>implying there's any argument to respond to in that chain
claiming fallacies is not an argument. that's all this robert is doing

Attached: bshapirocirca2016-1.png (700x715, 1.22M)

>you're arguing against yourself
>you're being intentionally vague
>you're making stupid essentialist arguments
>no, it's an argument against your incredibly basic points
>you're just throwing words around you barely know
>all of your posts are essentialist and pedantry
>your reliance on encompassing terms like chronocentrism, pointing out fallacies, and misspelling tu quoque earlier makes me believe your pseudo-intellectualism
>it's a shame you think you know too much, because you could learn a lot
you could've just reread your own post. it's also not our responsibility to point out errors you make. :/

meant this for the dear

dismissing the character, or even directing your argument towards it, is a fallacy. and pointing out fallacies in arguments is a regular part of discourse.

>all of these are ad hominem
>claiming umpteen fallacies is not

i'll accept two - maybe three - of those as ad hominem, but not the rest.

regardless, where is the argument to avoid via ad hominem? it is nowhere. see >regular part of discourse
>part of
yes

further the pedantry, though

ad hominem =/= insult

For example:
>you do x because y you idiot
Not ad hominem

>you do x because you're an idiot
Ad hominem

Pseudo Intellectual Robot EPICLY OWNED By Other Robot in Anonymous Debate

>claiming umpteen fallacies is not
they would have to be directed at the person, er, directly for it to be ad hominem. this is just ordinary debating.

>where is the argument to avoid via ad hominem?
that says a lot about your position...

>further the pedantry, though
no, just average discourse. though, pedantry would better explain , .

ad hominems are essentially dismissing or making reference to the arguer, not the argument. that's not exclusive to insults.

>you do x because y you idiot
>you do x because you're an idiot
those are both ad hominems

>instead of falling trap to fearmongering and smokescreen politics

Hahaha oh the hypocrisy and ignorance.

You can help me understand jews?

You gave two examples of ad hominem attacks, not one...

Attached: question-marks.jpg (500x500, 88K)

>asks clarifying question
>response is "you don't understand"
>typical discourse

Attached: 1514756143498.png (403x448, 53K)

Yeah we know youre a gigantic faggot.

Go back to tumblr

>there should be no hate between humans
Why the fuck not? We all struggle for resources, attention, and power. There is going to be conflict. You have an insanely naive view of the world which doesn't surprise me because you admitted to being a leftist (ie imbecile).

insult =/= ad hominem
there is an insult in the first, but the argument is not avoided by using the insult, that means it is just an insult, not ad hominem. that is the point

>you do x because y you idiot
>Not ad hominem
>you do x because you're an idiot
>Ad hominem
those are both the same thing. :/

>there is an insult in the first, but the argument is not avoided
It is avoided, because you're going after the person, not their argument. Your referencing the character, not what the character is saying.

what fearmongering and smokescreening do you assume i am falling trap to friend?

i wouldn't define hate so loosely. conflict isn't hate. there may always be conflict - the cause of which is greed - not hatred.

if you have to so much as direct anything to the person, it's an ad hominem.

>(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
>rather than

>directed against a person rather than the position
Referencing the person is doing that, correct.

a rather pedantic on the definition.

Attached: question-marks2.png (394x373, 189K)

There should be no hate between humans as long as people are given the respect they deserve, and as a minority in a white man's country, you should be grateful for every second here and be doing everything to make us happy. Not showing respect makes you hated.

>rather than

imagine knowing the term 'ad hominem', but applying it wrong, and never applying any other level of disagreement to other non-arguments in the thread

imagine trolling in a containment board as opposed to learning and breaking out of the containment

Attached: 1514343755145.gif (840x488, 511K)

>what fearmongering and smokescreening do you assume i am falling trap to friend?
For the record I have liberal values, but I can't stand liberals in America right now. The media has libs in fear of the right, for being "nazis" and "facists" at the police for being "violent, racist pigs" and in fear of anyone having "too much privilege" or "being too offensive." Liberals today can't separate their values from their political allegiance long enough to take a look at themselves and see what's really going on.

That's an inconsequential and cherry picked detail, and potentially brings in the I/I Gap problem.

Even then, referencing the person making the argument *is* rather than actually arguing their point.

Why do stupid Marxist morons thing they are the smart ones.

Attached: Jonestown.jpg (640x416, 76K)

i stand in the same boat, i associate with these types and it is hellacious, sometimes i'd rather return to my NEETdom and shitpost on the internet alone it's so bad.

a lot of the issue however (see this comment thread) is anything left of centre is viewed, by online libertarian pseudo-pundits, as what you and i would both complain about

because a lot of what they believe is true (not necessarily fact). we have a culture that inherently assumes someone has earned their wealth - that hard work is required to reach riches - which is statistically improbable. this, i believe, is the first realisation a lot of people who eventually become marxists have.

you are told that hard work will get you somewhere. but does it? the decision is not yours, it is whoever is above you, unless you're self-employed (which usually means you've enough capital to start this in the first place). when you are employed.

in essence hard work doesn't always get you what you deserve (despite this societal belief that it does) and not everyone who has a lot of money has worked harder than those who don't.

>you are told that hard work will get you somewhere. but does it?

Yes you proletariat faggot

Not on Jow Forums nigger

This, same applies to sex as well, you don't earn it you're born into it and guys don't get what they deserve.

>yall
>activist
It's perfectly fine to find certain things in this world detestable, don't you?

Communism would actually be extremely popular right now if its adherents didn't have an extreme fetish for brown people and feminism, and supported whites having their own countries. Too bad they couldn't even follow these simple things and just doubled down on idpol. This is why you keep losing to Kekistani MAGAtards.

Attached: 1514316800222.jpg (412x395, 52K)