Sociological Francoism

That's a mouthful of fallacies. Let's examine them. "spout this utter bull." That's begging the question because the notion that it is utter bull has not yet been logically established, indeed that's the very point in question. "You assume the intention gay people as if you understand them in the slightest." Well, you're also kind of assuming the intention of conservatives by smearing them as bigots motivated by prejudice, when, in fact, they are realists motivated by a desire for the truth to be known and virtue to be encouraged. So appealing to…  Read more my alleged ( but totally non-existent ) ignorance isn't all too persuasive following your fallacy-loaded opening. Then you lapsed into another Question Begging Fallacy, saying all the want is to live happily, when, in fact, that's one of the points in question, and I have established very well that their stated intent is to come after my children, and the children of countless other conservative parents throughout this country. "Your bigotry is revolting" What kind of an argument do you think you're making there? It's certainly not logical. In fact, it's called an Ad Hominem, or "To the man" fallacy, attacking my personal character because you've discovered attacking my argument head-on isn't going to cut it. And that's fine and good that you've realised that, but just admit defeat and leave this debate if you can't come up with anything instead of spewing logical fallacies as if they're proving anything. It's deceptive to other users who may be persuaded by faulty logic. Why are you asking me to find a "non-religious" reason homosexuals shouldn't be granted tax benefits and celebrated on par with genuinely married men and women? That's like me asking you to find a "non-liberal" reason homosexuals SHOULD be granted tax benefits and celebrated, etc. IN an argument over worldviews, it's stupid to ask one person to toss his worldview into the dumpster to debate in a way that's comfortable for you, rather than contributing to an argument it destroys its point and very essence. Oh, and I never recall making any "pedophilla would be okay by that logic" and even if I did, then can you logically established that is an "excuse" instead of a valid point, rather than fallaciously assuming as much? I don't know how age limits on this abominable sin would remain a solid case for its legalisation anymore so than age limits on smoking is a solid case to smoke, or age limits on drinking is a solid case to get drunk, but if you'd care to explain, (without fallacies) please do.

That doesn’t change what happened in the name of your economic and political system, the same way as it doesn’t for socialism, the deaths overall tallied do lean STRONGLY towards capitalism being the greater killer, from the Indian genocides, to the colonization and forced warfare of the entire planet, the brutal attacks against other capitalist countries, the numbers stack dramatically overtime, if the government actions in capitalism don’t apply to the statistics in my argument, then what happens outside of government interference doesn’t pertain to it either. Since,…  Read more according to every account you’ve given so far, socialism = big government and no liberty. Take out what happens without direct order of government, and the death toll drops by nearly half, since much of those issues came from war, and were largely influenced by natural conflicts. The Soviet citizens grew dramatically in their standard of living as the Soviet Union developed, though it was authoritarian, death didn’t lie solely with government, and was heavily caused by foreign nations screwing with them all the time. For Africa, little of their population actually transitioned to socialism, if at all, and decolonization didn’t change their economic system in the slightest. The metrics used for the 100 million deaths were in reference to preventable deaths under that economic system, so I’m just using the same logic as your claim, while adhering to your logic on government vs market (though socialism isn’t inherently Keynesian, I’m only following the same logic as you.)

And I was referring to Churchill as a person too, he was a wonderful, hilarious, delightfully sarcastic man, an electrifying orator, a courageous fighter for freedom, a brilliant thinker, and in general one of the most interesting men in history. This is coming from 50+ hours of studying him, btw

The idea is to prevent any one group from accumulating too much power. In theory, this structure would stop the majority from having the power or ability to oppress the minority.

An example is the Zapatista communities in Chiapas, Mexico. They’ve created a system of autonomous governance where decisions are made collectively through consensus, ensuring that minority voices are heard and respected. This decentralized approach spreads power across various local councils, reducing the risk of any single group dominating.

Key here is the culture of mutual respect and solidarity fostered withi…  Read moren these communities, which helps prevent majority tyranny.

But why did they war with the Indians and Zulus? Because they did this hellish demonic barbaric things to women and children – because they burnt, they raped, the privileged, they mutilated, they cannibalised, they drank blood. Resorting to name-calling doesn't change any of that. Just because someone points out facts inconvenient to the narrative you've received all your life and embarrassing to your positions does not make him "intellectually dishonest." I made points, you made points, this is how debates work. So let's drop the fallacies, drop the name-calling, and resolve this issue in a civilised manner. I would love it if you actually addressed what I had to say, but I'm pretty sure you're an AI bot (no offence if you aren't) so I guess it's not that important...

There's a clear and obvious difference here.

Acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ+ people is not harmful and will not turn kids gay.

However porn is harmful and will contribute to an already out of control problem.

For the Big Bang, there’s the observable fact that the universe itself is expanding, as differences between galaxies and other galaxies has been increasing via some unknown force, often considered to be the expansion of the universe aided by dark energy pushing things apart.

Which, in and of itself, proves absolutely nothing. The fact that the universe is expanding which creationist welcome and accept, is not proof that with zero fuel, oxygen, heat, and even space in which to exist, an explosion of absolutely nothing created all the matter in the universe, a hypothetical event that would…  Read more, if true, be an egregious violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., that both matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Of course, both worldviews involve the creation of matter, but whereas in the naturalistic viewpoint, the matter was created by absolutely nothing, for nothing existed before the alleged explosion, in the creationist viewpoint, matter was created by an omnipotent God who exists apart from space and time and wrote the Laws of Thermodynamics Himself. In fact, thousands of years before the advanced scientific instruments required for such observations of the cosmos were invented by the mind of man, the Bible revealed that the cosmos were in fact being stretched, and expanding. "The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent..." (Psalm 104:2). Just as the Scriptures went against the scientific ideas held by the ancient world, establishing that the earth was round (Isaiah 40:22), so God also revealed through the authors of the Bible, who had zero comprehension of the implications of what they were writing, that the universe is in fact expanding – the most complex of astrophysics, millennia ahead of its time. Pretty good for what atheists like to call a Book written by "uneducated shepherds."

If businesses buying up other businesses increased prices, why does history tell such a different story? Why did John David Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust shrink prices in the oil industry down from 58 cents a gallon before they achieved their monopoly, to 8 cents a gallon afterword, without any government incentives or price-fixing? Why did he steadfastly feel convicted that "the common man must have oil, and he must have it CHEAP"? And why did prices skyrocket when the company was broken up by the federal government?

Why did prices consistently fall, in spite of inflation,…  Read more in the steel industry under Andrew Carnegie, and why prices for automobiles fall in the near-monopoly of Henry Ford, WHILE wages went up to sky-high levels for his workers?

I have explained to you what I meant by "economic liberty" so there's no fallacy there, as I have defined my terms and you have defined yours. The true debate should be over why we believe economic liberty is what it is.

Yes that is quite literally the entire point I have been trying to make: our own interpretations of "economic liberty" are entirely subjective, and even largely antithetical to each other's, hence why it is not a useful term to claim categorizes left and right-wing ideological thought. We could both have logically sound reasons as to why we believ…  Read moree the definitions and categorical metrics that we hold true, while still ultimately having two different conclusions, because we clearly each have differing core values with which we premise our entire perception of reason and morality.

So, what I mean is communism is same to Marxism, but socialism is not. In here, the socialism doesn't mean previous step of communism as Marx said. It just means all ideology that agree with socialization of capital

Renaldo Moon is a character from a movie I like. I like the character a lot, so I decided to use it.