The religion of atheists is socialism

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion, like usual.

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

Your signature line is irrelevant due to a fallacy of composition.

Socialism starts with a social Contract like our very own, federal Constitution.

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

 

[ding]

Because normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Deviance according to you. Personally, I see religions as been very deviant. So who gets to choose?

No. Deviance according to a standard. Who gets to choose? The person who identifies the highest standard. Anyone can challenge it. All they have to do is be able to identify a higher standard.

And you think that believing in an invisible superhero is the higher standard?

Who said anything about an invisible superhero? We are left to discover the standard for ourselves. There is no one all encompassing standard. There is a standard for everything. For instance, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason is the highest standard. Can you think of one that is higher than that?

So by that standard, with all the wars waged and the guns owned and used by the US, the US citizenry isn't anywhere near a standard that would let them dictate a code of conduct to anyone. In other words, clean up your own garbage before trying to tell me what standards I'm not living up to.

Just because a standard is not met does not mean the standard does not exist. We have laws against murder and theft and a whole host of other things that get violated every single day, yet we persist in those standards.

 

[ding]

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

No. I have a detailed analysis of socialism which has yet to be disproven and I have a Constitution which does not mean what you think it does.

 

[ding]

No, that would have been you stating it was a diversion without really explaining how or why or what made it a diversion. Unlike you, I actually explained why having that conversation with that jack-a-nape made no sense. Now do you understand what a diversion looks like?

No. My signature line is relevant as the subject is socialism. Can you explain how my signature line is not relevant?

No. Socialism starts as a reaction.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

is self-evident Truth, not sufficient evidence for the fantastical, right wing?

appealing to the masses, is also usually considered a fallacy.

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

 

[Mudda]

Deviance according to you. Personally, I see religions as been very deviant. So who gets to choose?

No. Deviance according to a standard. Who gets to choose? The person who identifies the highest standard. Anyone can challenge it. All they have to do is be able to identify a higher standard.

And you think that believing in an invisible superhero is the higher standard?

Who said anything about an invisible superhero? We are left to discover the standard for ourselves. There is no one all encompassing standard. There is a standard for everything. For instance, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason is the highest standard. Can you think of one that is higher than that?

So by that standard, with all the wars waged and the guns owned and used by the US, the US citizenry isn't anywhere near a standard that would let them dictate a code of conduct to anyone. In other words, clean up your own garbage before trying to tell me what standards I'm not living up to.

Just because a standard is not met does not mean the standard does not exist. We have laws against murder and theft and a whole host of other things that get violated every single day, yet we persist in those standards.

So you don't meet your own standard. Bravo.

 

[danielpalos]

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

No. I have a detailed analysis of socialism which has yet to be disproven and I have a Constitution which does not mean what you think it does.

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

your entire thesis is based on a fallacy of false Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

i already told you in two different posts. were you not paying attention?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition. revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

is self-evident Truth, not sufficient evidence for the fantastical, right wing?

appealing to the masses, is also usually considered a fallacy.

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

 

[ding]

No. Deviance according to a standard. Who gets to choose? The person who identifies the highest standard. Anyone can challenge it. All they have to do is be able to identify a higher standard.

And you think that believing in an invisible superhero is the higher standard?

Who said anything about an invisible superhero? We are left to discover the standard for ourselves. There is no one all encompassing standard. There is a standard for everything. For instance, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason is the highest standard. Can you think of one that is higher than that?

So by that standard, with all the wars waged and the guns owned and used by the US, the US citizenry isn't anywhere near a standard that would let them dictate a code of conduct to anyone. In other words, clean up your own garbage before trying to tell me what standards I'm not living up to.

Just because a standard is not met does not mean the standard does not exist. We have laws against murder and theft and a whole host of other things that get violated every single day, yet we persist in those standards.

So you don't meet your own standard. Bravo.

That's right. Not all of the time. But I don't rationalize that I do.

 

[ding]

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

is self-evident Truth, not sufficient evidence for the fantastical, right wing?

appealing to the masses, is also usually considered a fallacy.

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

 

[ding]

No, you stated rhetoric without justification. You explained nothing because you know nothing.

Here is the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism. It says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

How is my signature line a fallacy, Einstein?

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

No. I have a detailed analysis of socialism which has yet to be disproven and I have a Constitution which does not mean what you think it does.

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

your entire thesis is based on a fallacy of false Cause.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[danielpalos]

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

is self-evident Truth, not sufficient evidence for the fantastical, right wing?

appealing to the masses, is also usually considered a fallacy.

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

i already told you in two different posts. you have no rebuttals, Only rejection. why is that?

your signature line is a fallacy of composition, we don't have "sole proprietor" socialism we have "limited liability" socialism.

revolution and rebellion, start as a reaction.

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

No. I have a detailed analysis of socialism which has yet to be disproven and I have a Constitution which does not mean what you think it does.

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

your entire thesis is based on a fallacy of false Cause.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

to You. because You are clueless and Causeless.

 

[ding]

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

is self-evident Truth, not sufficient evidence for the fantastical, right wing?

appealing to the masses, is also usually considered a fallacy.

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

No. They knew socialism is evil.

 

[ding]

You rebuttals make no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims because I have the most comprehensive analysis ever made on socialism which says you are full of shit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

No. I have a detailed analysis of socialism which has yet to be disproven and I have a Constitution which does not mean what you think it does.

All You have is a fallacy of Composition. We already have a social Contract.

your entire thesis is based on a fallacy of false Cause.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

to You. because You are clueless and Causeless.

No, because it it senseless and idiotic.

 

[WillReadmore]

is self-evident Truth, not sufficient evidence for the fantastical, right wing?

appealing to the masses, is also usually considered a fallacy.

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

No. They new socialism is evil.

???

 

[danielpalos]

is self-evident Truth, not sufficient evidence for the fantastical, right wing?

appealing to the masses, is also usually considered a fallacy.

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

No. They knew socialism is evil.

socialism requires social morals for free; the nine hundred ninety-nine, are simply too subjective.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

No. They new socialism is evil.

???

he has nothing but right wing propaganda from last millennium, when we actually had a Cold War.

 

[ding]

Do you have any basis for your beliefs other than Karl Marx?

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

No. They knew socialism is evil.

socialism requires social morals for free; the nine hundred ninety-nine, are simply too subjective.

No. Socialism does not require morals for free. That is a dumb ass nonsensical bullshit statement. Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains socialism thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."

Socialism is practiced like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

What was your argument again?

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution. It is the federal Doctrine.

In my opinion, it should be the federal way, or no way.

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

No. They knew socialism is evil.

socialism requires social morals for free; the nine hundred ninety-nine, are simply too subjective.

No. Socialism does not require morals for free.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't? Only Capitalism needs capital morals for a market friendly price.

 

[ding]

Sorry Ivan. Our founding fathers thought you socialists were douchebags.

they knew, socialism requires social morals for free; and came up with a solution with our First Amendment.

No. They knew socialism is evil.

socialism requires social morals for free; the nine hundred ninety-nine, are simply too subjective.

No. Socialism does not require morals for free.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't? Only Capitalism needs capital morals for a market friendly price.

You are not making any sense. I am discussing what socialism is and does. You are discussing something else. It is like you are trying to distract from what socialism is and does.