Good to hear. Even if my responses might sound a bit blunt at times, I actually enjoy these kinds of conversations. I think it's important to defend my own positions or change them, just as I believe it is important for other people to do the same.
But, as I somewhat stated in my other reply, that is why some of your arguments I fundamentally ignore. They implicitly suggest I am attacking a strawman by redefining terms or focusing on certain things, while I am actually arguing against a very real position someone held that I was originally responding to. The definitions I used are, as far as I know, accurate definitions in reference to his positions.
The main example of this is socialism. If you define socialism as simply a group of people voluntarily pooling resources without keeping score, then I'm all for those systems. But that's not how socialists typically define it in their suggested policies.
Good to hear. Even if my responses might sound a bit blunt at times, I actually enjoy these kinds of conversations. I think it's important to defend my own positions or change them, just as I believe it is important for other people to do the same.
But, as I somewhat stated in my other reply, that is why some of your arguments I fundamentally ignore. They implicitly suggest I am attacking a strawman by redefining terms or focusing on certain things, while I am actually arguing against a very real position someone held that I was originally responding to. The definitions I used are, as far as I know, accurate definitions in reference to his positions.
The main example of this is socialism. If you define socialism as simply a group of people voluntarily pooling resources without keeping score, then I'm all for those systems. But that's not how socialists typically define it in their suggested policies.