Critique of the Communist Manifesto

[Legion]

[Drummie123]

Peterson is giving us great stuff here.

If you can wrap your mind around all of it, or even some of it.

[Legion]

Peterson is giving us great stuff here. If you can wrap your mind around all of it, or even some of it.

I agree, and I thank you for your opinion.

I made sure that only those I deem intellectually capable of comprehending Dr. Peterson would have the opportunity to respond.

[Drummie123]

I agree, and I thank you for your opinion.

I made sure that only those I deem intellectually capable of comprehending Dr. Peterson would have the opportunity to respond.

Good for me!!!

Thank you.

When might I repost your great video with the hope that some patriotic Liberal might watch it?

[Legion]

When might I repost your great video with the hope that some patriotic Liberal might watch it?

Post away.

Nobody on JPP fits that description, AFAIK. You might as well expect a unicorn to watch it.

[Drummie123]

Post away.

Nobody on JPP fits that description, AFAIK. You might as well expect a unicorn to watch it.

You are probably right.

Just like the Jehovah Witnesses who minister to inmates.

Most won't hear the message.

But they go anyway.

Anybody can preach to the choir.

It takes REAL patriotism and love of one's fellow man to go where you know your message is needed the MOST but will most likely fall on deaf ears, yet go anyway.

[Matt Dillon]

Post away.

Nobody on JPP fits that description, AFAIK. You might as well expect a unicorn to watch it.

Sad but true. It's an interesting little corner of the internet.

You'd have better luck seeing this:



Btw, that's a rainbow-farting unicorn.

[Drummie123]

Let's point out the flaws in her thinking.


It's time to give socialism a try | Opinion

That capitalism is inimical* to the best of liberalism isn't a new concern: It's a long-standing critique, present in early socialist thought. That both capitalism and liberal governance have changed since those days without displacing the criticism suggests that it's true in a foundational way.

by Elizabeth Bruenig, Washington Post
Published Mar 9, 2018

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/opin...-20180309.html


in•im•i•cal ĭ-nĭm′ĭ-kəl►
adj. Injurious or harmful in effect; adverse.
adj. Unfriendly; hostile.
Having the disposition or temper of an enemy; unfriendly; hostile: chiefly applied to private enmity.

[Lightbringer]

Couldn't put it in your own words eh?

[Minister of Truth]

Couldn't put it in your own words eh?

It's a political discussion forum. Philosophical discussion often begins with citing the work of someone famous/contemporary, or referencing the news.

[Legion]

It's a political discussion forum. Philosophical discussion often begins with citing the work of someone famous/contemporary, or referencing the news.

Indeed.

[Into the Night]

Indeed.

No. Philosophy requires the use of your OWN reasoning and presenting your OWN arguments.

[Lightbringer]

It's a political discussion forum. Philosophical discussion often begins with citing the work of someone famous/contemporary, or referencing the news.

It does, it also often begins with you framing something in your own words...I mean, if you want a discussion that is.

[Into the Night]

It's a political discussion forum. Philosophical discussion often begins with citing the work of someone famous/contemporary, or referencing the news.

No. It NEVER does. The only real rule of philosophy is that you must present your OWN arguments. You cannot use the arguments of others as your own. All your reasoning must be your OWN.
Cutting and pasting is NOT philosophy. Using holy links is NOT philosophy. Using the arguments of others in any way is NOT your own reasoning. While stealing someone else's arguments as your own is not against the law, it is the sign of a weak mind. You can't think and reason for yourself.

[Minister of Truth]

No. It NEVER does. The only real rule of philosophy is that you must present your OWN arguments. You cannot use the arguments of others as your own. All your reasoning must be your OWN.
Cutting and pasting is NOT philosophy. Using holy links is NOT philosophy. Using the arguments of others in any way is NOT your own reasoning. While stealing someone else's arguments as your own is not against the law, it is the sign of a weak mind. You can't think and reason for yourself.

I didn't post this thread, retard. But, most philosophical discussions begin with Aristotle this, or Aquinas that.