>>17831081
>Babble babble
>Rational actor
No, that would be boring, I'm fundementally against dialectics which you base your ideology on
>Hegel and his dialectic are anti logical arguments based on unscientific, subjective nonsense that a proposition necessarily negates itself
Yes
>No one can share a will and thus however much you group them you will likely be wrong as much
Yes
>>17831055
>Something else is included in everything else
Each thing is a thing on to itself in the first place, not inherently opposed to anything else
You don't need anything else than a cat to know a cat
>Cats are cats as opposed to not cats
No, cats ar cats regardless of anything else, cat-ness is a meaningless term that doesn't describe anything that you already don't know
>I don't understand generalizations being basically as wrong as generalized they are
Of course, im saying you're fundementally wrong, it's just that you tolerate your wrong assesments about a group by the fact that you have correct assessments as well, regardless of the fact that by nature of having wrong statement you contradictthat this is an actual description of the person who you deem is the same as another by nature of being wrong about that person.
>Dialectics are real
No, they are specifically fantasy.
Contradictions state falsehood, there can be no contradiction that doesn't state falsehood
>Commies tried to disassociate their ideology from its core without actually changing their core ideology
Lol, give more details
>I'm accurate enough
No really you're not, this is in essence why voluntarism results in high trust societies and civilization while your wrong assesments bring down civilizations. You have to be correct at all times to derive your specific ideology and thus you need only one wrong doer/shirker to destroy your order, while voluntarism needs one good doer/entrepreneur to build theirs
>You're a chud
Thanks, i try
>>17831616
>High bodycount
Read Hoppe