I've tried to explain. Many times. Maybe you're just too stupid to understand?
What you feel are that some resources are
yours or can be yours but I've asked you before to detail for me this relationship you claim to have with any resource in any objective sense and you can't. If I look at any resource, it's chemical processes, it's molecular structure, I'm not going to find any relationship to you. In order to find any relationship to you and any resource I have to go to a county clerks office so they can weave together a story about how such and such belongs to you as decreed by the mighty wizard of OZ or America, depending on what fiction you're reading.
I've said already that I never disputed your argument about the subjectivity of property ownership. So me saying "my resources" is not my argument and never has been. My argument is, and always has been, unless you're saying that my claim to property is somehow unfair, unjust, immoral or any other abstract concept you cite, it means absolutely nothing.
My argument isn't based in feelings or magic or make believe. It's based in objective truth.
And I say that your making the argument in the first place is compelled by your feelings.
This is a strawman. I never claimed it had significance in comparison to everyone elses abilities. You're not countering any argument I made with this passage. The significance I claimed was that my argument is an objective one while yours, where resources belong to you, is fashioned out of make believe.
Yours is a strawman itself; I never argued that the resources are objectively mine.
You can also survive by cooperating and sharing resources. Private property isn't a biological imperative, it's a legal fiction.
And how would you enforce and maintain cooperation and sharing of resources if not through law?
Was that character assumption about bigotry because then it would be a fact that you were engaged in a discussion of bigotry.
I wasn't. I was not engaged in a discussion about bigotry or more specifically, what constitutes bigotry. That was
your thing when you interjected yourself. My question was about how IM2 came to the conclusion that the poster
taught bigotry to his daughters.
Your question to me about what constitutes bigotry was irrelevant to my point and was based on your personal feelings about the poster in question.
You tell me. Make an argument about it if you feel like.
I didn't make the argument, dumbass, you did. Your argument is that my asking questions is being "thirsty" for your feelings. So, is that an objective truth or an opinion subjective to
your feelings?
I did. I asked you a question (about a topic you were engaged in) to argue a point and then when you gave me an answer I accepted it and used it to continue arguing my point.
While saying I was being "weird" about it. Another subjective opinion.
I didn't ask you the same question over and over again refusing to accept your answer.
Neither did I.
I asked the question two, maybe three times before you actually acknowledged it at all. When you did finally acknowledge it with a response, I never asked the question again. Everything after that was merely disagreement as to whether it answered the question or not.
Per your usual thirst for validation, you conflated the exchange into something it was not.
You won't accept my answer because whatever point you want to make is so fucking weak it can't stand on its own.
Is that objective or subjective?
Everything I do here is in service of pleasuring myself.
Right, the pleasure you get from validation.
