I would encourage you two to ponder and answer these questions because it feels you’re both attacking each other without making sure you know where the other stands.
Kind regards, much love!
Wow, you really are that full of yourself.
Well, people here say the same thing about me so yeah.
You didn’t set a trap for me dude.
I chose not to answer the question because when I debate, I focus on the topic at hand.
You made the false statement that America is morally superior to China and said nothing we do is as bad as them, then I literally, point by point, proved that wrong.
We then dived into history and how we got started as a nation and after I pointed out how ineffective our revolution actually was without the help of the French, the indigenous tribes we tricked and the slaves we drafted into service, you immediately changed the topic to the French revolution.
Which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. So I ignored it.
See but there is the trap.
Who decides who is hoarding versus who is working hard and who is lazy.
It is a mans own sovereign right to decide if he wants to share his bounty and it is up to his convictions.
see if you said it is good to share, that would be different. But when you say distribute, that is communist terminology.
Ok.
So what have you read on libertarianism. Name a few books. Justbe careful I may ask you about them.
I basically wrote out an essay trying to make this point but just wasn’t satisfied with my explanation.
Basically… the needs of the many > the needs of the few. It’s sound logic. Prioritizing patients who need significant treatment over some dude with a cold is a corollary to this idea. The dude with a cold isn’t having his individuality denied by the state, nor is he being denied treatment, he’s being pushed to the side to make room for someone who’s on death’s door.
Such is civilization. 
So your argument is… semantics.
Would you prefer any of the twenty synonyms to “distribute” because they don’t have some commie stain on them?
its more than semantics.
Bickering over definitions is textbook semantics. Please explain the difference in this case.
I BEG TO DIFFER, HOMIE.
See when I am debating you over semantics, it’s trolling. You don’t get a free pass.
distribute is a loaded term used in conjunction with the state determining how goods will be distributed.
When the state takes from you and gives to anyother thats redistribution.
When I willingly give you from my own stores, thats sharing.
Words matter
I wouldnt say “Hey I saw you were low on butter so I am going to distribute to you.”
Of course neither of you answered my questions trying to establish where you stand on the actual issue at hand; because this has just devolved into arguing over the other’s choice of words at this point.
Yet distribute is also a term for the transport and movement of resources, meaning that we’re still arguing semantics. We’re bickering over the precise definition of a term that we interpret in different ways.
I would. I’d say that. I’d say that specifically because you have a problem with the idea of someone saying that.
For all intents and purposes, Hong Kong is actually free. They have a functioning democracy and the ability to run their own lives, to an extent. They are in fact still part of China, so “oppression” isn’t exactly the right word to describe that situation.
If you look at the protesters demands, you’ll notice that none of them are about “freedom” or “autonomy” or against “oppression”. Remember, this all began because of an extradition bill that was going to be placed into law by mainland China. Hong Kong disagreed. What I have yet to see anyone acknowledge is why that extradition bill was made in the first place, more specifically, what event triggered it to be created in the first place.
Hong Kong is part of China and China has the legal authority over Hong Kong. There’s no actual argument to refute this as this has been the case since 1997.
As for your second question.
No, Blizzard has nothing to do with the treatment of the people of HK or the protest they are currently involved in (mind you, we are not talking about a majority of Hong Kong citizens).
It’s a problem that needs to be handled elsewhere and will more than likely be handled by the people of HK.
The protesters demands are here:
https:// yp .scmp. com/hongkongprotests5demands
3 of the 5 demands are things that our own protesters regularly ask for when police get involved, interestingly enough.
you know its a loaded term.
dont be daft.
You’re interpreting me as far more hostile than I think I’m being. I’m not trying to offend this guy or make snide comments at him. If I was, I promise there would be no ambiguity. I’m trying to figure out his points in a thread that’s 18000 posts long.
Oh that wasn’t directed at you sorry for the misinterpretation
Someone halfway across the world using a word differently than I do really doesn’t concern me. In my average day to day American life, the term “distribute” means to transport supplies from points A to B. That’s the only meaning of the word we use where I live, so yes, this is semantics, and we are getting nowhere.
Do you believe that an important trait of human civilization is the welfare of your fellow man, or should we instead prioritize ourselves over our society?
Thank you, well said and I agree for the most part.
The key problem being that the western media is largely spinning it as China invading the noble people of Hong Kong evoking a lot of people to rally up against the perceived injustice.
Something painfully present in my own choice of words saying ‘oppression’ likely because I’ve seen that word thrown around so much
This is how we became dominated by capitalistic ideals and will in fact be what ultimately destroys our country.
Oh I know, this dude is just being obtuse right now.
Do you even know why the state steps in to redistribute? Because hoarding, cripples a people. If you have more than you need and you refuse to share, you should be made too. One of the key components of being a libertarian is social harmony, of which, selfishly hoarding things away is not.
I was typing!!!
Correct. It’s why one should never trust an outside look of how a country operates on the inside. It’s why you don’t just attend seminars from an American perspective or read books from a Western perspective to actually study how another country actually functions and what life is actually like for people in the country.
when used in this context:
it signals something other than willingly sharing.
but i know what I know and you know what you know so lets move on.