What I particularly mean by left-wing is Anarcho-Pacifism. I'm a libertarian Socialist and a Pacifist. I think that it's generally okay to define Anarchism as libertarian Socialism. Not all Anarchists agree with this. I adhere to a sort of Anarchism without adjectives. I have been influenced by Autonomism and Communization. I'm not a Communist as I don't necessarily agree with Marx, but I don't really mind libertarian Communists or have too many qualms with Marx.

My fellow man will gain the wisdom that I have gained in so far that I am capable of articulating it.

I don't actually really leech off of the state all that much as I live at home, but I don't really see anything wrong with doing so. The State is responsible for so much strife in the world. It's fine to take what you can from it.

Pacifism is fine, I believe if you were to ask most people is violence right they'd answer no.
If libertarian is defined as "A person who believes in the doctrine of free will" and or "A person who advocates for civil liberty".
If socialist is defined as " social ownership - worker owned and self managed means of production".
If we establish Anarchy as "A person who rebels against authority"

Don't you then believe by definition an anarchist cannot be a socialist? That a libertarian can also be a proponent of any other doctrine because of this belief in free will and thus freedom to associate with lets say the republic party or Democratic Party for that matter? There is nothing wrong with living at home. But if there is strife in the world and in part caused by state why add burden to it and in doing so to the tax payers which fund it? Strife is added at an individual level as well as a state level? I fail to see why leeching betters anyone other than yourself.

Why is hyperbole a common figure of speech? The extent to witch you are willing to flee from the topic of the conversation is astounding. Sorry pal, too boring for me.

Why is hyperbole a common figure of speech? — NOS4A2

Why is it a common feature of your speech, was the question.

It’s less common on a philosophy forum such as this. I think you may know why that is.

Why is it a common feature of your speech to attack the player and not the ball?

Because you’re playing badly. Poor critical thinking and the use of hyperbole in philosophical discussions isn’t good. People will take you more seriously if you step-up your game.

I don’t respect your opinion. I suspect it. There are countless uses of hyperbole in this very thread, but you never show up to wag your finger at them. But like I said, all you have is word-policing.

There are countless uses of hyperbole in this very thread — NOS4A2

You might try to back up one of your hyperbolic claims for once and point some of these alleged uses.

all you have is word-policing.

I haven’t criticized your language, numbnuts. I’ve criticized your used of hyperbole and your poor critical thinking.

Hyperbole and other figures of speech is language. If your word and thought policing is your idea of critical thinking, I want nothing to do with it.

The betterment of the leechers does better to advance my cause. I am therefore in favor of that they leech. The people who primarily "leech" off of the State are either marginalized or listless left-wingers. I, myself am a listless left-winger, and don't really care that people are taking a "free ride". However the plights incurred via Empire can be alleviated is best. Because I see the current manifestation of the American State as being ultimately negative, that you can take a "free ride" means that you should. There's nothing wrong with it in my opinion.

I don't think that an Anarchist can not be a Socialist. Anarchism derives from Socialism. I have stated that I think that Anarchism can more or less be defined as libertarian Socialism. I use libertarian as a qualifier to denote that I think that whatever society there is that emerges should strive to be as liberal as possible. I do not think that this necessarily results in lessez faire economics. I do think that libertarianism and egalitarianism are compatible. You could say that I am a "left-libertarian", but I choose to identify myself as an "Anarchist". I don't actually believe in political parties at all. I think that they're all sort of rackets or cults. I sort of agree with Jacques Camatte and Simone Weil. The Democratic Socialists of America is seriously, like, the only political party that I actually like. I don't even agree with them. The Democratic Socialists of America are a libertarian socialist organization. I am a libertarian Socialist who identifies as being an Anarchist. That minute detail may not seem to matter, but it would ultimately matter. To become a member of the Democratic Socialists of America would be an unwarranted act of entryism on my part. I can only express solidarity with them.

I don't, like some Anarchists do, demand that Anarchists only associate with other Anarchists. I think that doing so is somewhat coercive. I agree with some sort of concept proceeding from mutual aid. A person can associate with whomever they please, even, in some rare cases, certain Fascists. It's unlikely that a person could ever be meaningful engaged with either the far-Right or the authoritarian Left, but such circumstances are not entirely impossible. I am, however an anti-Fascist and emphatically opposed to Soviet apologetics. You could say that I am also anti-totalitarian, but I am not anti-Communist.

I have a very particular political inclination that could be seen as an emergent sect. I don't necessarily mind this, but my intention is not to inanely act alone. I do hold such a position in sincerity. I think that it is in keeping with some sort of Anarchism without adjectives.

Are you whining about word policing or thought policing?

Critical thinking and exaggeration are independent of both. Without thinking about it, I assume pretty much any idea (thought or concept) can be exaggerated or poorly conceived. The quality of language used to express poor critical thinking and hyperbole can vary greatly.

Are you unable to separate these concepts (language, thoughts, critical thought, and hyperbole)?

Both. I did separate them. It was you was quibbling at my use of hyperbole and “poor critical thinking”, my speech and my thinking. Speech, thought. Of course, given your name-calling, ad Homs, incessant quibbling, I’m not sure you’re any decent judge on such topics.

It should be obvious to anyone, who is actually concerned about such things, that the use of hyperbole in philosophical discussions should be discouraged. It should also be obvious why critical thinking may be valued.

Why don't we just concentrate on trying to get someone better elected, someone who'll actually make practical changes that have a positive impact on folks' daily lives.

Word policing. I’ve already admitted my hyperbole, yet you’re still quibbling about it pages later. Is this is a demonstration of critical thinking? No, and that “should be obvious to anyone”.

There has yet to be a clinical test of Donald Trump, and as such, you’re breaking the Goldwater Rule. The only man who has submitted the president to examination, the Whitehouse physician (appointed by Obama), says otherwise.

I know someone who has been clinically diagnosed by 12 different psychiatrists, and the conservatives in his community don’t believe it because he went to law school for a semester. Likewise, when there is undeniable evidence for everyone to see of the president’s mental decline and sociopathic behavior, conservatives don’t believe it either.

The “undeniable evidence” is the cherry-picking and quote-mining of his opponents, and not any clinical examination. It is deniable on those grounds.

The “undeniable evidence” is the cherry-picking and quote-mining of his opponents, and not any clinical examination. — NOS4A2

One with a decent knowledge of psychology need only observe him talking for 15 minutes to see evidence. Compiling this 15-minute observation with the scores of other 15-minute instances on record amounts to compelling evidence.

You’re trying to argue that I’m “word policing,” and failing. Actually, you’re not making an argument, you just keep mindlessly repeating the claim.

That’s not true. Diagnosis involves much more than observing a patient talk.

I agree that it involves more but not “much” more. If you think Trump is sane, then I have to question your sanity. Either you yourself suffer from a disorder, or you are apologizing for him because you like his policies. In that case, I have to question your character.

Yet here you are quibbling about my use of hyperbole. I suspect some slight projection here, because not only are you failing to demonstrate critical thinking and believe your arguments true through sheer force of repetition, but you also blame me for that which you are guilty.

Look how quickly your unethical and politically expedient diagnosis has turned to me. And you question my character?

Look how quickly your unethical and politically expedient diagnosis has turned to me. And you question my character? — NOS4A2

Yes. I question the character of every Trump supporter. Do I have to defend this?

You question the character of millions of people you’ve never met? I think you’re beyond defence at this point.

I think what you’re trying to say is essentially that I’m trolling you. That’s not projection because I’m fully aware that that is my intention.

You really are an idiot.

I don’t think you’re trolling me, I think you have an over-inflated sense of your implied abilities and seek to exert them on people who disagree with you.

No seriously, I’m just trolling you.

You don’t have a problem with that I assume. It’s just words.

Trump called immigrants from Mexico “rapists” and criminals. He called majority black countries “shitholes”. He deported non-criminal undocumented workers who were parents on their children’s first day of school without holding the employers who profit off of their labor to account. He said in Helsinki that he believed Putin about Russian interference over our own intelligence community. He obstructed justice on multiple occasions. He welcomed help from the Russians. He pulled out of the Paris climate accords. He is dismantling the EPA. He is dismantling the USDA. He is picking winners and losers in the economy by supporting the fossil fuel industry. He puts children in cages without enough food or water, no soap, and no toothbrush as deterrence; and multiple children have died under these conditions. He told duly elected congresswomen to go back to their countries. He asked Netanyahu to bar two congresswomen from entering Israel, supposedly a democratic country. He is friends with Kim Jong-Un, a mass murderer and torturer. He profits off the presidency. And all this is just what I recall in the last two minutes without Googling him.

Yes. I question anyone’s character who supports this man.