so how can you be certain that you are using the same definition of "collectivism"
Never claimed that. In fact I contest some definitions of these concepts and I think finding a proper definition is in itself a minor challenge.
to have a system where people have great individual freedom and also great individual responsibility
Yes. Freedom is achieved by taking responsibility for your own life. And in order to be a functional member of society, you'll have to make valuable contributions to it. If you want to maintain said liberties, you'll also have to contribute to that cause in various ways.
Is it possible to have a system that is very "individualist" and also "collectivist"?
This is where the definitions matter. There is a misconception that Individualism means fractured, isolated people wrangling with bears in the woods, or indulging in pure selfishness in their careers. But that's the Collectivists' biased view. Heavily individualist societies rely and benefit from social cohesion, cooperation and competition, it's just they don't use force to impose their way of life upon others. I think drug usage is degenerate and pathetic. But I understand that some artists draw great inspiration from that. Another important aspect is that of course Individualists seek to protect their society and their people. And it's preferable to have people do it voluntarily rather than forced by government.
The distinction between Individualism and Collectivism is NOT the size of the groups. It defines how people treat each other and if they want to use force against each other or not.
you aren't even describing or treating the original quotation accurately
I did. That does not make him a Collectivist. It takes a little more than just a tiny quote to judge that. Being individualist and collectivist is a matter of magnitude anyway, and many - if not most people are right in the middle.
So you aren't sincere at all, and you confuse matters on purpose among other tactics and tricks.
And given the rest of your comment, you aren't even describing or treating the original quotation accurately or meaningfully, or answering the questions meaningfully.
I did. That does not make him a Collectivist. It takes a little more than just a tiny quote to judge that. Being individualist and collectivist is a matter of magnitude anyway, and many - if not most people are right in the middle
Except you 100% didn't, and there is no doubt about that, and you ought to know that well (and you might well be fully aware of that).
Yes. Freedom is achieved by taking responsibility for your own life. And in order to be a functional member of society, you'll have to make valuable contributions to it. If you want to maintain said liberties, you'll also have to contribute to that cause in various ways.
And if a "functional member of society" fails that responsibility, and the society then punishes that member for it, does that mean that this society is "collectivist"? What if the society decides on some rules some way, some members disagrees with it, and yet are punished for it for failing to follow those rules? Is it then "collectivist"? Etc. etc. etc. You don't seem to even attempt to think through things at all, just stringing things together and hope something sticks. Unless of course you are directly lying and pretending among other aspects. Your definitions here are not coherent and meaningful, and I am not at all convinced that you believe yourself that they are coherent, consistent and meaningful. And I was asking the original commenter and according to his definitions...
And again, since it is still fully relevant as I asked the original commenter about and which you intentionally confused and distracted reg., I repeat it here (from https://patriots.win/p/12hkTntQjm/x/c/4Dx6XGv8t3G ):
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" (according to the definitions and arguments used by the original commenter which I asked) ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
"These guys are sitting there watching the destruction of our race while arguing about Ronald Reagan," Thomas said. "Ronald Reagan isn't the problem. Former president Jimmy Carter was not the problem. The lack of black leadership is the problem."
And what if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"?
OK, so you are the same autistic retard with whom I had the pleasure with once already. I am not doing this again. I thought I blocked you... is that another account? (Hint: Don't bother to respond.)
You are driven by the intent to agitate, and your autistic behavior is just annoying. I had this before and I am not willing to waste time on your bullshit again. Why the hell is the blocking function not working...
Never claimed that. In fact I contest some definitions of these concepts and I think finding a proper definition is in itself a minor challenge.
Yes. Freedom is achieved by taking responsibility for your own life. And in order to be a functional member of society, you'll have to make valuable contributions to it. If you want to maintain said liberties, you'll also have to contribute to that cause in various ways.
This is where the definitions matter. There is a misconception that Individualism means fractured, isolated people wrangling with bears in the woods, or indulging in pure selfishness in their careers. But that's the Collectivists' biased view. Heavily individualist societies rely and benefit from social cohesion, cooperation and competition, it's just they don't use force to impose their way of life upon others. I think drug usage is degenerate and pathetic. But I understand that some artists draw great inspiration from that. Another important aspect is that of course Individualists seek to protect their society and their people. And it's preferable to have people do it voluntarily rather than forced by government.
The distinction between Individualism and Collectivism is NOT the size of the groups. It defines how people treat each other and if they want to use force against each other or not.
I did. That does not make him a Collectivist. It takes a little more than just a tiny quote to judge that. Being individualist and collectivist is a matter of magnitude anyway, and many - if not most people are right in the middle.
So you aren't sincere at all, and you confuse matters on purpose among other tactics and tricks.
Except you 100% didn't, and there is no doubt about that, and you ought to know that well (and you might well be fully aware of that).
And if a "functional member of society" fails that responsibility, and the society then punishes that member for it, does that mean that this society is "collectivist"? What if the society decides on some rules some way, some members disagrees with it, and yet are punished for it for failing to follow those rules? Is it then "collectivist"? Etc. etc. etc. You don't seem to even attempt to think through things at all, just stringing things together and hope something sticks. Unless of course you are directly lying and pretending among other aspects. Your definitions here are not coherent and meaningful, and I am not at all convinced that you believe yourself that they are coherent, consistent and meaningful. And I was asking the original commenter and according to his definitions...
And again, since it is still fully relevant as I asked the original commenter about and which you intentionally confused and distracted reg., I repeat it here (from https://patriots.win/p/12hkTntQjm/x/c/4Dx6XGv8t3G ):
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" (according to the definitions and arguments used by the original commenter which I asked) ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
And what if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"?
OK, so you are the same autistic retard with whom I had the pleasure with once already. I am not doing this again. I thought I blocked you... is that another account? (Hint: Don't bother to respond.)
So you seem to be triggered by me fully rightly calling you out in the past as well, shill, and you know that well. See also https://patriots.win/p/12hkTntQjm/x/c/4DyLdtlnNrs .
You are driven by the intent to agitate, and your autistic behavior is just annoying. I had this before and I am not willing to waste time on your bullshit again. Why the hell is the blocking function not working...