im trying so hard
Oh, yeah, and then they both become Stooges!
So, now it’s my five Stooges!!
I’m out of here. 
good
Coward.
and a bot
this is what he cannot accept. his brain is broken he does not possess the aptitude to actually understand the nature of distinction in and of itself he is not a philosopher. it enrages him that i point this out and walk away to go back to talking about turds which are more interesting than him and also nunchucks
Nunchucks are cool.
Communism isn’t though, Reas. When are you gonna drop that shit?
This is the sort of lamebrain stuff that he peddles from thread to thread to thread to thread to thread to thread. On all the boards.
Sometimes he disappears for weeks at a time. But that’s only in order to spend time, uh, brainstorming. To think up really, really deep stuff like his insights above.
He’ll bounce it off the other Stooge and then off they’ll go into yak yak yak land. 
Be a man iamcommunist.
This coming from a bot coward!
And clearly a disgrace to both genes and memes.
No you don’t get it.
The reason they call you a bot is that you say the same script over and over, with no human reactivity.
Like for example, a human could easily answer this:
And, well, we call you a communist because when an out-and-out genocide promoting dogmatic Marxist came along, which was actually me cleverly in disguise, cause I understand you fools, you wished him luck and accepted the title of comrade.
That’s why we call you communist.
And coward because, when asked to explain your own objectivist theories, you refuse:
Don’t think this thread is just going to go away, iam.
All I can say is that if I am a bot here, shudder to think what that makes you! The irony being that Julian used to play you back in the day. That you don’t even grasp how you come off here is perhaps the biggest reason I continue to play the cat to your mouse.
As I have noted to others, with the Kids here, the idea is not to actually reason with them but to humiliate them by letting them be themselves. In fact, I suspect those speculations about women and chess were fed to you by phoneutria. Either that, or you are but a character that she plays here.
Since you are utterly oblivious to how foolish I am able make you appear here, I don’t expect it to.
And I certainly don’t want it to.
No dice?
Surely, you will not be foolish enough to take this back to the philosophy board? There, above all, you expose just how shallow your thinking can become.
No dice?
We’ll need a context of course.
How about…the 2nd Amendment?
Now, you insist that I insist that “it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.”
Cite examples from this thread and from the 2nd Amendment thread of what you think I mean by a complex combination of genes and memes in regard to a particular individual’s reaction to the 2nd Amendment.
What in particular are you claiming that I am claiming is true objectively “for everyone”?
Good call. If you are going to embarrass yourself further, it’s best to stick with your own tedious rendition of zinnat’s “groots”.