Those are shit definitions.

So I guess jailing a serial killer is socialism in your book, (taking away one persons freedom to benefit a group) where as the liberals would let the murderer do as they like unless it affected then directly. Thus your very bad definition of the two words leads to libertarians meaning a society of such would truly be a society ruled by tyranny of one kind or another.

I hate to break it to you, but those are the definitions. Truth is independent of it's consequences.

But, that would be a strawman, i would assume. I only skimmed over his/her posts, but I doubt they made that claim. It is in the interests of individuals to get rid of said murderer (for what's stopping the murderer from coming for them?), while also considering how the method that they accomplish this could turn into a weapon to be used againt themselves.

Wrong, I never said Scientiae said that, I said Scientiae's super shitty vague definitions leave more than enough room for interpretations like that. These non-definitions can easily amount to 'anything I like belongs to this label', and 'anything I don't like belongs to the other label', since a bit of verbal gymnastics can put anything under either shitily defined word. And by context it seems all bad stuff becomes to socialism and all good stuff belongs to libritarians, according to Scientiae.

cause socialism is that ,bad and evil
time for you to accept the facts

Because four legged animals are bad and evil, time to accept facts [/counter troll]

You know, definitions for things like "ball" are pretty vague, too. Are you familiar with "the ball problem"?

To cite your example, there actually are people out there that fit your example, whom believe that "it's not my problem." However that's not representative of the position, any more than "Christians hate LGBTQIA+" or whatever. You're going to find outliers in various camps on a given issue out of a much larger camp. This is why individualism continues to make sense in opposition to socialism: because, it turns out, not everyone is a part of the larger herd.

Don't false equivocate. These definitions are uselessly vague. It's nothing like the word "ball". Besides, if you were saying that balls lead to tyranny, then yeah, "ball" would be too vague.

That large herd will be divided up later anyway.
Then those groups fights each other. After one wins it will be divided up again and the cycle continues.

Boy, you sure picked the wrong universe for your existence. And I mean it in the most neutral and philosophical way possible.

But then the herd gets divided by flock squared with N = equaling the greater good.

Looks like everything is useless and vague to you.
Yup socialism leads to tyranny, happened many times already open up some not fake history books.
It can't be avoided because socialism wants everybody to be the same.
It just can't tolerate anybody who is not in the preferred group. And it will use everything in its power to remove dissidents and police the group to be intact.

Orkhepak, only uselessly vague things are uselessly vague to me. If it seems to you that I find all you say uselessly vague, then maybe you need to address how empty your words are.

You are just trolling here. That's all.

@Ork Says a likely troll. If you aren't trolling, then your doing an ad-hominem logic fallacy.

what logic fallacy?