Snoopy

There really is something about making it a real part of life that is inspiring, and people only learn things the easy way if they are willing to take the initiative. 

The thing is children imagine many things so to say this is out of their bounds would not be true.

 I don't see any indication of understanding such a privilege here.

What do you mean?

 DBlaze: I said they work as a catalyst gaining interest in history.  You don't just bring a picture to a kid and hope he reads the book.  

Your argument is still because children likes statues therefore they would have a greater interest in history. The thing is books can replicate that and also give him/her a better source of information.

"Should public officials not representing the interest, destroy the property that the minority of people value, or account for that value?" I believe it is actually privately owned already, but could be wrong.

Okay. 

Omar: if society deems his accomplishment not worth showcasing

Why Demolish it rather than transferring into private care?

Omar: Why make the distinction between public and private care?

Well he's admitted to not knowing much about philosophy.  You're merely asserting that his language is not confusing.  Even people who like his work tend to admit it's confusing so you saying I don't understand it because I have my own confusing language is just false.

You're merely asserting that his language is not confusing.

If we're gonna interlock thought.  Then I'm gonna have to drop the atheist thing because I'm not going to argue something that's a matter of societal usage.  If you want to hang on to a 1,000 year old definition, that's your problem.  Moving on.

So your above response, I say "what philosophy?" 

JP isn't a philosopher, he's a psychologist.  He doesn't know squat about philosophy accept for whatever he might have picked up in a side class in college.  

Real philosophers actually define things.  It doesn't matter what their field of philosophy is. 

I agree that we should try to understand what JP says.  That's the problem.  He's not speaking clearly.  He only makes sense to theists who's brains are already jumbled by confusing theist speech.(not talking about all theists) 

It is unwise to expect fairness from a mob. 

Yes, but this still doesn't explain the discrepancy.

So much wrong. 

Agnosticism is to not know "something"  

I can be agnostic about if there is money in my pocket.  

I can be agnostic about if I will win the lottery when I play it. 

it has nothing to do with atheism what so ever. 

without god belief is pretty straight forward.  If you're not a theist, you're an atheist, there's no in between.  You either have god belief, or you're without it.  A rejection of god  COULD be atheism because it will leaves you "without god belief"  but it's gnostic atheism because gnostic implies to know. 

Honestly, this might be the last response you get because if this is all you have to say then you're just a troll.

Atheism means if I may know God, I still reject God. 

  He thinks atheists are serial killers

"he goes out of his way to never actually define anything.   

I think people in hell should be saved.

OP: How are the majority of your claims related to the topic at hand?

Omar: [N/A] no viable explanation

Snoopy: This is getting off topic though

Omar: Why did you even reply to what I said?  Why did you address me instead of addressing what the person who created the forum post said? 

Snoopy : You received a reply out of courtesy

OP: How are the majority of your claims related to the topic at hand?  I'm not trolling.  I think people in hell should be saved.

I would have to establish a better understanding of a right - left paradigm.

Far left is communism.

Far right is facism.

By the statements made is Ben Shapiro a far right figure.

My understanding in the context I have, is that I am far right on a spectrum which differs from American norms.

I take that as a yes.

I don't know what distinction this is referring to.

You said:

You said precisely that the United States is made up of people.  I have not. 

Even though earlier you said this:

The nation is made up of people,

Does Shapiro hold views that mostly resembles the far-right which makes him a far right?

Do you understand if you support nationalism you are a part of the far right?

Do you understand people have ideas so basically making a distinction like what you did had no bearing in the conversation? 

So you say to me 

Read the OP

But you didn't even follow it either.

The nation is made up of people, but the United States could be said to be more of a shared idea between the people.

So basically many people want public healthcare because they like the idea but the Republican party don't want that to happen. 

Are there voices being heard and why isn't their public healthcare?

Since what is right doesn't come from governments constructed by men to serve their people, there may be issues utilizing your philosophy in general.

I am not going to allow you to shift the converddsation in a different direction. Remember when it was about Ben Shapiro being part of the alt-right then you decide to make it about yourself then you decide to change that conversation to about how nationalism or socialism are not on the left and right spectrum. You really do like changing the argument when you know you can't defend the previous ones. 

Surely you wanted to stay with what the forum post initially said but you replied to my statements.

Why is that if you wanted to talk about what the forum was about?

Without you I wouldn't have said more about the topic.