dimreepr

You've taken that out of context, like you do with all of your excuses; you've obviously missed the part where he explains why he's not being transphobic and that there will be a certain amount of irony in the following joke's... 😉

Now that's irony... 🤓 But not them??? Ye, I get it; you're irony impaired... 😲

Can you think of a reason why I shouldn't think that???

Your generalisation isn't aimed at all, it's like a punt gun pointing at a flock of people. Greed is good for example, is it only wrong in the right circumstances, or, only right in the wrong circumstances???

I can't find the slaphead emoji 🙄, I imagine I'd use it as I frantically tried to swim away from the cameras that covers Niagara fall's...

But we're not, are we?

Really, you wanna jump down that rabbit hole???

I don't know!!! Can you tell when the event horizon is crossed? All I'm saying is, Marxism is more about balance than communism...

You'll note that in my first post in this thread I added the word finally, the inference being it's happening now.

I read what he wrote and combined that with what other's (Asimov et al) wrote, and formed an hypothesis of what he might have meant...

Just one along the way...

That was his criticism, not his vision...

For example, the Russian revolution missed a step; it went straight from subsistence farming to a capitalist end game by force, not choice...

Please explain...

Indeed, but only one of us is right... 🧐 Sorry, that's a bit too binary; it should read "but one of us is more right, you know, given the evidence!!!"

I agree, they have to play before a situation can arise... 😉

The only thing I can possibly disagree with in this statement is, that you get to decide... 🙄

But class is a stabalising feature in society, capitalism breaks class, it's the revolution that sows its own seeds...

That's a different question... Critical mass is reached when the shit creator's doesn't understand the value of the shit removers... It's more of an event horizon type deal...

I see, I think you might be missing some recent context (in this thread) to the question you quoted, unless you've swapped side's. My question isn't level dependent: It's, why don't YOU want that athlete/person (that's not you) to play that athlete/person (that's also not you) in a game you're not part of (other than in a voyeuristic/dogging sense)?

The ever widening wealth gap approaching critical mass, it's a little like Asimov's, Hari Seldon's psychohistory...

What do you mean?

No one gets to demand inclusion in any sport, whatever the level; I'd get some very strange looks if I demanded to be allowed to play with 12 YO girls. This is what I've been talking about, your bias is obvious, they're not allowed to play, whatever empirical evidence or logical reasoning is presented; basically what you're saying is, "we can all play, but not them against them, according to the book of me". So, we're back to my question, why not them against them, if both them's want to play? The difference is, our rebuttals aren't just plucked from our swimsuit area... 🧐

It seems to me that we're, finally, entering Marx's capitalist end game vision, so 'hopefully' we're not all doomed...

Then we're agreed, we should let them, not us, play...