First of all, you did not address my points. You are now engaged in mocking me and avoiding the debate. I'm just telling you so you know, because leftists have a problem seeing reality. Right now you are not debating with me, you are ignoring the points I've made under the pretense that they are ridiculous and worthy only of some other forum but not this one. On top of that you are suggesting I leave this forum, which is to say, that I do not make the points I'm making on this forum. Usually, people want to keep certain "arguments" away from them because they don't have a good defense against them, and the truth hurts. That seems to be the case here, since not only do you do that (suggest I leave so my arguments don't cause cognitive dissonance in you) but also you do not seriously attempt to refute my arguments.

> this is why Report buttons exist: for when someone starts claiming that (...) universities are "leftist churches" (so what about UChicago Economics, George Mason, and various Catholic institutions?),

So report buttons exist for when someone is wrong? We should call it the Wrong button, then, and not give anyone a chance to improve on their points. Just report them as soon as they are wrong. You have such great ideas.

Wow, two examples and then a catch-all Catholic example to prove that universities are not indoctrination camps for leftists. How am I ever going to refute this? I know. I can retract what I said and offer a correction: Most universities are nothing more than leftist churches. I can also offer some corollaries. All universities that offer women studies are leftist churches by force of circumstance. If a university has only one course, Economics, and that one course does not preach Keynesianism, then that would be an example of a university that is not a leftist church. So, thanks for helping me make my point more precise.

> this is why Report buttons exist: for when someone starts claiming that Wikipedia (founded by an ardent Libertarian) is "state-sanctioned"

So report buttons exist for when a leftist has no answer to an argument? We should rename that the Leftist button, then.

You're still focused on definitions and intentions.

"The founder of Wikipedia is libertarian, therefore it is preposterous to suggest they have a leftist bias".

Why not simply judge Wikipedia by what it is now in the present moment and the actions its constituents take and what articles specifically they choose to censor and what articles they choose to make prominent? How about judging it based on what bits of History they choose to put in the main article and what uncomfortable bits they relegate to the archived talk pages where they can act like their Academic counterparts and censor and insult those that disagree with them?

Why are leftists so incapable of judging people, groups, ideologies, tools, by their actions, and not what the label says? You just did that so you should be able to give me an answer. Why do you think that the political inclinations of the person that founded a community will necessarily persist? Do you not see that the very United States is counter-example to that silly idea of yours? Have enlightenment ideals persisted throughout the American community just because its founders were Enlightenment philosophers?

> this is why Report buttons exist: for when someone starts claiming that (...) "there's no political difference between Hitler and Obama"

So report buttons exist for when someone makes a principled statement focused on one aspect of the issue? We should call that the "No generalizations" button, while being careful to ignore the self-contradiction and resulting paradox.

I believe the argument I made was more complete and so it doesn't lend itself as easily to comedy fodder for your jokes. I said that there's no political difference between Hitler and Obama when it comes to their stance on legalized violence interfering in the market. You did not refute this. Mocking is not refuting. Repeating is not refuting. Quoting is not refuting.

You are dismissing what I said without proving me wrong, as if that makes you right. Why don't you simply tell me what the difference is between Hitler taking/stealing/"taxing" (whatever leftists call it nowadays) Jews and "distributing" that money to the "poor germans", and Obama taxing producers money to give it to non-producers? If only you could tell me the difference then perhaps I could more easily see how Hitler and Obama were different in their actions. But I guess you only want to focus on "intentions" and other things that live in people's minds that are not up for inspection. That way you can never be proven wrong. Another nice leftist strategy.

> And by the way, just who, exactly, is "Philosophy"?

Philosophy is all of us that agree to settle on the names so we can talk about actions. It doesn't give you cancer or anything so you should try it sometime.