A communist will say, “I want all mysogonists and sympathizers with mysogonists gone. I don’t believe in legalizing their speech!
Wanting someone to suffer consequences for their speech and wanting the government to be the ones imposing said consequences are two totally different things.
It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers cannot grasp this difference.
So no number is greater than zero. Math doesn't work.
meow math doesn’t work, stick to the real thing.
So, you're using the 'define that for me' old trick
Yes, it’s called rational conversation. When you are attempting to argue that people you disagree with fit into a label and want that label to imply “bad”, then you have to define what that label actually means and explain how the people you categorize under it fit into it.
This is basic common sense. I’m sorry of that feels like a trick to you.
I mean, you're a socialist
A completely useless statement given that you still will not define what the word means.
Of course, everybody here knows about socialism
Most people actually don’t, in fact the people who love to accuse everyone else of being socialists a most tend to be the people who understand the word the least. But I’m not interested in litigating what the word actually means, it’s obvious you have no idea and for some reason even with google right there you still can’t be bothered. All I’m asking you to do is provide your working definition, which is a really easy and basic ask for anyone who wants to argue in good faith, but you don’t so you continue to tap dance around it.
What I'm going to do though is to tell what Mamdani plans to do in the US since he's a true socialist
This thread and this conversation in particular is about our national politics, why do you think telling me what one mayor of one city wants to do is relevant?
I can go on and on explaining about control of prices, high taxes, open borders, and a long list of best wishes for our society that socialists will fulfill with other people's money, but I think that's enough to have a broad idea of what socialism is.
Or you could just define it, but you won’t, because then you would actually have to substantiate your bullshit.
There’s no serious movement at the national level calling for price controls, even though Trump did say he was going to lower the prices on day one and MAGA cheered him on, but that’s not price control of course.
“High taxes” is relative and therefore meaningless.
Open borders is a right wing fantasy that never existed, and isn’t even in the same category of conversation.
All you can do is hand waive and insult, cause you have nothing to back your position up with.
How do you use logic without being logical?
This is literally what I just spent 3 paragraphs explaining to you. Try reading it.
Would it make your concessions feel better?
Ah, so you are just trolling. That’s good, I was starting to be afraid that you really were that stupid. You almost had me there.
"You are using logic to disprove logic!!!"
- "I am using logic? So my arguments are logical?"
"No, your arguments aren't logical."
- "But logical means using logic"
Like many words in the English language, logic has more than one application. Trust for example can be asserted as a state of mind (I trust you with by car) or to describe an action/decision one has made (I am going to trust you with my car). They don’t carry the same meaning.
Logic works exactly the same way. someone can use logic (as is the process by which we arrive at conclusions from a given set of premises) and someone can be logical (as in assert conclusions that are logically valid).
These don’t mean the same thing, so the only thing your imaginary conversation reveals is that you do not understand the different ways in which the word logic can be asserted.
Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?
You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.
For your own sake, I really hope you’re trolling.
You dodge, as usual, responding about Mandami who is the most socialist Democrat elected in the States.
Do you want to know what socialism is? See what Mandami is either doing or trying to do. I'm not going to waste words to explain something you are reluctant to understand. So,...
If wasting words was really your concern then you would make an actual argument instead of playing these silly little games. There’s hardly anything more wasteful than typing words that say absolutely nothing.
You claim I am dodging you by not responding to what you said about Mamdani, but you didn’t say anything at all. You just invoked his name as if it speaks for itself. Well I hate to break it to you but that’s not how reasoned argument works, you actually have to make real points, and yes that requires typing words.
It is of course obvious what you’re really doing here. For months now I have challenged you to define socialism since it is you that keeps invoking it as some kind of evil of the Democratic Party and you just refuse to do it. That is breathtakingly dishonest of you.
You will not define it because as soon as you do one of two things happen; either you make it clear that what you’re calling socialism doesn’t exist in any meaningful way in American politics, or you define it in such a way that is not scary at all or even controversial, and in fact enjoys wide support among the electorate. Either way, your attempts to demonize and fear monger completely falls apart.
So I’ll ask you again and can’t wait to hear your latest excuse… define socialism. Clearly. Explicitly. Not by naming a bunch of fantasy things you claim democrats are doing that they’re not. An actual working definition that we can apply to democratic proposals and assess whether the proposals meet the definition you provided. Then we can have a real, adult conversation.
Where is proof that logic is the tool to evaluate reality? Where is proof that logic is not a statement? Where is proof that this reality of yours exists?
These questions are entirely too stupid to engage with.
Errors are not logical. So am I using logic or not?
You’re trying to, and clearly failing.
Different foundations exist, or maybe none exist. Your arguments are still circular.
So basically, “I know you are but what am I”… cause that’s the level of thought applied to this response.
I used Meow-logic.
In other words, I just pulled an answer out of my ass and because I didn’t think about my words at all I didn’t use logic…
Then sure, I’ll give you that one.
Why would it be a category error?
Because “true” means that a statement matches to reality. Logic is not a statement that can be evaluated in such terms, logic is the tool you’re using to do the evaluating. It’s a totally different thing.
Circular reasoning is only okay when Meow says it is. So in this case, its not okay.
Exactly the kind of unserious crap I can expect from an unserious site member.
Are you saying that my arguments against logic are using logic? So they are logically true then?
No genius, you’re using the process to arrive at your conclusions, that doesn’t mean you are doing so free of errors.
You used logic to disprove arguments against logic, so yeah it's circular reasoning
I’ve already explained why it’s not. Look up the definition of foundational.
False, I don't rely on logic.
You just did. I made a statement and you concluded it’s false. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Spoiler alert; the process you utilized has a name that starts with L.
This statement is only true if logic is true
Category error. So you still don’t even understand what logic is . Got it.
If all your arguments depend on logic, you have no non-circular way to disprove arguments against logic.
Why would this be a problem? What is the issue with circular reasoning?
I am amazed that someone can say "the moment you presume validity of logic, you presume validity of logic", and not realize how dumb he sounds.
Dunning-Kruger at its finest.
The idea that we’re all living in a huge round ball and those at the bottom are not falling away from it sounds pretty dumb until you understand gravity. This is the level of stupidity of this statement.
Best way is to respond with Meow-logic. That way, I don't have to use logic.
So *if* you respond using meow logic, *then* you do not have to utilize logic.
I wonder if there is a name to describe what process if/then statements such as this are using…
You don't give a shit about your own country, which means you don't care about the fate of your own family. You only care about Democrats winning no matter if this political party brings hunger, misery and destruction to the US.
Telling me what I want and value, and framing it in the worst most dramatic possible way… this is what having no argument looks like.
I'm not denying Trump has been a populist by promising five grand to people but I prefer a populist than a socialist
Right, so democrats are socialists, and socialism will ruin America, especially offering $1.5k to people, but when Trump offers people $5k… that’s populism.
If only the word hypocrisy still meant something.
The greater takeaway from this line however is that you still haven’t figured out a coherent way to call democrats socialists in any meaningful way while providing an actual definition of socialism. This is what MAGA does, they throw around a bunch of words and over time those words get scarier and scarier while none of these clowns ever bother to ask themselves what it means.
I’ll keep waiting for your definition.
If >45%, then it's rigged.
And what exactly would “rigged” mean?
you notice how they don't deny being for things like open borders and transing your children. they basically ran on those promises
It must suck having so little in reality to validate your world view that you have to just make everything up.
No democrat ran on nor is trying to trans your child or open the southern border. This is why MAGA lost so badly. All this story book stuff is fun when everything is going well, but when things get real it’s time to grow up and join the real world. Most of the country figured that out by now, others like yourself are clearly still working on it.
It's also circular reasoning, because you are using logic to argue for logic.
I haven’t presented an argument for logic genius, all I’ve done so far is show you why your argument is childishly silly.
This is for anyone else reading this, since these concepts are beyond you.
There is no such thing as proving or disproving logic. We rely on logic because it’s inescapably foundational. To argue for logic, requires the use of logic. To argue against logic, requires the use of logic. So you are presuming the validity of logic the second you engage in any kind of intended coherent thought. In other words… we have no choice in the matter. The second we have decided that we want to make sense out of something, we have already ceded to staying within logic’s boundaries.
You can pretend this isn’t true all you want. It will still be. The second your mind starts working to decide the best way to respond to this - whether to craft a thought out reply or type a few meaningless words to avoid using logic so you don’t have to cede my point - you have already lost. You have already figured out what you wanted to accomplish and concluded as to which is the best way to get that response. That’s called logic, no matter how you try to rebrand it or pretend to be using something else.
Socialism is what you subscribe to.
Socialism is what the communist Gina Hinojosa will apply in Texas, like giving $1.5k to every family, increase the salaries to bureaucrats (typical of socialism), price control (no surprise), stop the investment on data centers or relax the tough migration policies that brought good results.
So… after all the time we’ve spent discussing this, you still don’t know what socialism means. Noted.
like giving $1.5k to every family
I can only imagine how freaked out you would be if she were offering them $5k
Also, if I were you, I wouldn't use logic to attack Meow-logic. It seems like quite a pointless thing to do
You’re actually right about that, trying to use logic in a conversation with someone advocating for magic does seem pretty pointless. Enjoy this little fantasy idea of yours, the rest of us will get back to dealing with reality in its actual terms.
No, Meow-logic isnt logic.
Ok, so now you’re just playing silly word games.
Logic is the process by which we arrive at conclusions from given a set of premises.
You started this thread listing limitations of logic (premises) and then concluded from that set of premises that logic is not valid. In other words, you used logic to argue against logic.
What you’re actually calling meow logic now isn’t logic at all, it’s just unsubstantiated hand waiving. Essentially, this is the classic “if we can’t be 100% certain then every claim and/or conclusion is the same”.
It’s a tired old trick used by everyone who gets to the point where the decide to continue believing things that have no basis in fact or reason. Call it whatever you want, we’ve seen this movie many times before.
I really wonder at what moment your clone DoubleFknR come on the scene.
You rang?
we're talking about how socialism is taking over the US
Can you please define socialism?
The name for it is Meow-logic. I already told you.
You can invent whatever name you’d like, the rest of the world refers to it as “logic”, as in the foundational tool of science.
—> Ok, so now that we have identified two fundamental problems with logic, what do we do with this information? What can we conclude from it?
Abandon belief in logic and adopt Meow-logic and Meow-truth where Meow decides what is true. This way we avoid all problems which commonly bother the logic-people.
Ah ok, so you identified a set of problems, then you concluded that those problems warranted a different path, which you then chose because you concluded that this new path was beneficial vs the old path.
Perhaps we should find out if there’s a name for the cognitive process you just engaged in and adapt that instead.
You encounter two problems. First is obvious circular reasoning. Second problem is infinite regress, where you just made another claim which you need to prove, and if you try to prove it using logic, you are merely making one more claim which needs to be proved.
Ok, so now that we have identified two fundamental problems with logic, what do we do with this information? What can we conclude from it?
Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?
You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.
Im curious of yalls response
I share your instinct in that there’s a clear absurdity to supporting MAGA while calling oneself a libertarian.
One thing I will say, is that it’s not as bad so long as they are talking about MAGA in an ideological sense, in other words if they think of MAGA as what Trump sold it as. But if we think of the movement as tied to him and everything he’s done; starting unnecessary wars, across the board tariffs, the US government taking large shares of stocks in public companies… then it truly falls apart.
But even then, Trump has always talked about things like unleashing deportation forces into American cities, going after women who have abortions, using the power of the federal government to bully US companies, etc. so just because it’s more reasonable when compared to everything he’s actually done doesn’t make it coherent.
I think the problem here is the same problem republicans have always had; their entire appeal and ostensible political core is based on pushing for a set of principals they do not actually believe in. They talk about Christian values while being perfectly fine letting poor people starve. They talk about small government while being perfectly ok telling people who they can marry, what decisions parents and their doctors are allowed to make with regards to their own children, or what rules local sports leagues are allowed to enforce. They talk about fiscal responsibility while blowing up the federal deficit every single time one of their own gets into office. They talk about the value of merit while cheering as a reality TV star appoints a Fox News host to run the US military, a couple of podcasters to run the FBI, and his own personal defense attorney to run the DOJ. They don’t believe in the values they espouse, it’s all absurd.
Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?
You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.
Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?
You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.
Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?
You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.
MITman AI IQ leaps in faith beyond astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, who explained with “observational data” of the NGC 7319 quasar that “its redshift cannot...
Funny how much faith Kermos has in Geoffrey Burbidge
Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?
You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.
Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?
You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.
