Because it fails logic, but I am not aging to play your why? game any further. You're not a child.
Because it fails logic, but I am not aging to play your why? game any further. You're not a child.
No, it is not ok to kill anyone. Not Trump, not Oba'a, not Biden, not Mamdani... no one. Murder is not a solution, but is always a societal problem
Well that's Trumpism
Then you utterly missed my "parenthetic" clause noting more than. just Democrets in my criticism:
- and this includes more than just Democrats, but anyone who adheres to the belief that we are not personally responsible for our own personal thoughts, public commentary, and actions, whether legally demonstrated, or not -
I keep telling you I am not MAGA. I do not believe Trump is Jesus and can do no wrong any more than I believe all Democrats are woke. Get it, yet? I mean what I say. All of what I say.
Here is an example of a failed syllogism:
P1 Birds fly
P2 Camels walk
C! Therefore, butterflies swim
In structure, thus appears to be a legitimate syllogism. However, it is not, even though in structure it appears correct. However, by rule, all propositions must, in fact, be true, and not merely assumed to be true, or the conclusion does not properly follow. By deductive reasoning, a reasoning a syllogism must apply, all propositions must demonstrate to be true, and must therefore lead by the same reasoning to the conclusion.
Analysis P1: While we generally assume all birds have the ability of sustained flight, it is demonstrat00ed that, among the classification, "bird," there are ostriches, which are flightless. Neither do chickens exhibit sustained flight. There are others. Therefore, P1 is not a truth.
Analysis of P2: Camels, a land mammal, do walk. They also run, but that is not a necessary qualification. So, P2 is true.
Analysis of C: Butterflies can and do survive in water if they can reach land to dry out, but their wings may not ever allow flight, again, but, flight is not the qualification required by the syllogism; swimming is. Staying afloat in water is not a swimming act, but merely of staying alive in water. Therefore, the conclusion is false.
Result: This is not a valid syllogism as it does not demonstrate deductive reasoning that concludes both true propositions and a true resulting conclusion.
Something curious about our American society and its insistence that a particular Court precedent, "separation of church and state," enshrined by the people and many in its government, as if statutory law [i.e., law as legislated by Congress]. But no, "separation" is merely Court precedent. Typically, though not by constitutional decree, but merely common sense, any precedent set by the Supreme Court ought to ultimately be codified by Congress, as happened following by some years, the effects of a severe heart attack suffered by President Eisenhower, who, as a result of his coronary, briefly passed the Captain's Chair of the presidency to Richard Nixon for a time. What followed that incident, several years later, somewhat precipitated also by Kennedy's assassnation, was passage and ratification if the 25th Amendment, codifying the succession of the presidency in the event of the president's removal from office, either temporary or permanent.
But to the subject at hand, shortly following WWII, in 1947, was the SCOTUS case, Everson v Board of Education, which was decided 5-4, setting the precedent of "separation of church and state," but that precdedent has never been codified by further congressional action, and stands today as mere precedent, which, though many believe it, is not the same thing as if it was codified. All it takes to change it is a separate, contrary decision by a later Court proceeding, such as happened by 2022's Dobbs. v Jackson Women's Health dismissing 1973's Roe v Wade. One of the most important citations from the Everson case is this commentary in the syllabus: “…that although the United States government cannot promote religion, it also cannot be religion’s adversary.” https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/the-separation-of-church-and-state--everson-v--board-of-education.html
Yet, in its present context, government has become religion's adversary. Witness the assault by government over abortion, trying to impose abortion or trans surgery on Catholic hospitals and care centers. "separation" in these instrances is hardly religion beating down the doors of government, but the reverse.
established rules of syllogizing.
As the Democrats bend down/back further to socialism - and this includes more than just Democrats, but anyone who adheres to the belief that we are not personally responsible for our own personal thoughts, public commentary, and actions, whether legally demonstrated, or not - it should be no surprise that this segment of society has likewise bent down to an assassination culture. Don't like your opposition's thinking, pass over merely engaging in discourse to air differences. Rather, this socialism is willing to engage in assassination culture wherein character destruction is no longer sufficient. It is woke-culture to assassinate the opposition in the literal sense of that deadly term.
As a result of the dismissal of personal responsibility, literally anything goes,
The "argument" you make is an attempt at syllogism, but fails to meet that logical standard because, as I have said, twice [at least, but not necessarily in this string]:
You do not seem to understand the elements of syllogism, which has a specified structure. Take some college philosophy coursers. I did. Yes, any argument can be simple, but virtually no argument lacking proper structure is necessarily true just because it is claimed. Chaos is as easily, in fact, more easily made than order.
What does an ant know about universe?
Ask it.
Same answer for knowing if God exists.
Ask Him. But, there are rules to that game: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that givethto all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1: 5 - 8
In his "Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus:, Ludwig Wittgenstein said that "roughly speaking: to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to say nothing." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#TracLogiPhil
Further, your efforts with syllogisms contain propositions, only, no conclusion[s]. The logic of syllogism requires conclusion, at least one, to follow propositions. And since the above disagrees with your P1 in this effort, which follows that P2-P6 also fail, so, in this case, having no conclusion is actually the only truth in the post.
You noted in post #2 that your source is wiki. Wiki says of itself that it is of "unreliable accuracy" because it allows anyone to edit virtually any posting, which is hardly academic integrity.
When immigrants in MN, CA, and elsewhere, many un-doc'd, and collecting tax credits, food, living expense, and other benefits paid by taxpayers, [a.k.a. fraud] but pay none themselves, are claiming low-income status, and yet are buying luxury vehicles [with poverty rate claims], when 10%ers [those who are paying avg $100,000 per taxpayer income tax, an added 2% "wealth tax" is absurd when, collectively, they are already paying 73% of all income tax revenue. Those who act and spend like fat cats, but that money is obtained by fraud, need to pay THEIR fair share of income tax, or leave.
God allows evil, because it is necessary that there be opposition in all things. We may think that the first temptation of Christ in the wilderness before he began his ministry as an adult [because I think Jesus began his ministry even as a child, for example, by his reading the scriptures, and interpreting them for the temple elders when Jesus was only 12 years of age] was to challenge Jesus to use his power to make bread from a stone to satisfy his hunger. That's a common interpretation, but the greater temptation was for Jesus to use the power even the Devil acknowledged he had, but tempted Christ by even planting doubt that the power was his to do it in the first place. Doubt, itself, may be an evil one does to one's self, regardless of any temptation from another. Jesus taught that his two commandments [love God, and love our neighbor] were the two great commandments, meaning more important than any others. Opposition is more than just a challenge, because an ordinary challenge often is applied to encourage us to do better than we thought we could accomplish. There is no evil in that, either by the challenger, nor by the one challenged. The challenges given by the Devil to Christ were not these beneficial types of challenges. Temptation to do evil is to anything which God would not approve, because they mostly create power, pride and possession in ourselves rather than encouraging others to accomplish great tasks. That is evil. To make bread for his own satisfaction. To cast himself off a high place to test the angels to save him. Take possession of all the earth just for bowing down to the Devil. All of these challenges were temptations because they were accusations that Jesus was not endowed with power to accomplish those things, not that any of the challenges were inherently evil. It is not evil to make bread, even from a stone. When it is nourishing, that is good. It is not evil to give others opportunity to serve. Within opportunity is unity: working together to do good and useful things. Taking possession of earthly things is part of the command to have dominion of the earth, to make of it a paradise for others, Dominion is not evil when it is used to improrve anything we are given to manage.
No, that syllogism isn't [a syllogism], for two reasons: All propositions must be true, and there must be at least one conclusion.
Your P1 is not always correct; it is conditional on the person being able to fulfill their own need, but have not yet reached the point of even realizing they have the need while being obvious to another, or the person has it scheduled, and their own fulfillment is just premature. You have not allowed for those conditions.
Your P2 is not a truth. Evil is not that someone has an unfulfilled need, because evil cannot fulfill the need, anyway. Evil does not care that there is a need. Lack of fulfillment has many causes, including that a need has only just been realized, and no one else may have yet seen the need to fulfill it. Or laziness, which may be evil, or may be a misapplied criticism, but it is not inherently evil, because what may appear to someone else as being lazy may be that the person accused of it may, in fact, be taking a rest break from great labor just performed, but not witnessed by the accuser.
Your P4 is also not true, for the same reasons as P2.
Your P5, likewise is not true, for the same reason as P2.
Finally, where is your conclusion?
You know [maybe] I once cited Picasso as saying
"Art is not for decoration; it is an instrument of war."
Well, he had another definition, which may be closer to home;
"Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life."
some traditions are, of course, retarded.
Yes, retardation is certainly what I would assign to communism/socialism, since both are like driving a car while staring into the rear-view mirror. They are backward philosophies since neither can seem too know how to create personal wealth. Worse, the result n societal poverty. Much worse, a serious accident is sure to happen sooner or later. Serious, like not a single example of that type of government has ever endured longer than 100 years; most fail much sooner. And although some may complain that the concepts are only 178 years old, I reply that they have been around since Eden. The serpent and his seedless tree is the origin of communism.
Well, I guess I must be a crazy loon because of my formal education, which lasted most of my life into the 20th decade, but, not to brag, also had its last college degree earned just last fall. No, education [a proper education] does not make kids brain dead, contrary to your claim. But some teachers, and their union reps, in particular, do fill that bill.
truism
Tell me what about my US citizenship is a truism? That means it is so obvious, it needn't be mentioned. Hell, I could be an illegal immigrant, or even a legal immigrant with a green card, couldn't I? Just because my profile says I currently live in the U.S.? We have representatives on this site from many places around the globe. Do not assume you know these facts about anybody. Assumption begins well as a word for those who exhibit the tendency, myself included. Turns out not to so a great character trait. I've been trying to work on mine.
the US led by an unstable wannabee autocrat possesses 6000 or more nuclear war heads
Can you tell me how many of those "6,000"* nuke warheads the US has were stockpiled by the Trump admin? Don't know? Might want to find out, because during the Clinton admin. we reached the number of over 31,000 warheads stockpiled, and then, in 1990, stopped production and started to reduce the number. * Your cited 6,000 is really only 3,700 as of 2025, thanks to all following presidents, including Tump.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-nuclear-weapons-does-the-us-have/
So, would you please give me stats regarding the "Hypocrisy" you accuse, since you didn't know the actual number of US warheads still held?
Your 1] I am not currently employed, I am now, and have been for the last 12 years, one of the beneficiaries. No, I realize its not a personal account I am drawing from, but the money paid into, as I said, is 100% private money, both from me, and my employers, when I had them, and from me when self-employed, plus interest paid into the account.. Why is that so hard to understand? It is not any of it public money, there4fore, not communist.
2] Yes, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in interest-bearing U.S. Treasury securities. By law, any surplus tax revenues not needed for current benefit payments are invested in these securities, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. But, that does not change the fact that what is paid by me by FICA taxes and matched by my employers s private money that I earned, and not public money. The interest earne3d ob those securities in not public money, payday taxpayers.
3] Yes, I do not choose the investment vehicle into which my FICA taxes are invested, but the taxes I pay in to the investment is my private money. How many time do I have to repeat that?
4] I do not understand what you mean by "a higher share of earnings for lower-income workers," because my income was greater than my wife's, and commensurately, my SS monthly benefit is greater than hers, but, if I die before she does, she will inherit most of my SS benefit, less a couple of hundred dollars, for the duration of her life.
5] No, I did not "work to provide the government with a retirement account that only they can control;" I worked to provide an owned home for my family, with reasonable space to store additional benefits [food, water] to go off grid if need be, and to secure their futures outside of any extra benefit SS provides, Yes, I could not opt out of the SS/Medicare system but, I prepared for retirement by arranging the providing for the maximum benefit I was legally allowed to draw by educating myself to earn a higher income that afforded me the ability to make other investment that I do control, so the government control it has over my SS benefit is fine by me. It happens to be the best club on earth in which to have membership, andI don't mind the dues required.
Nope. That's patently impossible, and I never walked. I rode a bus until I earned a ten-speed at age 9, then another at 12, until I bought a car, a VW Bug, when I obtained a D.L. at 16. I lived in a canyon, with a rise in elevation of 500 feet from where school was from elementary through high school to my home. We lost that home in a fire in L.A. in 1961 [actually, in Brentwood], similar to the fire in Pacific Palisades last year, lived in a rental home for 18 months while we re-built.
But the way, I, too, once lived in San Francisco. Then, it was a beautiful city [70s, 80s]. It has been allowed to become something less.
I said I was of French ancestry, not that I am presently French, and I am proud of that ancestry. I am an American citizen, and always have been, claiming no French citizenship. I have lived there, and I am fluent in the language, but it's not necessary to be French to live in France, nor to be fluent in the language, though it is convenient. Since my sojourn there was temporary, and was always intended to be temporary, I returned to the U.S., and currently still live here. Your statement is just wrong. Live with it.
If you resist USA communist programs such as Social Security and Obamacare,
You cannot combine Social Security and Obamacare. They are two separate programs with S.S. having nothing to do with being taxpayer funded, other than individually. My personal [and every other employed person's personal] contribution to S.S. is paid out of my pocket, with matching funds from my personal employers when I was employed other than self-employment, which still had personal earnings withheld for S.S. Interest is earned on those contributions as with any personal investment interest-earning account, so it's all private money, my friend, nut public. See the difference? That's not communist, but capitalist. Get it?
Oba'acare is publicly funded, and, even though I've never participated in O.C., I've been forced to contribute to fund it as part of my tax burden. If you want to call that communist, go ahead, because not a penny of it is privately funded, contrary to S.S.
Your analysis forgets an important point: Communism is, by definition - that definition being Marx/Engels' "Manifesto." It is complete "abjectly hypocritical."
Not to mention that every President since Carter said Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but words were their only weapons, and words, sometimes, are just not sufficient. Only one has had the balls to stop them. You may complain he has done so, but, what was the alternative, boyo? letting the insane run this particular asylum?
Show me how that makes any sense, whatsoever.
Diplomacy failed, period.
Yes, German is likely the king of compound words, which are called [in English] agglutinated words. Here is, I think, the ultimate example in German: Vierhundertvierundvierzigtausendvierhundertvierundvierzig.
Spoiler alert: this is not a word, per se, but a number: four hundred forty-four thousand four hundred forty-four, spelled rather than presented in numbers: 444,444. But, since it is acceptable to spell numbers, and it is agglutinated, it is grammatically legit in German.
Blame Will Conquerer
Nope, I am of French ancestry, not English, so, I welcome Will's conquest as improving English. It was Will's conquest that landed my family history in Scotland, and, 400 years later, to America, so, the French influence is a benefit in my book, since I am also fluent in French, living there for a while to appreciate the heritage.
Communism/socialism is, politically [though not necessarily economically] the same thing, and though it was a critical issue to us during the Cold War [including the 50s] it endures to this day as a contrary social order, typically failing within 40 years of inception in any government, and none of lasted greater than 100 years other than a random experiment that always fails, mainly because it does not know how to create personal wealth, and actually discourages it. Without ability to spend other peoples' money [thank you Margaret Thatcher], that system fails.
That the Democrat Party is flirting with it is dangerous.
No, I do not have a picture of McCarthy in my bathrooms nor in any other rooms, though I can be reminded of him every time I take dump.He had a proper attitude about the danger of communism, but he turned it into a useless witch hunt, not recognizing a tactical approach to combatting it in schools, one area where communism had the greatest opportunity to succeed: in diversion of young, impressionable minds. He treated school kids as if they were adults, feeding them political arguments rather than also addressing the parents at their level to listen to and inquire of their children the types of things they are learning in school. I was on elementary school own the 50s, and well remember nobody said a word about communism until I was in high school. Even then, I mostly learn3eed on my own, because no teacher handed me the communist manifesto, I had to go buy it myself to learn that it attacked family, God, and country.
At least 50%? You really think Democrats and Democrat leaners comprise 50% of us? The reality is more like 30/30/30, by registered allegiance, anyway, allowing for a roughly equal percentage of Indies, of which I am one, but also allowing for some Dem sympathizers among Repubs and Indies, I could go for 35% of us against Trump, but nowhere close to 50 "at least," implying there may really be more. Nope. Not considering the planks in the current Demo platform, which lean Communist; a far cry from the middle of the road.
It’s bad enough that school children today have a more limited exposure to education than I did in the day, going through primary and secondary education in the 50s and 60s, graduating from high school in 1967. Now, today, specifically, the teacher’s unions advocate children having the day off, a holiday on this May 1st. May 1st, boys and girls, is a communist/socialist holiday, not an American democratic republic holiday. Do children today truly understand the distinction, because it sure seems the institution of primary and secondary education in America today has forgotten that those other guys are as far from peace and freedom, and the celebration of the most successful political revolution, resulting in our United States of America is the best, longest lasting constitutional democratic republic that has ever exited on Earth. It’s not just 250 years, counting from 1776, but from principles we endeavored to establish from the landing of the Mayflower in 1620 over 400 years ago.
Have you ever read the Mayflower Compact, and for Whom the voyage to establish a Colony was done, and Who is acknowledged first, middle, and last, but merely allowing that their Sovereign, King James was in favor of their voyage? These ideals enshrined in this Mayflower document are not communist/socialist. The Mayflower predated that heinous philosophy by 228 years.
According to many people I have met around the world, having been in about 30 countries, exposed to many other languages, in my 76 years, the English language, either as the original [and for many, their only language], or as a second [or more], is a very difficulty language to learn. The faults, so I've been told, are several, beginning with the fact that English is burdened with more words [well over a million] than almost any other modern or ancient language. Most English speakers have a vocabulary of 20,000 words; a full college education may double that, and daily expected language to be considered literate is 10,000-to-15,000 words. However, daily common use, college or not, is limited to about 4,000 words.
Another problem is grammar; ours is one of the most violated grammars of many, not so much reading, but speaking. We are terrible at slurring words, which makes it difficult for foreigners to learn the language. Further, our grammar rules are legitimately broken even by following such texts as the Chicago Manual of Style, which many professional writers of fiction and non-fiction use as a standard, yet violate it all the time, mostly because even though I feel like my formative education in Los Angeles was a good one, and I was a dedicated student, I never encountered the manual of Style until I was in college. Associated with grammar is spelling [not an issue with speech], which is inconsistent in spite of rules and pronunciation.
My point is that there is a need to cut foreigners some slack while they try to learn English; their knowledge of use of their language probably exceeds our use of ours, and positively our use of theirs. Native Europeans, Slavs, Asians, and Africans have an excellent second language learning of English, much better than our efforts in their language. Our American education seems to have drifted to makes sure we understand how people feel, and not so much on what the know. As long as our students feel good, that's more important than brain training. That's no way to run an education system.
I chose fauxlaw as my user name when I first joined DA in 2020. I published a nonfiction in 2019 by the same name about interpretation of the US Constitution being as variable as making cafeteria meal choices [I use that comparison in the book] specifically by those who are sworn to uphold it most seriously, i.e., Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. I began by thinking that SCOTUS was most abusive in its interpretation, even though the Document originated in English and little more than 200 years ago, in which time the language has not altered all that much, so the document ought to be easily read and understood. I discovered, in research, that SCOTUS, after all, is the least abusive, holding to its principles more frequently than either of the other two branches, only reversing itself in decisions only 200 times [rounded] of well over 2,000 cases in its history. Compared to the other two branches, that's an admirable record.
Since, 6 years later, and a transition to Debate Craft, I still use the same username, and only changed the avatar this week, I'll have to admit my preference for avoiding change.