|
He was one of the most corrupt and evil men that ever lived. His legacy of destruction will unfortunately long outlive him. I hope Satan has fun shoving pineapples up his ass. I don't like speaking ill of the dead, but this man deserves no courtesies. His crimes are unspeakable, and by his own words:
"if the American people ever find out what we have done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us."
Re: Waradlain,
I am happy he did some thing that coincidentally fed so many people there that needed it. However it was a trade deal, not a gift or aid or something. He did it because it was profitable, lets not canonize him over it please.
|
|
|
|
Actually expected you put some specific names here. I see here RT&Sputnik links so won't even open it because after a story with a crucified boy, no self-respecting person will ever read this trash. To understand the idiocy level, it's enough to remember that this piece hit the "Motherland" tv series as an extremely clumsy work of Russian propaganda. For those who missed this beauty https://vidos.top/v/1802268.mp4?st=6Hu2hxnX5Jgr_AP3UraGMg&e=1543578715 https://off-guardian.org/2016/11/05/ukraine-fascisms-toe-hold-in-europe/ Oleh Tyahnybok is considered a nationalist in Ukraine, but at the same time has been spotted in connections with Russians. I remind you that in 2014 it was his proposal to ban Russian language that was happily taken up by Russian propaganda and provoked violence in Donbas. Nevertheless, in 2014 his party gained 4.71% and now not even on the map. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukraine-fascists-oligarchs-eu-nato-expansionOn the 2014 annexation of Crimea, Milne wrote that "western aggression and lawless killing is on another scale entirely from anything Russia appears to have contemplated, let alone carried out – removing any credible basis for the US and its allies to rail against Russian transgressions",[89] and has described the annexation as "clearly defensive",[90] asserting that "the crisis in Ukraine is a product of the disastrous Versailles-style break-up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s".[89] Oliver Bullough, a journalist who formerly lived in Russia, disagreed with this view, asserting that "the destruction of the USSR was not some Versailles-style treaty imposed from outside. Srsly? You want me to reply that? Svoboda took a strong leadership position in the Euromaidan coup that grew from a non-violent protest to a militant takeover of the country when far-right organizers began attacking, and eventually killing 17 while injuring nearly 300 law enforcement and anti-EU demonstrators. Let's start with the fact that there were no "anti-EU demonstrators". There were people from the regions who were brought to Kyiv to the paid "rally". Author for some reason forgot to mention more than a hundred protesters killed by snipers. The Donbass War arose in 2014 when the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts took up arms against the Ukrainian junta and declared themselves independent republics There was no war between the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts and Ukrainian junta(sic). Russian military (personnel and retired) came to the region and began to seize administrative buildings. That's how it started. I won't continue because the whole article is written in this vein. I feel like I ate shit. To summarize, I want to say that you've proved that all you can do is talk rubbish based on dubious sources. Hey if you can't argue the contents, attack the source. It is a lot simpler. I am not claiming every last word in those sources are reputable, but they also contain documentation of matters of fact, events, quotes, history that can be verified via 3rd party sources. This premise is by no means some fringe conspiracy theory is the point as this is a widely held view outside of the general Western MSM echo chamber. This is covert warfare, nothing is ever going to be clearly outlined, or be exactly what it appears to be. I have nothing else to say on this topic unless you want to start a specific thread related to it, as it is too far off topic for this one. That said, once again this is yet aanother side issue and red herring to distract from the more relevant point that Crimea was a CRITICAL STRATEGIC MILITARY ASSET for Russia. Without this, their only warm water port, their navy would be largely neutered. Now this is not justification for any of their actions, past the point of maybe an argument for self preservation of the nation. Given the historical relationship between the two nations, I don't see them taking control of the military base/port as completely unexpected or unreasonable. It would be like if the US had a military base in Puerto Rico forever and it suddenly declared independence, only the US wouldn't depend on a base in Puerto Rico, Russia does depend on controlling their base in Crimea however. In such an instance I don't think many nations would try to stand in the way of the US maintaining its base if it had such a critical relationship to its national security. |
|
|
|
Ah well I tried to explain you... But if you're limited enough to think science and logic can't be done without empirical data... Most scientific questions are debated and imagined at first without empirical data, with just unproved hypothesis (assumptions) and logical reasonning. Please go to any science university to see how classes are done! Of course empirical data is, most of the time, essential to go forward and declare you managed to prove something. But to limit yourself to discuss only with empirical data... Well at least you're sure to never be wrong  Oh and just a small precision:
I am not diverting off into YET ANOTHER endless side topic with you. You will notice however physical characteristics of animals IS EMPIRICAL DATA. Thanks for refuting your own diversion for me though.
Yeah and it was collected By Darwin and Lamark AFTER they imagined their theory, took them about 10 years of field research. That's what allowed them to go from "an imagined theory" to a damned solid theory accepted by most. More Postmodernist relativist mindmush. Instead of admitting empirical data is critical to any science you make up some assbackward argument about how theory is just as important because it comes first, even thought it remains to be a theory until proven with empirical data. Because in your mind "empirical data is not required for logic or science", and this some how makes empirical data less critical to science does it? Without empirical data you can not quantify anything. Without being able to quantify anything you don't have science, you have theory, philosophy, and beliefs. You seem to want to wrap your beliefs in a layer of science to give it the appearance of credibility. This little dance you are doing to avoid stating a premise and backing it with empirical data is pretty good evidence of this. |
|
|
|
Capitalists operate under the USSR as the definition of socialism. This is a contextualization issue. You flew in a one plane 100 years ago and now you use your knowledge of that specific plane to represent the meaning of flight. Involuntary socialism is slavery. Why? Because all people are capitalistic by nature... they want to improve themselves by their own activity. Even those who volunteer into socialism do it for personally capitalistic reasons. All socialism really is, is, a stepping stone to more capitalism... especially when it is slavery. Then it is capitalism for the slave makers.  Somehow people have confused a socialist economy to mean simple redistribution where everyone makes the same earnings. I'm not sure where this one even comes from as the USSR didn't even have that. How can someone be so brainwashed to think that slavery is a socialist concept. Its as if you have never read any Marx or Engels. Socailism is all about giving people complete control of their labor. You literally cannot get any further from slavery than that. The freedom argument is strange. What capitalists insists is freedom to control other people without realizing that people cannot be free if other people have freedom to control them If you're going to think only about Soviet style systems when thinking about socialism then fine, your mind is made up, but if you're willing to take a step back and think about the actual meaning of socialism, you will see that it is only the socialist ideal that guarantees freedom over oneself to each person. Capitalism gives freedom to exploit. Well by your own arguments of what you call Socialism, inflation would be required to support subsidies. This is a form of wealth redistribution where everyone is robbed by inflation to fund those programs. He compares it to slavery because under your system, no one is ever free to truly enjoy the fruits of their own labor, because they will always be forced to pay into your subsidy programs, either by tax or hidden tax of inflation. This is not brain washing, it is common sense and logic. Its funny reading this last paragraph, if you were to replace the word "Socialism" with "Christianity", it is amusingly a very similar argument based in faith alone. Christians believe in Christ, and some atheists believe in the God of the state, Socialism. "If you're going to think only about Soviet style systems when thinking about Christianity then fine, your mind is made up, but if you're willing to take a step back and think about the actual meaning of Christianity, you will see that it is only the Christian ideal that guarantees freedom over oneself to each person." Much like I don't like religious fanatics forcing their beliefs on others, I don't like secular religious fanatics that worship the state as their God, pushing their ideology on people either. |
|
|
|
|
DNA, in spite of all we do know about it, is still to a very large degree a mystery to scientists. We really don't have a full understanding of the long term results of gene editing. There is speculation that a lot of the more modern health problems people are having are related to the body responding differently to the modified foods, resulting in inflammation leading to more serious illness, as well as epigenetic changes. In particular the new CRISPR technology is even more dangerous as it could potentially cause even more short term issues as well as unintended and uncontrolled DNA contamination.
|
|
|
|
Why present evidence for your argument about Socialism and Communism when your confidence is clearly proof enough? Also why explain the gap in my logic when you can simply make a bunch of baseless accusations about me and my personal character?
Ok ok you got a point I'm acting like an asshole here, but I'm quite enjoying it after suffering from your lack of logic and your aggressive attitude.  I really couldn't give a shit less how much of "an asshole" you choose to be. However pretending like you are making an argument by using logical fallacies and avoiding actual legitimate debate at all costs is pretty illustrative of your uninformed and childish nature. When you can make a legitimate and intellectually honest argument, I assure you I am much more amicable. Until that time I have no reasons to afford you any courtesies of personal comfort because you seek obfuscation, not truth. How can I explain this to you...
Let's take something important and largely proved today: evolution theory.
How do you think Lamark and Darwin worked on the evolution theory without any knowledge of DNA?
Well they took the work of Carl Linnaeus who devided biological species by specified physical caracteristics but who put them as fixed and definitive because divine, and combine it with Pierre Louis Maupertuis idea that spontaneous degeneration could happen during reproduction and came with the idea that maybe those spontaneous degenerations could be the reason why there are different species. That's the birth of evolution theory.
But notice that when thinking about the first version of evolution theory, Darwin and Lamark have no empirical data proving their premise. Why? Because they combine two different phenomenon into one theory that has never been studied before.
That's exactly what's happening in the thread I created, I'm talking about combining direct democracy (which we know is possible and efficient in involving people into politics such as Switzerland proved) and socialism/communism (which we know has always failed because all previous implementations needed to give all power to one government hence transformed the country in a dictatorship).
And you're asking me emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism? I am not diverting off into YET ANOTHER endless side topic with you. You will notice however physical characteristics of animals IS EMPIRICAL DATA. Thanks for refuting your own diversion for me though. I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.
So you're asking for emperical data on the success of direct democracy combined with socialism? If you are done changing the definitions of your premise sufficiently then yes, I am asking for empirical data. Amazing you want people to take your words seriously but it too this long just to get you to clarify your premise? That is not a good sign. It will be next year by the time you manage to provide any empirical data, if it even exists, which I doubt. But that's not possible! It doesn't exist and has never been done!!! Following your reasonning, you need to back up all theory with empirical data to be allowed to discuss it. It means you can't discuss about things that have never been experimented, this is not scientific reasonning this is mind limitation. Ask me how I see this system working (that's what Spendulus asked and I answered), ask me why it won't lead to a dictatorship, ask me how it will be managed in an international environment... But don't ask me empirical data, you can't have empirical data on something that doesn't exist. That's where I think you are very limited in your reasoning and are not logical. Cheers Plenty of things that have never been done are supported with empirical data before they are achieved. In fact practically EVERY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT was studied, and data collected regarding the concept BEFORE it was ever created in reality. You are not just talking about philosophy and subjective ideas, you are talking about changing objective government policy. As a result you don't get to simply use the subjective nature of the premise YOU PUSH as an excuse for not supporting HOW it would be implemented and WHY it would work, using empirical data to support your premise. PRESENT A PREMISE ABOUT COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM AND SUPPORT IT WITH EMPIRICAL DATA. Until you do this you have no argument and this is all just an extremely complicated dance you do to do ANYTHING BUT present a clear premise, because then you would have to defend it, and you are not confident you can. |
|
|
|
|
The rumor is their cartel is finally being cracked and they are being forced to liquidate their holdings.
|
|
|
|
My thread is still alive but definitely went the wrong way. put in place actual open fascists...
I know that you like to demand proof so now it's my time to ask. This is quite bold statement, so I'm sure that you got some. I can prove the fascism, but I think what you are asking is for me to prove that Western intelligence agencies overthrew the elected government. This is always going to be largely debatable due to the very nature of the business of this criminal activity, and the need for plausible deniability, but I think you know this and are taking advantage of this situation. If you want information regarding fascism in the Ukraine let me know I will provide sources. If you actually have interest in the details of how it was done start a thread about the topic and I will chime in, however I suspect you did this to try to give the impression that I don't meet my own standards of evidence. The difference is this is a related side issue, not the core topic of discussion, and I demand evidence for direct arguments in support of a premise. You are nitpicking a tertiary issue of a somewhat casual discussion. I won't start anything. You came to my thread with a serious allegation, I expect that you have strong evidence of this since we can't assume that your an empty windbag. So again please put in place actual open fascists...
I already responded to your criticism, and stated I am more than willing to discuss it. Due to the inherently speculative nature of how real world intelligence operations operate systematically erasing as much data leaving a trail to them as possible, a discussion about this would be quite expansive to the point of being quite off topic in this thread, something which I am not willing to risk to satiate your demands. If you start another thread to discuss this side topic in more detail I would be glad to there, I will however not be addressing it further here. Anyways lets start with what is already in the open: http://liberationschool.org/the-roots-of-fascism-in-ukraine/https://off-guardian.org/2016/11/05/ukraine-fascisms-toe-hold-in-europe/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukraine-fascists-oligarchs-eu-nato-expansionhttps://medium.com/@gmochannel/us-staged-a-coup-in-ukraine-brief-history-and-facts-898c6d0007d6https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22758-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kievObama admitted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” https://www.rt.com/op-ed/228379-obama-power-transition-ukraine/https://sputniknews.com/news/201502021017670687/https://www.rt.com/news/233439-us-meddling-ukraine-crisis/https://www.rt.com/news/158800-us-biden-ukraine-gas/Ron Paul: Western powers fomenting Ukrainian conflict, US should ‘stay out’ https://www.rt.com/usa/156512-ron-paul-ukraine-war/ |
|
|
|
I know exactly what your point was, and I did it anyway just to prove how fucking lazy and disingenuous you are refusing to support your own arguments.
I've never refused. You simply have never asked me to prove a specific argument you're just saying "you're not proving your premise". Please do the work I've done for you and list the hypothesis you want me to prove and I'll kindly oblige. I see so the fact that you refuse to state a clear premise is my fault now is it? I have actually asked you to state your premise several times, but every time I examine it critically suddenly "thats not what I meant" again, and it shifts. Frankly if you can't even state a premise you feel comfortable standing behind either you are completely disindigenous or you are ignorant on what you speak. Of course everyone sees you do this to avoid having to support an idea you KNOW you can't support. Also to prove the point that I don't just make shit up because it sounds good like you do. Civilized people debate using facts and empirical data. Asking for proofs of your premise is literally all I have been asking for you to do but this seems to be beyond your abilities otherwise you would have done it by now.
EMPIRICAL DATA IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.
Yes, agreed. Of scientific TRUTH. Not of scientific debate, scientific logic, scientific work... You need empirical data to say "ok, we're sure it works that way" not to say "hey does it work that way?" Actually yes Scientific debate, yes scientific work. You chide me and insinuate I have never had any experience with science, yet you think empirical data is not a critical part of scientific work and debate. Also, yes, you do need empirical data to answer the question "hey does it work this way?". You go ahead and pretend your subjective Postmodernist deconstructivist cancer
Ahah no idea wtf is that I know you have no idea what that is, because your ideology is specifically designed to prevent you from looking into ideas that would threaten its primacy over the loose collection of a few dozen cells you call your brain. is equivalent to logic and empirical data, but it is not.
Never said it was Yet you try to argue that subjective information alone is sufficient for finding truths by dismissing the very concept of burden of proof, or even arguing a clear premise! Either you care enough about the topic to support your arguments, or you don't, but lets not pretend demanding empirical data is extraordinary.
When the thing we talk about doesn't exist, it's quite extraordinary ^^ I am glad you have finally admitted you have no empirical data to back up your premise, you could have saved a lot of time and energy doing this sooner. If the premise you support has ZERO empirical data to support it, just perhaps it is a bad idea with little basis in reality, and you should get another one to advocate for. Either that or identify your discussion as a philosophical one and stop trying to pretend any of your ideas have the backing of science, reality, or history. |
|
|
|
My thread is still alive but definitely went the wrong way. put in place actual open fascists...
I know that you like to demand proof so now it's my time to ask. This is quite bold statement, so I'm sure that you got some. I can prove the fascism, but I think what you are asking is for me to prove that Western intelligence agencies overthrew the elected government. This is always going to be largely debatable due to the very nature of the business of this criminal activity, and the need for plausible deniability, but I think you know this and are taking advantage of this situation. If you want information regarding fascism in the Ukraine let me know I will provide sources. If you actually have interest in the details of how it was done start a thread about the topic and I will chime in, however I suspect you did this to try to give the impression that I don't meet my own standards of evidence. The difference is this is a related side issue, not the core topic of discussion, and I demand evidence for direct arguments in support of a premise. You are nitpicking a tertiary issue of a somewhat casual discussion. |
|
|
|
Oh my god you actually did xD The whole point was to show you how innefficient, useless and not intuitive asking for empirical data for everything you say is! Not to make you do it! You didn't do it at first because that's not very useful and that's how civilized people debate. You exchange each other reasonning and only when you disagree or don't believe a precise point of their argumentation you ask for specific proofs on this specific topic. Asking someone to back every premise he states with empirical data is NOT useful and is NOT constructive and NOT the "standard". It might be your but it's yours only. Concerning your points I can't really discuss them cause most of your sources aren't available in european countries  Not your fault of course, I just can't say much about them as I can't access the articles... I know exactly what your point was, and I did it anyway just to prove how fucking lazy and disingenuous you are refusing to support your own arguments. Also to prove the point that I don't just make shit up because it sounds good like you do. Civilized people debate using facts and empirical data. Asking for proofs of your premise is literally all I have been asking for you to do but this seems to be beyond your abilities otherwise you would have done it by now. EMPIRICAL DATA IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. You go ahead and pretend your subjective Postmodernist deconstructivist cancer is equivalent to logic and empirical data, but it is not. Either you care enough about the topic to support your arguments, or you don't, but lets not pretend demanding empirical data is extraordinary. |
|
|
|
So do you plan on supporting your premise, or are you content with jerking off in public over your delusion of correctitude in a sad attempt to "fake it till you make it?"
Oh no I'm pretty content with my current attitude  I believe there is everything needed in this thread already. If somebody else doesn't understand where is your mistake... No where is the abyssal gap between reality and your understanding, I'll explain it. But right now there is everything needed in the previous posts. You never worked in science or made any kind of science studies did you? Why present evidence for your argument about Socialism and Communism when your confidence is clearly proof enough? Also why explain the gap in my logic when you can simply make a bunch of baseless accusations about me and my personal character? |
|
|
|
Yes, and? GM is moving overseas because they are failing. They are failing because people aren't buying the cars they are producing. People aren't buying cars because the value of the currency has been so debased, no one trusts the economic system any more. As a result people aren't taking risks and starting business that would employ people and allow them to afford to buy more vehicles.
Just popping by to make you notice how funny it is that TECSHARE refuses any kind of argument or hypothesis which is not backed up by at least 3 different sources of raw data (not infographic mind you cause that can be manipulated, raw data only please) and still in a single paragraph you find 10 different hypothesis or logical links that are backed up nothing but his good faith: 1-GM is failing 2-GM is moving overseas BECAUSE they're failing 3-People aren't buying the cars they're producing 4-GM is failing BECAUSE people aren't buying the cars they're producing 5-People aren't buying cars 6-No one trusts the economic system 7-It's because currency is heavily debased 8-People aren't buying cars because they don't trust the economic system 9-People aren't starting businesses 10-Starting businesses is what provides economy with jobs Funny thing is that you're exactly "debating" like this asking everyone to prove with empirical data EVERYTHING they say. Sounds ridiculous right? Well that's what you do, but in a less organized way because you don't even take the time to separate the different hypothesis you're asking other ones to prove. At least it would make it possible to move forward... In your paragraph I'd say numbers 2/5/7/8/9 are false at least. But hey, burden of proof isn't on you of course  Now you need to make up lies about me to make your arguments? 3 sources eh? I don't recall ever demanding a specific number of sources for anything but please feel free to quote me (not that you can because it never happened). This is just your SOP. I ask for people to state a clear premise and back that premise with empirical data yes. This is the standard by which practically any professional operates from. The difference between you and me is that I ask for empirical data in relation to the core topic, while you use this deconstructivist method to endlessly divert the discussion on to side topics in a pathetic and refractory attempt to "hold me to my own standards". Really all it is though is a sad divisive move designed to use up as much time and energy as possible WITHOUT actually refuting any of my core arguments, supporting any of your own premises, or providing a drop of empirical data. Hey but just for fun to demonstrate how perpetually misinformed you are to everyone else, here are some sources: 2-GM is moving overseas BECAUSE they're failing https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2018/11/27/economists-advice/2120444002/https://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/general-motors-fail-article-1.374800https://fox17online.com/2018/11/26/gm-to-close-canadian-plant-but-thats-just-the-beginning/5-People aren't buying cars https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/03/01/february-2018-u-s-auto-sales/384210002/http://www.autonews.com/article/20180709/RETAIL/180709775/gm-car-sales-sedan-crossoverhttp://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/13667/used-car-values-are-plummeting-faster-and-faster-across-america-report-claimshttp://www.autonews.com/article/20170720/OEM01/170729956/uaw-gm-talking-about-impact-of-slumping-car-sales-on-u.s.-jobs7-It's because currency is heavily debased https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/08/-us-inflation-is-the-worlds-most-important-economic-variable.htmlhttp://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com/index.php/easyblog/entry/3-ways-how-inflation-destroys-an-economyhttps://thedailycoin.org/2018/11/04/inflation-is-destroying-the-middle-class-blame-the-fed-video/8-People aren't buying cars because they don't trust the economic system This is a misinterpretation of my words. The debating of the economy results in less risk being taken by would be business owners who would otherwise be employing people, enabling them to afford to buy more cars. 9-People aren't starting businesses https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/02/12/the-decline-of-american-entrepreneurship-in-five-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6abcb8ffdce0https://www.coastal.edu/media/administration/honorsprogram/pdf/Alyssa%20Sharples.pdf |
|
|
|
....
There is nothing in common between SA government and Chinese communism. ANC is part of the socialism international which goal is to implement democratic socialism, not communism.....
Yet one more argument laced with misunderstanding about "democratic socialism." But leaving that aside, let's look at the "nothing in common" assertion. Mutual interests are what they have in common, right?Ah yeah sorry. Nothing in common was too broad and carefree. Anyway they have at least the hate of capitalism in common. China is as communist as South African Blacks are Japanese. LOL. China is 6th in the world in number of millionares and second in the number of billionares. Nothing communist about that. The Politburo is run by capitalist billionares. https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-most-millionaires-2017-4#6-china-13https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionairesIn South Africa, Chinese are after resources. Nothing to do with politics. South African Blacks are too stupid to understand the communist ideology (just like you) and they think they will get stuff for free and the system will magically provide for them, their children and grandchildren. They are driven by the hatered of whites and are looking for something new. And there comes communism. This will lead to disaster. The infrastructure will collapse, the crime will skyrocket. Capital will leave the country. Their credit rating will collapse. South Africa will be on the chopping block sooner rather than later. I assume what you mean to say was that China is not what Communism claims its goals are openly. However in reality it is exactly what Communism was created for to begin with, enriching and empowering an elite class of bankers. Marx was a big fan Hegel and the Hegelian dialectic, and it shows in the ideologies stemming from his work as they show a self contradictory concept by nature, almost exclusively. |
|
|
|
What happened to all that ignoring you were gonna do? Oh right, you don't actually mean anything you say, you just use words to make you feel like you won something.
I am glad you find the foundational concepts of logic to be so hilarious.
Can't ignore that, man, sorry really that's not charitable of me But god So do you plan on supporting your premise, or are you content with jerking off in public over your delusion of correctitude in a sad attempt to "fake it till you make it?" |
|
|
|
What happened to all that ignoring you were gonna do? Oh right, you don't actually mean anything you say, you just use words to make you feel like you won something. I am glad you find the foundational concepts of logic to be so hilarious. |
|
|
|
Opening with a personal attack, always a good sign of a logical argument. You use the word logic as a shield and a cudgel, yet the prime tenet of logic is if you present a premise, you have the burden to prove your premise is true. Anyone who payed attention in a high school level debate class is crystal clear where the logic lies here.
You can't back up your premise, therefore you must rely on personal attacks and false claims of lacking logic in order to not appear totally ineffectual.
The guy asks for empirical data of how efficient socialist direct democracy is and he talks about logic I'm not even remotely sorry. If you hadn't been such an arrogant aggressive person previously I would have explained how what you're saying is not only a nonsense but also a proof of your inability to think. But considering your previous behaviour you'll have to wait for someone nicer than me to explain it to you xD I am sorry that you are so emotionally weak that my words alone offend you so much you can not muster a reply. I am sure this is just not some refractory excuse to cover for the fact that you have no reply, no, it is because of what I DID. Yeah, what a loon, asking for you to substantiate your ideology which has resulted in millions of lives lost, with some form of material fact. I should know better right? This is Postmodern loony tune land where logic is whatever you say it is at any given moment and everything is subjective and equally unprovable. Again, you are making a premise. You hold the burden to prove that premise with empirical data. Real simple, day one stuff in pretty much any science, debate, or logic class. |
|
|
|
-complete nonsense without even one source or one new argument while avoiding answering mine-
Sorry my bad I was a bit triggered by your new thread and tried to discuss again with you. It was a mistake as you're just either a lier either a complete moron. I've taken the time to put your arguments one by one with an explanation and you don't even have the courtesy of answering me. I don't see the point of going further and put you back on ignore that was my mistake for giving you another chance, won't do it again. Please don't hesitate to think you've "won this debate" and let anyone see how irrelevant your answers were. You're litteraly not answering me, you just vomit your nonsense over and over again. You make no effort whatsoever to stay focus or cohrent. You're not here to debate. I stop losing my time with you. Unless you try to actually go forward by stopping writing as if you were alone but rather take the time to build your reasonning in formal and separated arguments contructed in a logical way (which means an hypothesis, a proof of that hypothesis, and a logical reasoning leading to a conclusion) I'll let you alone. I take the time to answer every statement you made point by point and I am not answering you? I think you mean you do not like that I am refuting your arguments. That was quite a bit of text for some one who was "not answering you". I am not here to debate? What? First of all why do you get to tell me what I am here for? Second, isn't debate pretty much the entire purpose of this section so good ideas can be elevated in the marketplace of ideas? Separated arguments? Basically what you are saying to me is, I didn't break down each individual response into an easily digestible nugget of text for you, therefore it is not logical? Are you sure that you aren't just triggered by seeing anything more than a paragraph full of text? You keep accusing me of not following logic and reason with no basis then exhibit none of these qualities yourself. You have fun ignoring me, hopefully you will be kept safe from ideas that offend you. I am going to keep replying to your senseless arguments though, and keep deconstructing them using logic, critical thought, and empirical data. I look forward to not having to dance through your field of logically fallacious mental gymnastics as you find new and creative ways to appear as if you refuted my criticisms. |
|
|
|
Yeah actually, if you expect to have any scientific credibility, you are REQUIRED TO SUPPORT YOUR PREMISE WITH EMPIRICAL DATA. 100% proof for anything doesn't exist, and no I didn't ask for it. Why don't you start by presenting ANY scientifically sound empirical data?
You skipped over a very important word within scientific method. It is empirical data. You test the hypothesis by collecting empirical data, changing a variable, and documenting more empirical data of the results. Simulations, predictions, estimations, and theories do not count as empirical data.
And the curves I gave are not empirical data because? Because it in no way demonstrates humans are the cause, this is simply an assumption on your part. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
