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.

Right, so now Florida and California are not real places you can go to, they are concepts. yeah. ok. This is a perfect example again of your Postmodernist mind mush. You aren't wrong, all you need to do is describe the premise into such a contradictory way until you are right again! You are a walking example of the Hegelian Dialectic.

Your pretty picture is subjective, and so are the topics within it. Your continuation of presenting false choice fallacies again is not a support of your argument.





Not the only argument, but yet another argument you have been unable to refute. Printing money does steal buying power from the currency holders. Just because it is standard procedure already doesn't make it good or acceptable. By that logic since the system of Capitalism we operate under is standard procedure, we should keep being Capitalist. Again, I never advocated for inflation, you did as a requirement for your implementations of Socialism.




The buying power of the dollar has plummeted over the last 50 years. What is so bad about that is people who work and save for a lifetime suddenly find their savings are worth a small fraction of what they worked for. What is so bad about that is you have to debase the ENTIRE ECONOMY to do this. It is like cutting off your legs below the knee, and taping them on top of your head then telling everyone to look at how much taller you are.

The value of the dollar constitutionally is a very specific amount of gold and silver. Over time this backing was removed and we entered into a system that essentially was backed by the utility of being easy to use for buying and selling oil. Over the years they have just printed so much money though the economy is completely debased and a global economic collapse is now unavoidable. You create a magic button that prints money and expect it not to be abused? Please.

When people do it its called counterfeiting, when banks do it its called "quantitative easing".





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.

This system is what makes the use of natural resources most efficient. Jobs that aren't creating profit are not creating resources, they are only burning them. Simply consuming is not the path to a functional economy.






Actually, this is exactly what you advocated:

"...Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

Here your logical progression is, if we simply pay people more, they will spend more and the economy will be better! That is like someone telling you they have a huge credit card bill and you suggest they use their credit card to pay it off. The initial profit and resources still have to come from somewhere and can not just be invented into existence without theft via inflation, or some other form of theft of rights.


   



I am against pure democracy. Mobs do not make smart choices and are easily lead around because they don't make the effort to be informed and have no problem pretending to be. More importantly the rights of the marginalized, minorities, and individuals are sacrificed by the dictate of the majority.



Oh it has been done? Where, your precious go to one hit wonder Marcora laws that I already broke down as being capitalist in nature except for the government subsidies? I have mentioned exactly rights that will be taken. Property rights. Since all rights are forms of property rights, this is pretty fucking important. The right to have a dollar remain to be worth a dollar. The right to not be stolen from via inflation, confiscation, or taxation to fund ever expanding handouts.

I find it so cute when people like you take the "big words" they found most impressive out of my speech, and try to throw them back at me in a refractory manner, the whole time never even bothering to look up the definition of the word.

That word makes no sense in the context of that statement, and I used the term "operant conditioning" to describe your tendency to simply repeat yourself over and over in the hope that people will hear it enough times to just accept it via brute force much like a musical jingle in a commercial that gets stuck in your head.

This demonstrates to me you think language is just some kind of superficial game we engage in and the one who has the most sophistic skill wins, not that there is any kind of logic, critical thought, or meaning behind these words that determine their veracity. Of course why would I expect anything different from you Captain Postmodern?

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.

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.

It is the start of a cult because you just expect we accept your ideology without proof. This is appeal to popularity/appeal to authority. Also, the little fact that correlation does not equal causation, and the several leaks revealing the manipulated numbers.

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.

Proof I am lying? What? You said exactly what I quoted. The fact that you said self contradictory things within your own statement is only evidence of your own duplicity. It was a logical fallacy, or a red herring, because it was simply used as a way to escape having to reply to the rest of the more solid objective criticisms. Your self serving interpretation of my words is not proof of anything except you are desperate to feel like you had a win.

Uh, Capitalism is not a new invention, it is ancient. Lets start with a simple question, how old is money? Pretty fucking old. Furthermore even animals have demonstrated the ability to barter on a basic level, demonstrating there is a natural precedent for Capitalism.

People who work more and are more skilled are more likely to succeed compared to those who lack skills and work less hard. Not an empty statement at all, it is merely a very simple concept.

Regarding "my burden of proof" there, you would of course pitch the example of the absolutely least skilled workers in jobs intelligent people know are dead ends and claim it is an example of the failure of a system of the most highly skilled and hardest workers. Is it really a failure of the system or a failure of the worker to invest time and energy into raising their marketplace value?

Meritocracy is an extension of supply and demand. The most skilled workers get paid the most because they are the most in demand as a result of the profits they can enable to be captured. Furthermore the price signalling mechanism built into this basic economics concept allows the true value of this labor to be telegraphed openly and modified real time as the market conditions change.

Of course this is again just another distraction while you demand I prove every little statement I make over and over again while you bob and weave between the arguments you have no reply to, avoiding your own burden of proof.

My source for the nature vs nurture debate is just an example. This debate is literally first day material in any basic psychology course. This is by any definition not a settled debate, and your claims otherwise are fallacious.

Genetic abilities are NOT "distributed in a rather uniform way throughout humanity". This is another premise I know you will avoid proving. There is however plenty of evidence showing there are intelligence curves that peak at differing levels that are directly correlated by race, even after accounting for quality of life and other economic and societal factors.

This is irrelevant however because you are making this wild claim, and I KNOW for a fact you can't prove it. Since your refutation of my argument completely relies on your premise that genetics and environment have equal influence, the support for your premise fails. Also, you just made the argument environment is more important than genetics, not equal to it. Contradict yourself much? I guess it is just too painful to admit you were wrong on this point you need to slowly shift the goal posts to maintain the illusion of credibility.

It seems to me that intelligence operatives within the US and EU establishment cartels moved to overthrow the government of Ukraine and put in place actual open fascists... until that point Russia had no reason to "take Crimea back". However as it is Russia's only warm water port it is of critical strategic military importance, and letting it fall into the sphere of US/EU influence was unacceptable to Russia. Given as how Ukraine was never expected to be divided in this way, I am not at all shocked Russia seized Crimea as the West creeps further East.

You tell me about how you have proof then proceed to immediately tell me about your beliefs.  I have exceptional reading comprehension and have been reading everything you have been saying. Are you actually arguing one who presents a premise does not have a burden of proof?

You are still presenting a premise with a burden of proof. This is day one logic and debate. Refusing to support your premise is not productive because it is illogical by every standard of discourse that is accepted as valid.

I understand the phenomena that brought Trump into office, it is one happening all over the world. It is important because this is the premise by which the establishment chooses to attempt to delegitimize Trump, and deny that his actions are by mandate of the people. They are also pushing the rhetoric of violence and civil war to the point people are physically attacking people just for wearing a MAGA hat. There have also been attempted assassinations and serious life threatening assaults on Republican lawmakers. It is important because their entire argument hinges on the lie that Russia was involved in putting Trump into office, and not the mandate of the people. I agree the argument is counterproductive, but I am not one who agrees with the premise Russia had any serious influence over getting Trump elected.

Obama deciding not to enforce the law is not the same thing as the law changing.



Beginning as usual starting off with an insult and a personal attack, always a sign of a rational level headed individual. I didn't intend to even reference the agreement you are referencing, so I am not sure how I got it wrong. The words I used are perfectly logical and clearly deliver the message I intended to deliver. Actually the law is crystal clear, the USA first of all has ultimate authority deciding who may enter the country as a sovereign nation, and the authority of the executive branch over this is also very clear. Your entire argument consists of calling me a retard and claiming I was wrong about things I never even mentioned.

"Under international law, asylum seekers are encouraged to apply for relief or legal status in the first country available to them, but it is not an obligation.

Similarly under U.S. law. Central American migrants technically have no obligation to apply for asylum in Mexico, contrary to the president's tweet. However, it is often a factor considered by immigration judges in deciding whether or not to grant asylum or permanent resettlement. In other words, some immigration judges will reject asylum claims if a person had the practical ability to apply for asylum or another legal status before reaching the United States."

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/trumps-asylum-restrictions-shift-migration-pressures-to-mexico

In summary, the asylum process was designed as a relief from immediate threats to ones life, most specifically due to government oppression. Living in a poor country with no infrastructure is not a valid claim for asylum. This in mind, judges who see that these people have demonstrated material evidence of applying for asylum in the US for economic reasons, not for reasons of immediate threat as demonstrated by passing through a third nation offering asylum to get here, are perfectly within the law rejecting these claims.

I see, so you are arguing Socialism/Communism COULD be good by telling us all about how great it COULD be. You are still offering A PREMISE of which a BURDEN OF PROOF is attached to.

Now that you have used your red herring distraction card, what about the rest of the criticism? Or are you just going to run from that too?

What you mean to say is you don't want the ones who can effectively refute your arguments. "Polluting" your pure thread with my politically incorrect ideas am I? Sounds familiar.

You know what that process you just detailed is called? In debate it is known as "burden of proof". This means you have presented the premise that Socialism/Communism are good, therefore you are the one who has the requirement in logical debate to support your premise with empirical data. This is the base law by which all forms of debate and science operate off of.

If you find the exchange non-constructive I suggest you get a better argument than "I'm not talking about this", because by the rules of any kind of logical examination you fail to support your premise based on this fact alone. You are literally refusing to address direct criticism of it and using the subjective nature of the topic to pretend the criticisms have no logic.

I see so, your success is your own, and you earned it, but his success is luck? Meritocracy serves EVERYONE by making sure the people who are the best at their jobs are the ones doing those jobs. You suffer from the delusion that society created nature, not that nature created society. You are in effect saying that thousands of years of human history were wrong, we just now invented a better way that you can't really explain in detail, but trust me its great! Bold claims require bold substantiation, especially when you are talking about meddling with the bedrock of our economy.

Not all success is self made, and neither are all failures. However more often than not the people who strive the hardest and the most skill are more likely to succeed. "Social studies" have not "proven humans are more determined by their environment than by themselves." You are talking about a well known and ancient debate over the question of nature vs nurture. A debate that has been going on for thousands of years and still continues until this day in spite of your unilateral declaration of its conclusion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201710/nature-versus-nurture-where-we-are-in-2017

This is just par for the course for you though. You use a strict policy of responding with logical fallacies while accusing your opponent of the same deeds you yourself are committing straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals". You accuse others of not using logic then proceed to rely on assumptions, ad hominem attacks, and refractory responses.

You claim the link is obvious and just expect us to accept it as fact. That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult. Might I also add, as the person pushing the anthropogenic climate change theory, the burden of proof is on you to do so, not vice versa demanding people refute your unsubstantiated claims.

They ABSOLUTELY do believe in Communism, and my impression of China is accurate. Xi even sees himself as a new version of Mao, creating his own school of thought to enshrine himself with the "great leader". China's current form of colonialism is by using fraud to create "dark money" then exporting that money internationally to buy up vital resources, ports, and real estate that make the local populations dependent on them.

I never claimed China was wholesale exporting Communism, but they are doing quite a fine job of indoctrinating the youth here in the US by maintaining huge influence in the academic systems here. The idea of Communism being a good thing is suddenly popular again, I am sure this is just a coincidence right? They absolutely do push Communism, they are just more covert about it now days.

If you want to do an economic breakdown of how absolutely Communist China is I would be glad to, but I think you and I both really know they are.

Since m0gliE can't engage in an actual debate without being able silence ideas he disagrees with, I thought I would post my replies to comments here as he deleted them. Perhaps people can engage in an actual debate this way, and not just have some childish club where leftists stand around and reassure each other of their correctitude, normalizing increasingly erratic behavior.

I am sure you would prefer the whole internet be sanitized from ideas you dislike like they do on Facebook and Twitter, but most of us don't..

Also I find it extra hilarious that he deletes all my comments while leaving his replies with my quotes up as if that makes my replies go away some how xD

I guess he finally realized he has no argument in reply so he has to try to keep me from being able to even argue against him, that's how weak his arguments are, but this is standard behavior from the left now days. Free speech, as long as you agree with me.

Funny how Democrats always rely on refractory comments like a crutch. You know what that tells me? The conservatives are winning, and the left knows it, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to emulate our words and tactics

We all know which party is the default party of lack of awareness, let alone self awareness. Well see how many of those thousands of mysterious ballots just "found" out of nowhere will show up in 2020 I predict a lot less. Especially after the prosecutions for voter fraud from the mid-terms are filed. Like you said, never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake...



My system? Oh right you don't even live here but claim some kind of authority and knowledge over the goings on here. I am not advocating civil war, but when a country votes for a president, a lie about Russia being behind him is sold, and the people who sold it then take power, what do you think is going to happen? Trump didn't delegitimize the government, the Democrats did because they insisted on not accepting the results of the election and essentially declaring the government illegitimate while pushing narratives of revolution and violence in resistance. You have fun LAARPing while you can, the real civil war will not be this much fun for you, even up in canukistan.

Yeah, polls are never bias. Like those polls saying Hillary was going to win with a 90% or more odds. Also this wasn't a presidential election, so you keep dreaming.

That is the difference between the left and the right. The left can only think 1 step ahead at most. The Democrats were HANDED the house by having several criminally complicit RINOs step down, leaving many would be solidly held Republican districts up for grabs unopposed. Congrats, you can win when no one else is running against you

Why do this you might ask? Well let me tell you! This is to set the stage for 2020, as well as make sure that even when Trump is finally out of office, he will take a bunch of the criminal cartel within our government out before then. The idea is give the Democrats incentives to commit voter fraud, document it, and then wrap up all complicit parties nice and tight, freeing up 2020 for a nice election relatively free of fraud. You keep counting those chickens before they hatch. I am sure it will all work out.

This scenario also helps keep all the insane mobs on the left from flipping out by easing them into the idea they lost power so they simply don't just start the civil war themselves out of a tantrum over the fact people didn't vote the way they wanted.