3RU7AL

In the words of you, “please link to” AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

LOL, if your thought process is so incoherent that you cannot connect the dots, then perhaps you should stop with the constantly declaring yourself to be more logical and rational, it’s got to be embarrassing. Let me try to dumb it down for you, try to follow along, you were blathering on and on about how anyone having faith carries a burden of proof, since it is clear that you don’t understand the definition of faith, I provided it for you.  Please try to understand that when you are discussing something with someone, you don’t just wait for your turn to talk, you read what they say and respond to it, and then they read what you said and they respond, it’s a process, there is a sequence to it.  Now carefully try to comprehend this next thing because it’s important, maybe reading very slowly will help.  Logic involves inference and grasping the interrelation or sequence of statements, if you can’t comprehend inference or how a sequence of staements are related to each other, then you just aren’t capable of being logical.  You are asserting total ignorance of the subject matter, and demonstrating that you lack even the capacity for logic, to then proclaim yourself more rational and logical is ludicrous. Now with that in mind, go back and read these conversations again, recognize the constant back and forth where I keep saying Theism is a matter of “faith” and you keep saying that faith carries a burden of proof, then try to grasp how the sentences are related to each other, then note that I provided the dictionary definition of faith; “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”, especially the last part about not being based on proof.  Now try to do that logical inference thing, and try to follow along with the sequence of statements, see if you can grasp the connections and perhaps understand logic.

“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”

atheism and reality is contradictory 

negatively characterizing the MOTIVES of your conversation partner is a text-book AD HOMINEM ATTACK

Not if there motives negatively influence there dialogue.

2.) RCV is anything but quick. Exhibit A was New York Mayoral and Exhibit B was Alaska.

1.) More voters vote with runoff voting because there are more opportunities to vote

and there is no "early voting" in a "run-off" election

False. You can early vote for a run off election in the State of Texas

it's almost impossible to absentee vote in a "run-off" election

False. In my homestate of Texas. You have 2 months to vote by absentee.

3.) You are misinformed. Alaska did have a primary election. Same with NY Mayoral.

Skin whiteners have not been very successful at ending tribalism among white nations. Whites have fought  2 world wars and now Russia invades Ukraine which could be a 3rd world war in the making.

Whites have to get to the root cause of their hatred for fellow whites.

I don't currently find myself able to agree it's objectively 'better though,

If a person values their tribe over other tribes, well, that's their value, above humanity.

Many of the old estates have been opened up to the public and their owners charge an admission fee to pay for upkeep and maintenance.

Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.

Are you saying when people agree and share the same opinion they become irrelevant?

It's too bad that no world leader foresaw this coming.

Russia did make overtures at being part of the NATO club after the wall fell.

So when you say subject to the weather, there are no opinions involved. The weather is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. But when you say something is subject to an individuals say so then that necessarily, means it is dependent on that person’s opinion.

I recap because you seem to like inventing your own conversations rather than replying to the one you’re actually engaged in.

It appears that all the time since WW2 Russian military theory has barely evolved. The age of the armored spearhead is over, the fact that it worked for the US in Iraq was a false positive.

The USD is as strong as ever.

Wut? lolz.

but this is basically like FORCING people to show up for a "run-off" which seems impossible

Many European nations have enforced voting. It's not a new concept. It's like jury duty.

You do not know what disenfranchisement is then.

Plus there are external factors for why turnout is lower for runoffs

My argument here is if you want RCV, Force voters to rank 1.2.3.4

There could be a scandal.

With more information. There is no objective benefit to doing RCV. It has been a disaster wherever it’s been done

You don’t have to take time off of work. There’s early voting, absentee.

So what? You have yet to explain why RCV is better than runoffs in any aspect.

The only way for them to be comparable is to enforce RCV voters to make choices

It is clear from the Canadian study more black teachers are needed because black students stay in school longer and get better grades. 

They are not poor but most of what they have belongs to “The Crown,” which is a term used to represent the legal position of Monarch as head of state, rather than personally or as an individual. So all the stuff like the palaces and the jewels actually belong to the state.

They were portrayed as serial killers.

You said it your self, “I said that the language used to attack them was of a kind normally reserved for serial killers.”

So retired people voting are good for democracy.

I can’t believe you think RCV and Runoffs are the same thing. I’m not against RCV. I’m against ballot exhaustion. Because your vote does not count at all. In fact it disenfranchises those who would come and vote in the runoff.

No it’s not. Run offs have a separate election process after a certain time period. Two separate elections.

This is correct, but like I said there should theoretically be a system that allows a voter's full relative preferences to be expressed without the need to consider tactics.

If you pick all four choices as the same (choice one). Then any which way you count is the winner will be choice one.

If your first choice was bad why would anyone think your second choice should be considered?

False. Runoffs are completely separate elections

If your first choice was bad why would anyone think your second choice should be considered?

RCV is unconstitutional.

The rule is “one person one vote”.

RCV allows choice up to 4 choices for every voter.

The fact that you are a champion of ranked choice voting (or so orogami implied) and don't seem familiar this dynamic lends enormous credence to my claim that the average voter did not understand the potential consequences. They probably thought "Oh ranked choice voting means I can vote for who I really want to win and it will all work out", but as I have proved that is not the case.

tactical concerns may contradict with honest preference.

If you want RCV, there should be no option for ballot exhaustion. Rank all the candidates from 1-100, so every voter has a vote. Right now the system is that you can vote, but your vote may not necessary count in the final results. How is that uphold one person one vote?

If 58,973 who preferred Palin over Begich put down Begich as their 1st choice (lying as it were)

RCV is unconstitutional imo if you allow for ballot exhaustion. If we are talking about one person, one vote. Someone who votes for Begich then Palin matter more than someone who just votes Begich. The letters vote doesn’t even count. So, even though they voted, they actually didn’t because Begich came in third, not second.

but those distinctions faded in just a couple hundred years.