3RU7AL

And all women should be aware that they have participated in unprotected sexual intercourse.

I wish that none of those people were winning primaries. Does it bother you at least a little bit that the Democratic Party has spent millions boosting “election deniers” because they think they’ll be easier to beat? 

Let’s try this again. Do you believe in the idea that the people should be able to choose who represents them within their government?

The question becomes, what is it expanding into?

Who's the best debater here? I wish to challenge them.

But cellular life is not = to personhood.

Nothing is perfectly safe. I would say that on balance early term abortion is likely safer than carrying a baby to term for the mother for her long-term health.

Do you believe in democracy?

Without any depth of consideration I have always assumed that you were human.

Foolish perhaps?

Therefore you did "that" without consideration or effort.

Again, not all ad hominems are true ad hominems when factually accurate. 

i agree with you that the republicans are dangerous

but they are NOT "more" dangerous than the democrats

Do you believe in democracy?

Another Ad-hominem attack, and appeal to authority

And worse - if anyone dares to suggest anything that actually harms the interests of that elite - wealth tax, corporate tax, more oversight, patent reform, breaking up too successful companies, empowering unions to bolster individuals economic power, reduce military spending. The right, and all their supporters - all suddenly bat for that elite - due to the collective dependence upon them. “We must do something about the elites - except anything - we can’t do anything against the elites - that would be radical socialism - and would harm the economy”

 and who frequently pushes, and often pass laws and changes antithetical to the power of that oligarchies.

solely because of the constant and repeated whataboutism and misinformation from the right,

So even on these grounds - this should be a clear cut reason that even if all the other stuff above is not true - if RCV is your main goal - then you should absolutely support democrats - they’re the ones that are primarily pushing it.

If you feel that my reasoning is because of what I’m being told by the democrat - then you absolutely and clearly have not understood a single word of any of my posts in this thread.

Correct - but it will, of course, prevent them from taking over. Even if I accept the premise - the choice is not oligarchy, vs oligarchy - it’s “oligarchy” vs “oligarchy that may well deteriorate into authoritarianism”.

There is no scenario where we could be guaranteed a particular outcome by getting rid of a large block of voters, unless the intent was to deprive that voting block of their prosperity or basic rights.

you're looking for a book club not debate

I would therefore further suggest that actually and without consideration, you accept that I am human, rather than actually invoking the necessity of belief.

Belief is an imaginative hypothesis not founded on the basis of factual knowledge.

the accusation that Jeb Bush (George W. Bush's brother) who was the governor of Florida at the time, somehow influenced the court decisions in favor of his brother.

AI systems do not have common sense knowledge

Let’s stop arguing about how bad the cowsh*t is, whilst not mentioning that there is a bomb containing TNT in the room too - and defuse the bomb on the right containing the TNT.

I feel we are talking at two different levels. Practical and theoretical. In some theoretical future with no consideration of how to get from A to B: does the party political system need to be completely overhauled, and new parties exist and share power: I have some concerns - but I largely agree. I am not talking about the theoretical in this thread, but the very immediate practical political environment we are in today.

Ranked Choice Voting?

If you want clarification then you need to ask them further do you believe in anything or practice anything spiritual.

and the PRIMARY definition is the first one listed (in dictionaries)

I know this was said before in the debate comments but the order of listing in most dictionaries depends on frequency of use.

When WIKTIONARY defines ATHEISM as

atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)

1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
   
2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
   
3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
   
4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
   

that means that your preference comes third in terms of common usage.

When LEXICO and WEBSTER combine the first and third meanings, that brings usage to the top

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [LEXICO]

Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [WEBSTER]

• Your premise was quickly disproved.
  

Again, If I have to choose between you and Asimov to define any word, I am going with Asimov every time.

• It is irrational to infer "A is never B" from the statement "A is an element of the set AB"
  

Asimov disagrees. 

• Two months ago, I explained to you that there's no such thing as primary definition.  There are strict definitions and broad definition and a broad definition must never replace the strictest (most semantically specific) meaning of any word.
  

• Your OP stated:
  
• (IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
  
• Your premise was quickly disproved.
  

Except that as demonstrated above, lacking belief in a deity is not mutually exclusive to disbelieving in a deity.

Those practices do not incorporate or require a belief in a deity.

Nope. Just vocalizing an observation. 

That is what an axiom is, an inescapable premise.

Clearly your comprehension of understanding each term and their usage is subpar. 

another ad hominem attack

Nope. Observation. Not all ad hominems are true ad hominems. 

As such, I think we might want to defer to el Maestro's word choice here as correct and appropriate.

argumentum ad verecundiam

Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy (argument from inappropriate authority): an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside of the authority's special field of expertise.

Since I made a lot of effort to demonstrate that Asimov is one of the all time greatest authorities on the proper use of the word reason, your knee-jerk resort to claims of fallacy without understanding how that fallacy functions is silly and super fucking fallacious itself.

I said:

• Logic describes a system, a methodology that informs REASON.
  

Oxford said:

• [REASON] forms "judgments by a process of logic."
  

These statements are in agreement.  What are you failing to understand?

They need jobs which would be stealing from poor Americans.

Not going to happen because in addition to being a worker, every undocumented immigrant is also a customer.  Workers take jobs from the economy, yet customers produce them at a proportional rate.  America has the most number of undocumented immigrants ever in our history for the most part and for the most part, the lowest unemployment rate, even after the libs fucked up the economy due to COVID.  The undocumented don’t cause the unemployment rate to rise.

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. [WIKI]

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [LEXICO]

Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [OXFORD]

Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [WEBSTER]

And what was my reply the first time you made this point?

rea·son

verb

1. think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
   

   "humans do not reason entirely from facts"
   

Precisely.