Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
What are you trying to say?
That most of the people ranting about Biden's health cover up are massive hypocrites
Obesity has nothing to do with cancer or mental acuity. What about Churchill? He was overweight.
You should pay closer attention before responding.
My point had nothing to do with a tie between obesity and leadership, I am talking about the extent to which the political right has in real life gone far beyond that which they are acusing the left of. I use the weight example not because it is critical, but because it's objective and cartoonishly ridiculous. The point there is to highlight the fact that they lie openly and without abandon when it comes to the dear leader's state.
We can debate his cognitive capabilities all day and I for one would love to have that discussion, but if you are a Trump supporter the point is that you don't get to pretend that your preferred team is any more honest than what you are acusing Biden's team of.
Once the republican party coalesced against things like civility, maturity, professionalism, democracy, and the very idea of knowing what you're doing (aka expertise), yeah... Since that became the divide in our politics my side is predetermined.No one is a real professional. Are you living in a fantasy land?
What on earth are you talking about? What is a "real" professional?
I'm talking about the base level qualities we used to be able expect from every politician. Now we have an entire political party that suddenly decided these are not only qualities not worth aspiring for, they're not even preferable. Now people who have no idea what they're talking about get rebranded as trustworthy and people who do know what they're talking about because they've been doing it their entire lives are rebranded as if their knowledge gained through decades of experience makes them more likely to be wrong. That is the epitome of absurd, which is the Hallmark of MAGA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
There may be a confusion of terms here. What are you calling MAGA?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It has nothing to do with purity, these are bottom of the barrel expectations of leadership in any civilized society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you bother?Because I find your partisan fan-fiction incredibly entertaining.
So your best explanation is that you act like an ignorant child because you enjoy trolling. Cool.
You are right about one thing though, I am a partisan. Was always clearly left but never considered myself partisan before until Trump came along. Once the republican party coalesced against things like civility, maturity, professionalism, democracy, and the very idea of knowing what you're doing (aka expertise), yeah... Since that became the divide in our politics my side is predetermined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You are deeply entrenched in MAGA.
I believe it was George Carlin who once said "never argue with stupid people. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with their experience".
I disagree. Why allow them to have that advantage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
GP: Ty for the TDS sperg.
TDS sperg is MAGA for "facts I don't like".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's me pointing out that you started a whole thread to focus on Biden's cognitive state and the cover up that ensued when the exact same thing is happening with the current oval office occupant on steroids.Also known as a pivot, deflection
It's not a deflection genius. This thread wasn't addressed to me first of all, and second I'm not defending Biden's inner circle or the media. I'm just pointing out the fact that even if all is your factual premises are accurate, this is still a benign charge (a presidential candidate's inner circle over exaggerated the candidate's abilities whoo hoo). Meanwhile, while you pretend to care about the evil there, you are fine with the same thing happening on steroids for your guy. It's pathetic.
When the exact same thing is happening with the current oval office occupant on steroids.Lol, so Trump currently has stage 5 cancer on steroids and CNN and FOX is covering that up. That’s a bold new chapter in partisan fan-fiction.
Yeah, this is what being wrong and being unwilling to face it looks like.
You know I didn't say anything close to that but you pretend anyway, as if everyone else here cannot read English.
Why do you bother?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
If I supported Trump's campaign is only because MAGA is the key to end up with this nonsensical movement of wokism around the world. I don’t have to explain it any further since we're all seeing what Trump is doing with respect to it
Right, like ranting about DEI as an excuse to blame everything wrong in the world on anyone who's not a straight white male arguing we need to be entirely about merit, while hiring his secretary of defense from Fox news and hiring an anti-vax conspiracy theorist who recently said his opinion shouldn't be followed with regards to health as his HHS secretary.
Like deporting every scary brown person on the basis that they're dangerous criminals despite having little to no evidence, but making up conspiracy excuses to import white people from south Africa.
Because that's how you fight wokeism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ultramaximus2
He changes the subject nearly everytime I or anyone else hits back with a substantive answer on pretty much anything.So what?
If intellectual honesty doesn't matter, then nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hey, just out of curiosity, what is a tariff and who pays it?That's easy. It's a sin tax on traitors paid by treasonous China lovers that refuse to buy from anyone but China.The tariff is basically Uncle Sam saying:“Oh, you still want to buy from China? Fine. Pay the toll.”
lol
Well there's that dodge again. I asked the question to point out how cognitively impaired the current president is to which you clearly couldn't care less, thus exposing the hypocrisy of you sitting here and pretending to care about the cognitive state of the former president. Naturally, you had to find a different direction to go so here we are.
I also can't help but take note of the other striking hypocrisy of the party of freedom and small government now telling all of us what countries we're allowed to by products from and deeming people who decide that products coming from China are what's best for them "traitors". You are all just fundamentally unserious people.
Or are you gonna sit there and pretend there's no national security issue with China after the disastrous economic bust when China had our supply chains by the balls in 2020?
Why did that matter?
Like you pretended State media didn't cover up that Biden was a dead man walking for 4 years. That's the predictable take of today's Democrat traitorous cultist.
What is a tariff?
but when Trump's...That's you changing the subject and blaming others for your own sins.
It's me pointing out that you started a whole thread to focus on Biden's cognitive state and the cover up that ensued when the exact same thing is happening with the current oval office occupant on steroids. The only reason the Biden story gets more attention is because democrats and the mainstream media are supposed to have integrity and are thus being held to that standard. The republicans and right wing media aren't even pretending to be serious, which is what makes this entire thing so ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ultramaximus2
So he changes the subject too much then? You have damages.
He changes the subject nearly everytime I or anyone else hits back with a substantive answer on pretty much anything. That's what it looks like when one's worldview is entirely faith based, which is fine, just admit that and stop pretending you care about reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The man could’ve collapsed on live TV and they'd still insist it was just allergies; and to say otherwise was treason, racism, ageism, misandry, fascism, colonialism, white supremacy, hate speech, insurrection, and conspiracy to destroy "democracy." That kind of fawning even put North Korea to shame, as a lot of it was voluntary!
Right... So you have a problem with mainstream media lying about a politician's physical state, but when Trump's own white house physician tells us Trump is in perfect health and weighs 215 (same as Tom Brady who is the same height), you have no issue no matter how cartoonishly ridiculous that is.
Hey, just out of curiosity, what is a tariff and who pays it? Cause the guy you voted for still doesn't know what a tariff is.
So spare me your silly fake outrage about Biden and the lies of the left. The guy you voted for is so stupid he knows less about the government he runs than your average 7th grader, so the fact that you are even looking to the left is a gross display of your partisan hackery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Where's the fact check false on Biden saying he was gonna cure cancer? No more Trump fact checking standards all of a sudden? Interesting.
What's interesting is how you can never stick to the topic. Now you want to move on from the genuine concern over Biden's state being hidden from the public to a fact check of a random campaign pledge, all because you know you can't hold a conversation on the first topic.
I'm just trying to imagine how insanely disingenuous I would have to be and why I would even bother if I couldn't stick to my own topics and had to constantly resort to playing this game. Must be a miserable existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@IlDiavolo
Pelosi knew it, Obama knew it, all of the democrat leaders knew it but did nothing about it.No wonder why some experts considered it as elder abuse. And I was blaming old Joe for all the stupid things he was doing. He was only a puppet, the actual masters were preparing what to do for the next term.Hope he can die in peace and far away from these fake people that are the democrats.
The irony never ceases to amaze me.
Donald Trump is an obese 78 year old who recently said he was going to put a tariff on movies not filmed in the US, yet the entire GOP tries to portray him as the healthiest president in history and sharpest mind they've ever seen.
Even accepting as fact the worst claims that have been made regarding the cover up of Biden's cognitive state, the action of democrats comes no where near the gaslighting we are continuing to hear everyday from the political right and in particular the WH press briefing room.
If you don't care about the North Korea style of fawning happening over Trump you don't have much credibility to express discontent over what the democrats around Biden did or did not say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So white South Africans who are less than 10% of the population account for 90% of the wealth so it's not an assumption.
Doesn't that directly contradict the stated reason why we're bringing them here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So if you are arguing they deserve some rights instead of the same rights as Americans than fair enough but then again how would you differentiate them and give them full jury trials from say a Chinese army invading who also technically fall under illegal aliens?
The fifth amendment already addresses this;
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
This carve out was expanded on in legislation, namely the alien and enemies act which gives the president authority to remove the very people you are describing during the conditions you are describing (war or invasion). The problem is that neither of those things are happening but Trump just says it is the case anyway. It's a blatant lie that he's using as a pretext to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants, damn the law and constitution.
That is the heart of the issue here. This debate has honestly nothing to do with immigration, or even due process really. This is about an authoritarian dictator wannabe making a mockery out of the constitution as he pulls the US closer and closer to autocracy. The supreme court ruled 9-0 that he must facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return and Trump is just hand waiving it away, because in his mind his judgement is all that matters and anyone who says otherwise is a deep state cuck and an enemy of the state who must be eliminated. That's beyond dangerous.
The fall of American democracy won't be televised in some grand event. This is what political scientists call Democratic backsliding, it's the gradual degradation of all political norms till the people eventually give up on the idea altogether. We've seen this happen all over the world and you don't have to go far at all, Putin is a perfect example, Victor Orban is another one. This is what Trump is doing here, and for people like you to celebrate it goes to show that it's working. Democracy only works when it's defended, judging by the way you and so many others have bought into the cult, we're all fucked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the idea that they were pulled onto planes “with no hearing” misrepresents what happened. Their hearing already happened. What people confuse as a violation is often just the enforcement phase of a lawful deportation order. There’s no legal obligation to give someone asecond hearing or unlimited hearings, unless new evidence or asylum claims arise, and even then, it’s a VERY narrow exception to established jurisprudence.
Someone might want to explain all this to the supreme court
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The left isn't outraged about the deportation of criminals, they're outraged at the flagrant dismissal by this administration of the constitution.That's not coming across in the messaging when I watch CNN or see appeals to emotion about how awesome certain individuals.
Because you aren't listening. You've made clear that you are incapable or at the very least unwilling to understand left wing viewpoints. Here's yet another example:
Is is really stupid and you know it's stupid and you're being just you're being dishonest when you act like you believe that actual illegal immigrants should get the same rights as US citizens
No one is arguing this. No one is claiming they get the same rights as citizens. Listen to what those who disagree with you are actually saying.
Can you imagine? Like if illegal immigrants actually had rights in the United States
We don't have to. It's spelled out explicitly in the fifth amendment of the constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Last time I checked, illegal aliens were people.
Also notice that all it says is that each person in the situations described above are entitled to "due process", it does not say what that due process is. That would be for Congress to decide, and no it's not the same for citizens as it is for illegal aliens. Due process is whatever is codified into law, and that's what the Trump administration ignored when they pulled all these persons onto a plane with no hearing and just flew them out of the country without being reviewed by anyone. That's not how the rule of law in a democracy works, and the supreme court with it's 6-3 conservative majority, a third of which Trump appointed himself, agreed 9-0.
Since that ruling they have thrown every non-sequitur in the book out there to make this about everything except what it's actually about, and MAGA just eats up all of it.
technically if you think about it, like the Chinese can send a bunch of people on the border to literally invade the country and then instead of like shooting them and repelling them, we would have to arrest each one individually, give them a trial and then deport them through like some whole process.
That's why the constitution specifically carved out such situations, and that's what the alien and enemies act was actually written for. That would be the law that Trump is trying use to justify these unlawful deportations, the same law his administration's own attorneys admitted in court fillings doesn't apply here and which every judge that has ruled on this has called out for being facially absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Bringing in a bunch of wealth South African with good skills can be beneficial
Funny how quick you are to assume the migrants coming into our country will be beneficial to us when they're white.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
A lot of you don't know this but in South Africa there are leaders and you can see clips of them in the video provided chanting death to whites.There plan is basically to do the same thing done in Zimbabwe where the white farmers are chased off and killed and then they starve and beg whites to come back.
And now you're about to tell us how this doesn't matter because 'America first' right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The being outraged at the deportation of criminals while simultaneously complaining about 50 people being saved from genocide.
This is what being wrong yet insisting on holding onto your wrongheaded worldview looks like. You are incapable of addressing your opposition's viewpoints for what they are, so you have to make them up instead. It never fails.
The left isn't outraged about the deportation of criminals, they're outraged at the flagrant dismissal by this administration of the constitution.
No one is complaining about people being saved from genocide, they're complaining about how overt Trump's racism is which this being just the latest example.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So all those election cycles full of “the rich need to pay their fair share”? Turns out their “fair share” has been stuck at the same level since Home Alone 2 hit theaters.That’s 30 years of empty promises, and some folks still think Trump broke it all in 2016. Wild.
Ok, so you're not going to address the points I made, just repeat your silly argument ad nauseum. Cool.
Yeah, that's what happens when half the country is stupid enough to believe the 2016 election was literally fascism and the end of Democracy.
Always easier to destroy the worldview you made up than the one you're actually arguing against. Enjoy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, that's what happens when half the country is stupid enough to believe the 2020 election was literally stolen.
Government was broken before Trump, but as long as he's the center of republican politics it has no chance.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
I want abortion banned for all anti abortion women and I want communism for all communists.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to who these communists you speak of are.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wouldn't say a 9% spike in the inflation rate was a trainwreck, but it definitely was an avoidable self-inflicted wound that moved the economy in the wrong direction.
Repeating nonsense ad nauseum doesn't make it true. The United States handled post COVID inflation better then all of our peer nations, but facts are irrelevant to you.
Every election they talk about “making the wealthy pay their fair share,” and yet the top rate keeps bouncing between 35% and 39.6%, like a political prop. Meanwhile, the actual billionaires, the ones swimming in capital gains, crony pass-through income, and trust fund loopholes keep skating by untouched.So yeah, so much for “progress.” Same rate, same rhetoric, same broken promises, same excuses from the glass of water voter base. If taxing the rich was really their priority, they’ve had plenty of chances to prove it.
Again, government doesn't work the way you are pretending it works. You are an incredibly disingenuous individual.
You know democrats have to get past republican opposition even when they have the majority. You know that this even in the best of circumstances requires unanimous agreement which is nearly impossible when you have two senators who are democrats in name only who have never shared in any of the populist views of the party and in fact take pride in their ability to stop the party on issues like this.
And if you understood any of the history you are pretending to know the party was unified with only three exceptions (Sinema, Manchin and one democrat in the house) that supported a wealth tax which would have taken us meaningfully inn the direction you are pretending the party doesn't really want to go in.
You're like a child who thinks government is essentially the Borg, all conjoined and makes decisions as one mind. That's not how human nature or any organization created by it works. Sadly though, your willful ignorance here is shared by millions of Americans who actually find this line of argument convincing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats had full control many times over the past couple of decades and basically fucked everyone over by lying and not keeping promises.
The last time democrats succeeded in raising taxes on the wealthy was in 2013 when they raised the top rate from 35% to 39.6%. In 2021 and 2024 they tried to raise taxes on the wealthy again but faced unanimous GOP opposition along with Manchin and Sinema.
Our government doesn't work the way you are pretending it does all while knowing fill well that your portrayal is bullshit. The democrats are not the reason taxes haven't been raised on the wealthy since 2013, having control of Congress doesn't mean having unilateral authority to do whatever you want. This is why I've never criticized republicans for failing to enact their policies against unanimous Democratic opposition, it's just disingenuous.
83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. So you can sit here and pretend this was a bill for the middle class all you want, the reality is that's just laughable.Just as laughable as [Manchin and Sinema] choosing to keep it
Fixed
...while passing all sorts of bullshit laws to crash the economy.
Now that's just plain stupid.
Let me guess, the economy was a complete and total trainwreck under Biden, but now that Trump is in office everything is great!?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the Trump tax cuts were really just for the rich, then why did the Democrats keep them? They had full control in 2021 White House, Senate, and House.
In 2021 nothing would have passed through Congress without the approval of Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema. You can call that full control of you want to, but it just isn't so.
2021 was also right in the aftermath of COVID when millions of Americans were still out of work and global inflation was in the process of spiking. Not exactly the time to raise people's taxes.
The tax cuts lowered rates for almost everyone, expanded the standard deduction, boosted child tax credits, and gave middle-class families more take-home pay. Repealing them would’ve meant raising taxes on the very people Democrats pretend to fight for, and they knew it.
83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. So you can sit here and pretend this was a bill for the middle class all you want, the reality is that's just laughable.
It's much easier to give something away than it is to take it, that's why republicans campaigned for years on repealing the affordable care act but just couldn't do it either once they actually had power.
So let's not lose site of where this back and forth began. You are pretending the republicans are the party of the middle class. Rather than judging either political party on what they failed to take away, how about we judge them on what they actually did and who they did it for. The democrats biggest achievement over the past two decades is to ensure healthcare was available to millions more Americans, the republicans biggest accomplishment was to pass a tax cut bill where 83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. This isn't a difficult choice.
as evidenced by the record fundraising Democrats got from the billionaire class
"The ATF analysis found most of the support was thrown behind GOP causes and candidates, with 70% of the funds coming from the top 100 contributing billionaire families going to Republicans."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Democrats worship the old at the expense of the young, racking up national debt that they happily pass onto to the younger generation as an unreasonable burden.
Both parties have contributed to the nation's debt, Trump racked up the largest deficit we've ever seen and that was before COVID.
The difference between the two parties is that democrats blow up the deficit for things that benefit future generations. During the last administration is when we saw an infrastructure package finally get done. Expanding internet access, that's democrats. Building an infrastructure for electric vehicles and energy sources which is where the future is heading... That's democrats. Cancer research, apparently that's democrats too.
What do republicans rack up deficits for? Oh yeah, tax cuts for corporations and the rich.
Republicans love pretending to be all for the forgotten man, until it becomes time to actually do something for him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That argument was dead before you made it.Nope, that one Is dead, too.
What are you talking about? Neither of these arguments addressed a word I said.
Sure. A lot of people were charged with disturbing the peace, too, but neither that, nor sed. conspiracy [18 USC §2384] are constant talking points in the media, nor among the screaming Democrats. I asked a pointed question about insurrection only because that’s the one-leaf word salad the media and the Democrats repeat ad nauseas. Thus, my limited question.
Again, what are you talking about? You asked whether anyone was charged with insurrection. Yes, multiple people. The charge was seditious conspiracy which is exactly the same thing but worse. Your limited question has been answered.
But Trumo did note say that in his beech. ERead the transcript. He said “…go peacefully to the Capitol.” What’s so confusing about that.
What's confusing is that Trump's speech was 11,000 words long over 45 minutes and this one clip of 3 words is the only thing in the entire speech that wasn't incendiary.
You see, in language and communication there is this thing we call context, and context is necessary for understanding what message someone is trying to convey. 45 minutes of telling the crowd that their country is being stolen from them and they'll have to fight like hell to get it back, and let's have trial by combat, and you can't take back your country with weakness you have to show strength... Is not offset by 3 words in the middle of that speech. And that's before we get to everything Trump had been saying for the two months prior.
And here's one for you, riddle me this; how does one peacefully make their voice heard when their voice has been stolen from them? This is the ultimate contradiction of this defense. Trump is literally telling this crowd that their voice (through their vote) is being stolen from them by the people who are brazenly hijacking the constitution to install the loser into office... And the remedy for this is to yell really loud? It's patently absurd, and everyone in the crowd knew it.
“…an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the lawful winner of the election is a rebellion against the United States government and/or is laws.”Show me statute forbidding questioning election results.
It's in the statute that says you cannot beat up police officers on your way towards trespassing onto the US Capitol during an official proceeding.
Since when is the President responsible for the Capitol Building security?
When it's under attack by a hostile force genius.
Trump offered Pelosi Nat’l Guard assistance days before Jan 6. She refused.
Yeah this is another one of those MAGA zombie lies. Trump did not offer 10k troops and even if he did it was not Nancy Pelosi's decision to make.
Regardless, what's hilarious about this is that even if it were true that only makes your case even worse. Why would Trump have made this offer in the first place? Answer; only if Trump had good reason to believe the US Capitol was in danger. And the only threat posed to the capitol that day were the protests Trump was actively organizing. If you really believe Trump was aware of the threat posed that day and he went out there and gave that speech anyway... That's a damning indictment of what he was trying to stir up as he told that crowd to fight like 20 times.
Oh, and you never did offer an answer to the question... What was Trump doing during those 187 minutes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
With regard to the US Statute 18 USC §2383, are there any Democrat members of this site with sufficient lack of bias to explain, while there were charges of insurrection against a few of the hundreds of people charged with a variety of crimes for Jan 6 involvement, why there is not one single conviction for insurrection, yet your political-finger-pointing talkers continue to call the incident an "insurrection?"
I'll start by pointing out that I've never used the term insurrection to describe J6 because all that does is give Trump cultists the excuse they need to deflect. It's a complicated issue because there were thousands of people involved all with different levels of involvement and motivations, so any one word to describe it other than the most vaguest of terms will be easily hand waived away by those uninterested in confronting the reality of what happened.
One other thing before I directly address your question is that the framing of this I find disingenuous. The idea here is that if a violation of a particular criminal statue isn't charged then this shows that the alleged activity didn't happen. That's not how reason works. Prosecutors will only bring charges if they believe they have enough evidence to attain a criminal conviction in a court of law. Those are extremely high standards and have no place being applied in the court of public opinion, especially when the prime defendant in said court is also a the front runner to be the next President of the United States.
Now with all that said, I find it odd that you ask this question when multiple individuals were charged with seditious conspiracy. That charge contains every element of insurrection plus it requires conspiring to effectuate said insurrection, so it's the exact same charge but worse.
Even though that directly conflicts with your narrative, I'm still willing to set that to the side and get to what I think is really the meat of the issue. The problem with calling it an insurrection is that it all depends on what point of view you're looking at it from. If we're talking about the motivations of the individual rioters than like I said, that varies quite a bit and there's too many "outs" for an insurrection aligned individual to use. The real charge here that applies is incitement of insurrection, which directly falls on Donald Trump. As long as what happened was his intention, and it was an attempt to rebel against the United States government, then the charge holds. Neither are reasonably disputable.
You cannot dispute that sending a mob to attack the US Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the lawful winner of the election is a rebellion against the United States government and/or is laws.
And as far as Trump's motivations... I've argued them many times here so I'll just cut to the end. There is, or at least would have been, a plausible argument that Trump didn't want what happened to occur... Up until the 187 minutes after he spoke at the ellipse. For him to sit there in the WH dining room watching the entire thing play out on TV without making a single phone call to anyone in the chain of command, not one order for the national guard to deploy as they sat there for hours ready and waiting for that order... There is no rational case to be made that this is a man who didn't want this, and that's before we consider that he pardoned every single one of them.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So information available is equal there
Information available is non-existent, therefore nothing can be derived from it.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
But we say its 50% because thats the average of equally proven probabilities.
It's not equally "proven" if there is no information available to begin with. We've been over this already.
Perform the following experiment: divide any number by 0, see what answer your device spits back out at you.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Maybe AI is broken.
More like the person asking the question is broken.
AI is just running the scenario with the premises you fed into it. You told AI that each mutually exclusive god had a 50% chance of existing, so that's what it's using as it's baseline. Yet that's the error I've been telling you about for weeks now and you just leaped over it and started with it as your premise.
You cannot apply probability to an unknown. Already went through this with you.
AI is also treating the scenario as each result being an outcome, which is the other thing I explained to you is not applicable here. Either a god exists or no god exists. Whichever option is correct, it is already the case, has always been the case, and will always be the case. AI is treating this is an event outcome, like flipping a coin. Those are categorically different things. A coin flip can be repeated with different results each time. It is the fact that the results will be different each time that gives meaning to the concept of probability, yet you just ignore that and pretend it applies here anyway. It doesn't.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So logic proves God too then.
Logic proves God, and God proves logic. I wonder if there's a name for this type of reasoning
It seems that even mutually exclusive Gods increase probability too.
Not how math works, but whatever makes you feel good...
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The more Gods are possible, the chances of one God existing increases. This is just math, and there is no way to deny it.
Math is a function of logic.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It is non-logical explanation
Well, that is for sure
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It is a non-logical explanation.
If it's non-logical then it's definitionally not an explanation.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I just offered a simple non-logical explanation
If it's non-logical then it's definitionally not an explanation.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Here is what presuppositionalism is:
Logic cannot prove logic, therefore it is insufficient.
Because logic is insufficient, we must appeal to something outside of logic
God by definition, can do anything and therefore, can solve this problem and validate logic.
Therefore, we must begin with God, and then use logic.
Therefore, I am now starting my epistemology with God.
Let me know if you can spot the problem here.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Non-logic says nothing and everything at the same time.
Something that says everything is definitionally meaningless.So no, you're not also also saying everything, you're just saying nothing.
Maybe in some other debate, it would help you a lot if you called my words illogical.
Again, logic is the foundation of acceptable thought. You either follow it, or you are by definition incoherent and therefore your words/claims/arguments are meaningless. You don't get a pass on that because you decided to challenge logic itself (all while ironically using logic to challenge it).
But sadly, when we are trying to prove logic, it gets a bit more complicated than that.
No, it doesn't. It gets more confusing sometimes when dealing with someone who doesn't understand the first law of logic and is therefore either unwilling or incapable of seeing that he's using it to point to something he himself defines as it not being applicable to, but there is no complication here. You cannot prove logic, you also cannot disprove logic.
That second part is the one you always conveniently leave out. That's what your entire case is built on, and the problem you are blind to is that you really seem to think that's not what you're doing but it absolutely is. It is only when you accept that logic is insufficient and therefore in need of validation itself that any of this could make any sense to you.
"This sentence is false"
What you're doing is functionally equivalent to explaining why this sentence is true or false. It's neither.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Do you understand that you're typing words but saying absolutely nothing?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
That's called a conclusion. You might want to Google how you got there.By using non-logic place where everyhing is possible.
So in other words... If we begin with a place of non-logic where everything is possible then we can use this to explain logic.
Do you know what you just did is called?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So it must exist.
That's called a conclusion. You might want to Google how you got there.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
God who is above logic can solve anything
How convenient.
Unfortunately for you such a being is the literal definition of incoherent and therefore not provable.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Can logic be proved?NoI rest my case.
Presuppositionalism in a nutshell. Find a "problem" in epistemology that cannot be solved, claim God solves it, declare victory.
It's the most intellectually bankrupt form of apologetics out there.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So are you using logic to prove logic?
No
Can logic be proved?
No
These are very simple questions now.
Answered in post 122. See Shila's response as well.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So again, using logic to prove logic here. Circular fallacy.
Repeating an incoherent question doesn't make it any more coherent. See post 122. If you intend to continue this conversation, respond to it instead of just repeating the same meaningless nonsense.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Can you prove logic without using logic then?
If you're asking the question you're already proving it.
See post 122
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Can absence of logical laws exist?
Logical laws are not things that exist. They are a set of rules that are applicable in two different ways:
1) They are the foundation of all coherent thought
2) They are the preconditions of existence itself (as we know it)
So your question needs to be rephrased: can anything exist in the absence of logical laws?
Rationally speaking, the answer is no, because that contradicts logic, and rational thinking is by definition, thinking in accordance with logic.
A more full answer: That is an unknowable proposition. If it were possible in some sense it would be beyond our ability to comprehend and would occur outside our ability to observe.
And that is the central problem with your position: you are trying to prove the unprovable by justifing the unjustifiable. That's why I brought up before that even most theologians have given up on this idea that god created the laws of logic, cause even they understand how self defeating that is.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Why no?
Because non-logic is not a thing. Non-logic is simply the absence of logic.
Created: