That’s not what a tautology is, Duverger’s Law is a mathematical derivative of First Past the Post election systems. Yes, under FPTP systems, voting third party is equivocating support for both primary parties. Performative ethics without pragmatics is moral masturbation.
Splitting your responses is rhetorically ridiculous.
Performative ethics without pragmatics is moral masturbation.
deontological ethics are preferred by professional philosophers and are the basis of most ethical systems. most people grew up with an understanding that “the ends justify the means” can be used to justify some pretty horrific shit.
You do not know what a tautology is. You do not know what a false dichotomy is. Your attempt to Gish Gallop is transparent and I won’t be wasting any more time with your childishness.
your accusation of gish galloping is baseless. each of my replies has been a succinct response to one of your claims. the fact that you are able to pack so many fallacious claims into one comment suggests that there is a gish gallop happening, though.
Yes, bc they do this all the time. Its to exhaust u, drag the comment train into the ditches where they may convince at least some young person that you are actually wrong if u ever once misstep or misspeak.
Ive em tagged as “russian shill.” Theyre not the only ones, but take careful note of their rhetorical style, the way they twist words and come off sounding confident and “intelligent” if u dont think about what they’re saying for more than 3 seconds.
Theres more of em, hence why i say again, take note of the “flavor,” shall we say, of debate here. Its easier to catch the others then; they all sound the same. Often they back each other up.
you’re characterization of my actions and motive have no bearing on whether anything I’ve said is correct, and they do not support any of your claims. this is just posturing and rhetoric.
That’s not what a tautology is, Duverger’s Law is a mathematical derivative of First Past the Post election systems. Yes, under FPTP systems, voting third party is equivocating support for both primary parties. Performative ethics without pragmatics is moral masturbation.
Splitting your responses is rhetorically ridiculous.
deontological ethics are preferred by professional philosophers and are the basis of most ethical systems. most people grew up with an understanding that “the ends justify the means” can be used to justify some pretty horrific shit.
it is a tautology and saying that it’s not doesn’t change that. it has exactly no ability to predict the future outcome of any election.
You do not know what a tautology is. You do not know what a false dichotomy is. Your attempt to Gish Gallop is transparent and I won’t be wasting any more time with your childishness.
i do know what a tautology is, and your link supports me.
your accusation of gish galloping is baseless. each of my replies has been a succinct response to one of your claims. the fact that you are able to pack so many fallacious claims into one comment suggests that there is a gish gallop happening, though.
your characterization of me as childish does not change the truth of anything i’ve said
This is correct. That does not mean that anything you’ve said is true.
i was sure you’d blocked me
Do you think that argument-by-firehose until you’re blocked by anyone who took time to respond to you is a sustainable rhetorical strategy?
He’s obviously arguing in bad faith, I wouldn’t bother.
your accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith
Yes, bc they do this all the time. Its to exhaust u, drag the comment train into the ditches where they may convince at least some young person that you are actually wrong if u ever once misstep or misspeak.
Ive em tagged as “russian shill.” Theyre not the only ones, but take careful note of their rhetorical style, the way they twist words and come off sounding confident and “intelligent” if u dont think about what they’re saying for more than 3 seconds.
Theres more of em, hence why i say again, take note of the “flavor,” shall we say, of debate here. Its easier to catch the others then; they all sound the same. Often they back each other up.
you’re characterization of my actions and motive have no bearing on whether anything I’ve said is correct, and they do not support any of your claims. this is just posturing and rhetoric.
i know what a false dichotomy is, and your link supports me
no, it’s not.
Wow you really got him, great rebuttal.
i provided just as much evidence an he did.
if you don’twant to talk to me, please don’t