If President Trump wins re-election in 2020, will his enemies accept the results? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

If President Trump wins re-election in 2020, will his enemies accept the results?

yes, they will
7
35%
No, they will not
13
65%
#14996171
SSDR wrote:Science is logic. Religion is not.


This is definitionally inacurrate, logic is the inferring of true conclusions from valid premises, science is the emprical process of solving a problem through the testing of a hypothesis via experimentation and other forms of verification.

So, they are not the same thing even by definition.

However, science is almost always false and I will address @blackjack21 here too as to why this is not hyperbole.

To give an example; the common belief that the sun is the cause of heat and light, or that coldness is the cause of water freezing, are both beliefs which are logically fallacious and therefore cannot be true.

This is because both beliefs rests on the inductive inferences wherein past observations or observed correlations are used as the basis from which a "causal connection" is inferred; however, these inferences are fallacious for using a finite amount of observations to infer a necessity is a instance of the composition fallacy; likewise, inferring a necessary relationship from a correlation is impossible (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) and likewise inferring a necessary relationship (cause) from a sequence of observed events is similarly impossible (post hoc ergo propter hoc); hence, unless you are omniscient, you cannot know if any observed relationship is in fact causal or necessary, this is true about even things as innocuous and common as gravitation, the boiling point of water, or the setting of the sun. You cannot say that it is "true" that any of these things will happen in the future without violating logic.

This being the case, science is unable to determine truth, and since knowledge is justified-true-belief, then if follows that science cannot be the basis of any actual knowledge whatsoever.

So no, science is not logic, in fact its quite the opposite; only propositions can be true and thus a causal relationship (which requires a universal truth) cannot be determined by science, but only by logical necessity.

Furthermore, the hypothetical-deductive method is inherently fallacious in affirming the consequent.


Science is false.

Likewise, logic and direct perception requires the fundamental beliefs of the True Religion, per my argument, which I challenged you to debate and you refused.

SSDR wrote:You want to live on the fruit of your own fucking labour? So you don't want to live in a house that was built by OTHER construction workers? You don't want to drive a car that was built by OTHER assembly line workers? You don't want to use utilities that were mined by OTHER mine/coal workers? You think that everything should be locally made? To keep the family institution forced together?


Correct.

Is there an argument here?

SSDR wrote: If you got into a car accident and you need surgery, you don't want a surgeon to operate on you?


Probably not, actually.

SSDR wrote:Happiness does not come from money at all. I never said that. But what you said makes you sound like you support poverty.


Take it as you wish. Is this supposed to be an argument?

SSDR wrote:In a socialist economy, why would the general populace need guns? More guns means more crime.

Family and morals are oppressive. Marijuana is social decay. There is a difference between progress and social decay.


Socialists have actually been pro-gun because guns are necessary for an armed proletariat in the revolution to take control of the means of the production. To support the disarming of the working class by the state (which is currently under the control of rich billionaires; i.e. the bourgeois) is neo-liberal, but its far from marxist-leninism.

And no, more guns does not mean more crime, but even if it did, so what? How is that an argument against gun ownership? After all, I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery.

A concept that I am sure is unintelligible to the socialist.

If you wish to debate the objective rights of man as determined from plain reason, I have also challenged you to do so in the past, and you refused.

Fortunately for you, my offer remains open.
#14996181
@Victoribus Spolia, Logic does not require religion. Socialist movements have been pro gun in capitalist economies, but once capitalism is overthrown, then there is no point of common gun ownership since there is no elite to be overthrown.

You support poverty, and you don't support universal health care. There doesn't need to be an argument. Because all you're going to do is use religion to back that up, so that religion could be used to cope with poverty and not having access to highly talented surgeons.
#14996184
@SSDR

Logic does not require religion, it requires MY RELIGION actually.

If you wish to contest this claim, feel free to accept my challenge and debate my argument.

Further, I am glad to see that you have dropped your previous claim that science is logic, that was a wise move on your part.

SSDR wrote:Socialist movements have been pro gun in capitalist economies, but once capitalism is overthrown, then there is no point of common gun ownership since there is no elite to be overthrown.


I am glad you are pro-gun RIGHT NOW, as we live in capitalist economies. I am looking forward to seeing you support my side of the debate when I debate anti-gun and pro gun-control folks here on the forum.

I will expect it.

SSDR wrote:You support poverty, and you don't support universal health care. There doesn't need to be an argument. Because all you're going to do is use religion to back that up, so that religion could be used to cope with poverty and not having access to highly talented surgeons.


That is your interpretation of my views; however, this simplistic summary is quite irrelevant.

My religion and morality can be established from plain reason just as it can be established from special revelation. The challenge is out there for you and you were already given the links.

Until then....Godspeed.

;)
#14996187
@Victoribus Spolia No, logic doesn't require "Your" religion. Science is logic.

I am against random civilians having access to guns because they don't need them, and it would prevent crime and chaos. Guns are only okay if to go against criminals, revolt against the capitalist elite, fight in wars against hostile civilizations, or to handle social abuse. But I do not support the "gun ownership" that libertarian rightists like you do.
#14996190
SSDR wrote:logic doesn't require "Your" religion.


I have already shown that it does in my proof, feel free to accept my previous challenge and go and debate it. I will be waiting.

Otherwise, this is nothing but hot air.

SSDR wrote:Science is logic.


I have refuted this claim and you have failed to address my arguments. Please do so; otherwise, this repeating of your original claim shall be dismissed as unsubstantiated.

SSDR wrote:I am against random civilians having access to guns because they don't need them, and it would prevent crime and chaos. Guns are only okay if to go against criminals, revolt against the capitalist elite, fight in wars against hostile civilizations, or to handle social abuse. But I do not support the "gun ownership" that libertarian rightists like you do.


So you as a "socialist," support the tyranny of the bourgeois (the state) disarming the working class (proletariat)?

How revolutionary of you.

:lol:
#14996191
No, logic doesn't require "Your" religion. Science is logic.


A statement, not a rebuttal.

I am against random civilians having access to guns because they don't need them


A revolution would never get off the ground with that idea.



, and it would prevent crime and chaos.


Guns being used to clean up crime and chaos work pretty damn well.


Guns are only okay if to go against criminals, revolt against the capitalist elite, fight in wars against hostile civilizations, or to handle social abuse.


Right, pretty much anytime, then.



But I do not support the "gun ownership" that libertarian rightists like you do.


You just don't want to have to concede the point to VS.
#14996192
@Victoribus Spolia Science is logic. Science proves things. Without science, we would be still stuck in deep poverty, ignorance, and extreme oppression.

Different conditions require different solutions. In a pure socialist society, random people having access to guns is not necessary.

You seem to strongly invest to calling me a "Pure Marxist Socialist." I never claimed that I am a Marxist. I am no follower of Marx since socialism is revolutionary, and that me following some guy from 150 years ago is not revolutionary, and that the conditions that we are in today are different than during the times of Karl Marx.

I am a Scientific socialist. Marx himself even called himself a scientific socialist. The term "Marxism" was created by capitalists like you to make socialism look unattractive.
#14996194
SSDR wrote:@annatar1914 That is because I don't need to concede to him, nor to any fucking body. :lol:


Sure, tell that to yourself and your friends, it may help you sleep better at night :lol:

Or are ''scientific socialists'' allowed to have friends, what with planning and debating others about the revolution and all?
#14996197
@annatar1914 There is no such thing as a "friend." "Friends" are social constructs that keep society under a social hierarchy. If one cannot be friends with every single human that ever existed, then one must not allow any social construct like that, or else they would be promoting a social hierarchy.

There is no issue with debating about the internal factors within a socialist revolution. But VS is not a socialist.
#14996199
SSDR wrote:Science proves things. Without science, we would be still stuck in deep poverty, ignorance, and extreme oppression.


Not an argument, nor is it a rebuttal against my refutation of your claims.

SSDR wrote:I am a Scientific socialist. Marx himself even called himself a scientific socialist. The term "Marxism" was created by capitalists like you to make socialism look unattractive.


One does not need to manipulate terms to make socialism look unattractive, its actual principles and the way they have been historically practiced are sufficient disincentives for anyone with an IQ above 3.

SSDR wrote:Different conditions require different solutions. In a pure socialist society, random people having access to guns is not necessary.


Yes, but you said that not needing guns was a position for a post-captialist society, since we are pre-captialist you should be pro-gun, and I would love to see you make an argument as to how it is consistent with "revolutionary-socialism" to support a billionaire controlled government in its efforts to ban access to firearms by the working class.

I'm all ears.

:lol:

annatar1914 wrote:Sure, tell that to yourself and your friends, it may help you sleep better at night


:lol:

Child's play my good friend, as you can see.

Godspeed and have a blessed evening. I'm off to bed with my beautiful wife.

Hope you and yours are well.
#14996201
SSDR wrote:@annatar1914 There is no such thing as a "friend." "Friends" are social constructs that keep society under a social hierarchy. If one cannot be friends with every single human that ever existed, then one must not allow any social construct like that, or else they would be promoting a social hierarchy.

There is no issue with debating about the internal factors within a socialist revolution. But VS is not a socialist.


You're going to have a very hard time. Especially in the context of this thread. You will find that the Red Wheel of History runs in the opposite direction, as I have found. How you take that when you discover it will make all the difference between weal and woe.
#14996202
Victoribus Spolia wrote:

:lol:

Child's play my good friend, as you can see.

Godspeed and have a blessed evening. I'm off to bed with my beautiful wife.

Hope you and yours are well.


I am well, God is good all the time, merciful and loves mankind. As you can see, my old ''abominable'' self is back in good form here at PoFo, lol....
#14996203
@Victoribus Spolia It doesn't need to be a fucking argument.

"its actual principles and the way they have been historically practiced are sufficient disincentives for anyone with an IQ above 3. " That was a weak ass statement you tried to do lmfaooooo. And if someone's IQ was 3, they would probably be dead because they are so dumb that they don't know how to breathe. Look up come backs online, maybe you could be more effective.
#14996206
SSDR wrote:@annatar1914, There is no god....... :roll:


You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word for it, but rather my own direct experience of life. I think you are going to just have to at the very least take a ''wait and see'' attitude. I'm willing to find out and be wrong; how about you? Are you willing to be wrong?

I suspect that like I once was, you're more an Anti-theist than an Atheist.

Yeah that is what the law says. What is your poi[…]

Made in Israel

Yes it has. I'm just done with you people. I po[…]

Well, let me explain my reasoning when I say tha[…]

How ISIS replenishes its ranks

@Palmyrene I'm making it easier for him. If he[…]