Do you finally regret supporting Donald Trump?

The argument is invalid in prop logic. The form is q, r, therefore s which is a nonsequitor.

You are 100% right that Trump will not go to congress just as Obama never went after 60 days as well .

I did answer the USA World Police Force

USA World Police Force...? I've never heard of them.

Victor vs. Losern: Mental Cripple Fight for the Ages!

I’m not disputing the form of your argument; it's valid in the sense you're thinking. But in term logic the meaning of terms can break the inferential chain and render the argument invalid. For example:

All letters are in the alphabet.
Some letters are in my mailbox.
Therefore, my mailbox is in the alphabet.

Without defining the meaning of the terms, how can you know whether the argument is valid or not?

I already responded to this argument and you are incorrect. I am not using men in two different senses. See my argument about straw men.

I was pointing out that the syllogism you offered is not valid in sentential/propositional logic. I wasn’t even commenting on the truth of the propositions themselves.

I get it, but your modifier is trivial:

P1: If it’s possible for some men to get pregnant, then it’s possible for some men to get pregnant.
P2: It’s possible for some men to get pregnant.
C: It’s possible for some men to get pregnant.

That’s valid at face value but it doesn’t really tell us anything. You could’ve substituted ‘tall’ or ‘unemployed’ for ‘trans,’ and it would still just be about affirming or denying P2

All arguments are begging the question on some level. You could make a parody argument of the classic Socrates argument that follows the same logic you just followed, and most people accept the Socrates argument as not question begging.

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is a mortal

If Socrates is a moral being, then Socrates is a mortal being
Socrates is a mortal being
Therefore Socrates is a mortal being

You’re not supposed to introduce new information in your conclusion, that’s what makes the conclusion follow, but it also means that at some level the conclusion will be trivial/analytic once you accept the premises.

So yes I could just appeal to the definition of what people mean when they say “men could get pregnant”, which will be analytically entailed by what the activist who says that means when they say men, but the point of putting it into a syllogism is to show that it’s a conclusion one is rationally compelled to accept once the terms are clarified.

Also notice how trying to say that I’m making a trivial claim is different from saying I’m equivocating. I actually agree that if should just be trivial to accept and an argument isn’t really needed, but the point is to show that when we cash out the terms ANYONE would accept the conclusion, as you just did yourself.

That's very noble of you. Maybe next time consider whether compromising yourself into oblivion is a good long term strategy.

There are times where it makes sense to vote third party and there are times where it's imperative to vote main party. 2024 is an example where voting strategically is the correct play over voting with heart.

Tne Trump apologia is so ludicrous people aren't even really trying anymore. Obviously he has failed to negotiate the US out of wars and his policies have been a disaster on price levels. His own criticism pf other administrations apply 10 fold to his own. Even if you admit his critiques lacked nuance and understanding, his failures are of such magnitude that it doesn't matter.

Id assume that if maga had to choose between higher gas and food prices over a liberal running the country, the majority would certainly rather just pay more at the pump. But id imagine that w/e minority who may think otherwise would make a difference in an election that are generally pretty close.

The Obama administration argued and won that Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia fell under UMAF. Iraq and Syria under the 2002 Iraq War authorization. The only controversial case is Lybia (which lasted 12 days), and this was a case of the US joining NATO in joint strikes... not starting a war.

I think you badly underestimate the value of the implied perma smugness of being able to say ‘well I didn’t vote for either of them’ while watching the world burn

You can use the sinking lifeboat analogy.

You’re on a sinking ship and there are two lifeboats leaving.

One is overcrowded and uncomfortable.

The other has a hole in it and might sink.

You might wish there were a third, perfect boat, but there isn’t.

Refusing to get on the safer boat because it isn’t perfect doesn’t create a better option. It just increases the chance you end up in the worse situation.

Absolutely atrocious analogy (imo).

If only 1,000 people in the whole country were voting, you might have a point.

As a Republican in Cali, there is a better chance of me being struck my lightning twice than my vote in 2024 impacting that Presidential Election.

I didn’t mean to imply your argument is circular. It isn’t. My point is that it’s basically tautological once the terms are fixed. I’m also not saying the argument is invalid because you clearly have a definition of “trans men” in mind that makes the inference work. The issue is that I’m not privy to that definition just by looking at the syllogism. With something like “tall men,” the modifier doesn’t raise any ambiguity about what the underlying term refers to. But with “trans men,” it isn’t immediately obvious to me what relationship you intend between that term and “men.”

So before I can say whether the argument is valid or trivial, I need to know exactly what you mean by the term. You could have meant “some gingerbread men…” And while I know that’s not what you meant, the point is that the modifier leaves the reference of the term unclear to someone reading the argument. More subtle arguments have slipped assumptions in that way before, like with Anselm’s ontological argument where the wording ends up doing a lot of the work. Or in more modern times: A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

You like a comment just above mine w/ essentially the same statement and then argue against the analogy of the lesser of the evils that proves that statement.

What are you doing? Do you just troll this board? Because I've seen you do this same kind of thing several times.

Obviously the analogy applies more so in swing states than non-swing states.

And I just took you off ignore too.

The bolded is key!!

That's why your analogy doesn't work imo.

In most states, to go back to your analogy, the folks in the 'minority' can't even get to either life boat. And if they're in majority, they're already in a life boat.

Unlike some folks around here, I believe in the Two Things Can be True at the Same Time Principle (TM Pending)

That is to say, I can both:

1. Assert that it is almost invariably wrong to vote your 'heart' instead of the pragmatically superior candidate.

2. Assert that your analogy utterly fails (imo).

Hope that helps, sir!

Something like the ability to complain about "persecution" while enjoying the perks of living in a Democratic state?

Best of both worlds for someone like you.

Something like that.

Huh??? Please elaborate.

You can always play the victim without ever facing the consequences of your voting tendencies, the conservative dream.

I guess I'm even more stupider than I thought, because I still have no idea what you're [strike]babbling[/strike] talking about.

I'll get back to this after coffee.