terrorism is a crime. you use police to deal with crimes. investigate, get a warrant, and bring them to a judge.
terrorism is a crime. you use police to deal with crimes. investigate, get a warrant, and bring them to a judge.
hero
Hamas could end hostilities today by returning all hostages and surrendering its leaders to an international court.
there is no reason to believe that. the wall would still be there. palestinians would still be subject to arrest and imprisonment without trial. they would still suffer under a blockade.
the hostilities have never ended since 1947.
you are a hero
your accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith
i wrote a pretty in depth treatment of this yesterday, but i don’t like to just spam copy pasta everywhere.
you might want to ask your self “what would a critical rationalist say about my postulate?”
yea. you are just telling stories, not doing science.
I provided exactly as much support for my argument as you for yours.
I’m not willing to kill people. I care about human lives.
inaction is a valid and rational choice in the trolley problem
If Trump was president right now Ukraine would be gone
this can’t be proven
First-past-the-post voting systems inevitably trend to two-party systems over time. We see it play out in election models and we see it play out in real life.
this claim is not falsifiable. it’s a tautology with no genuine predictive power. it’s not science, it is storytelling.
everything you said after this was also wrong
biden will push us further into fascism just as he has for the past 50 years. voting for him does not, in fact, ensure we don’t fall further into fascism.
i can believe the other guy is worse without believing its moral to help biden maintain power.
the spoiler effect is story telling.
always happy to be of help where i am needed.
because despite your claims otherwise you’re clearly ignorant.
saying it doesn’t make it so.
I’m not getting in another argument with you; you’re dishonest and annoying.
i don’t want to argue with you, either. but i do think anyone reading this should know that you are poisoning the well, here.
in a show of good faith, i’m about to break from my usual rhetorical style. i hope you find this explanation helpful
Duverger’s Law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement is one that cannot be empirically tested or falsified—it’s true by definition. Duverger’s Law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. However, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.
For example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. This kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. The critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. For Duverger’s Law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. This would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.
it’s a problem on .world, too, including their matrix instance.