Voting against genocide doesn’t reduce genocide. In American elections, the only votes that have an effect are those for one of the two front-runners. Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners. The two front-runners are ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’. Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable. Q.E.D. you accept lots of genocide.
Unfortunately the American electoral system is not ranked choice, so “bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept. In American elections, the situation is as I’ve described above. Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.
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.
Tautologies are statements that are necessarily true by virtue of their construction. In order to show that something is tautological, you must reduce it to an open statement and be able to show that it’s true independent of the variables. Tautologies include “Not Q or Q” and the equivalent “If Q then Q”. Furthermore, stating that something is a tautology implies that you believe it’s true. The last time I encountered someone claiming that something didn’t have predictive value “because it’s a tautology” was a creationist saying the same of evolution, and I realized they had essentially granted their opponent’s conclusion.
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.
The last time I encountered someone claiming that something didn’t have predictive value “because it’s a tautology” was a creationist saying the same of evolution
i don’t know the exact context you’re referencing, but i do know that trying to pigeonhole me with creationists is underhanded.
stating that something is a tautology implies that you believe it’s true.
i believe anyone may claim that the price of a good can be described as the point at which temporal demand met temporal supply, but that doesn’t make it a useful observation. it’s not even disprovable, as there is no way to test it. so there is no reason to believe it’s actually true.
I’m not getting in another argument with you; you’re dishonest and annoying. I replied to educate, because despite your claims otherwise you’re clearly ignorant.
Voting against genocide doesn’t reduce genocide. In American elections, the only votes that have an effect are those for one of the two front-runners. Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners. The two front-runners are ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’. Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable. Q.E.D. you accept lots of genocide.
no. i don’t find either of those acceptable. that doesn’t make them the same. it just means that neither of them meets the bar of acceptability.
Unfortunately the American electoral system is not ranked choice, so “bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept. In American elections, the situation is as I’ve described above. Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.
false.
You’re going to allow one of them to be president, so no it’s not false. Throwing your vote away on a third party is equivalent to not voting.
election misinformation. my vote must be counted just as everyone else’.
i don’t finde them equally acceptable, but i find them both unacceptable.
duverger’s “law” has no predictive value. it’s a tautology as empty as “supply and demand”.
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.
if you don’twant to talk to me, please don’t
no, it’s not.
Wow you really got him, great rebuttal.
i provided just as much evidence an he did.
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.
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 know what a false dichotomy is, and your link supports me
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.
Tautologies are statements that are necessarily true by virtue of their construction. In order to show that something is tautological, you must reduce it to an open statement and be able to show that it’s true independent of the variables. Tautologies include “Not Q or Q” and the equivalent “If Q then Q”. Furthermore, stating that something is a tautology implies that you believe it’s true. The last time I encountered someone claiming that something didn’t have predictive value “because it’s a tautology” was a creationist saying the same of evolution, and I realized they had essentially granted their opponent’s conclusion.
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.
Thank you, that was easy to understand and well-stated. You’ve given me something to ponder.
a tautology is also an appropriate term for any post hoc explanation of material facts that gives no insight into how the future will happen.
duverger’s “law” is storytelling, it’s not science.
i don’t know the exact context you’re referencing, but i do know that trying to pigeonhole me with creationists is underhanded.
i believe anyone may claim that the price of a good can be described as the point at which temporal demand met temporal supply, but that doesn’t make it a useful observation. it’s not even disprovable, as there is no way to test it. so there is no reason to believe it’s actually true.
I’m not getting in another argument with you; you’re dishonest and annoying. I replied to educate, because despite your claims otherwise you’re clearly ignorant.
saying it doesn’t make it so.
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.
it is in ethics
false dichotomy
Loving your dauntless energy. Nothing gives a bully the shits quite like looking them in the eye.
always happy to be of help where i am needed.
Awesome work. I just can’t be arsed with the disingenuous hectoring that passes for pragmatism