I agree that there are muddy areas, but with much of the world intimidated by theHRW/Amnesty/ACLU line, we can’t reach a consensus that is internationally acceptable. Our allies are too afraid of taking a hit at the ballot box and their MSMs are disgusting for the most part. They certainly haven’t taken note that there is now a military tribunal procedure that has gone through all three branches of government. We will still be criticized, and when our leaders give too much weight to the opinions of the world, we put ourselves in danger. We simply have too many people who are not honestly seeking for a decent answer to a hard problem but rather want to win political points and foreign laurels.

Do we, like pornography, just know the difference when we see it?

We need to sort out these questions.

marxism, cultural marxism, feminism, and all those ideological things depend on this form.

if you have feminists that are against pornography
and you have feminists for pornography

then feminism can literally prove anything.

[feminism is a form of cultural marxism, and so has the inherited qualities from the parent]

An informal statement of the argument for explosion is this. Consider two inconsistent statements, “Lemons are yellow” (feminists are against pornography) and “It is not the case that lemons are yellow” (feminists are for pornography). and suppose for the sake of argument that both are true.

exactly the same… logical form
BOTH ARE TRUE (so we dont have to suppose)

We can then prove anything, for instance that Santa Claus exists: Since the statement that “Lemons are yellow and it is not the case that they are yellow” is true, we can infer that lemons are yellow. And from this we can infer that the statement “Either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists” is true (one or the other has to be true for this statement to be true, and we just showed that it is true that lemons are yellow, so this expanded statement is true). And since either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists, and since it is not the case that lemons are yellow (this was our first premise), it must be true that Santa Claus exists.

in this way feminists, marxists, socialists, progressives, et al. seem before the fact to have the answers..

sheesh. 🙂

its point is to sell us on a singular total force with few limits on its ability to affect people.

kind of like another model they are copying.

a free state has to accept the limits of what a free state costs… period.

sitting around and grousing that the system would be better totalitarian is a false assumption. and is asked by not asking and dancing around it.

remember the principal of explosion

The principle of explosion is the law of classical logic and a few other systems (e.g., intuitionistic logic) according to which “anything follows from a contradiction”; that is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its converse) can be inferred from it. In symbolic terms, the principle of explosion can be expressed in the following way (where “” symbolizes the relation of logical consequence):

This can be read as, “If one claims something is both true () and not true (), one can logically derive any conclusion (ψ).”

The principle of explosion is also known as ex falso quodlibet, ex falso sequitur quodlibet (EFSQ for short), ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ for short), and ex falso/contradictione (sequitur) (Latin: “from falsehood/contradiction (follows) anything”, literally “… what pleases”).

Evil.

This is only true in their imagination, with John Lennon playing solo piano in the background. They live in a movie and act out roles that involve lots of close-ups of them looking thoughtful, and poignant moments. The good guys win in the end, as Holder and Obama stand firm and ignore the base temptations that other, less visionary politicians would succumb to. There’s a boffo finish to the movie, too, with people from many cultures dancing and embracing while stirring music plays in the background and Obama looks on benignly.

Welcome to the madhouse.

The continued persistence of trying the KSM trial in downtown Manhattan, the hush-hush surrounding the Ft. Hood jihadi, and all the rest. I cannot help but feeling that this is a deliberate f*ck you to the American people. That he believes that these people are justified in their attempts to kill Americans at home and abroad. It gives creedence to what his critics say/said about him sitting all those years in Wright’s church and listening to the “goddamn America” rants.

There MUST be a firestorm of controversy, poor morale and disgust within the ranks of the National Security networks, FBI, CIA etc. at what is transpiring these days from the White House.

I hope what happened in Massachusetts is a trend, our safety depends on it

They feel we’ve been through enough with the attacks themselves, and the ruinous aftermath — now the Zero wants to force this on us as well? I’m mad enough to chew nails and spit tacks.

And Nanny Bloomberg just gave a mealy-mouthed speech wherein he said he thought it would be “okay” to have the [Blame Bush] trial here. Just last week he was griping about the cost: some $400 million.

I wish to God we had a functioning Fourth Estate, instead of the toadies and lackeys and lickspittles we’re cursed with. If any of these egregiously terrible acts were Properly Reported, people would be in Washington brandishing real pitchforks.