Guess the IQ

Uncensored2008 said:
My assumption is that leftists are ignorant and uneducated. Nothing in my experience with leftists on this board contradicts that view.

Though the democrats are a Marxist/Stalinist party - not a single leftist on this site has an even rudimentary understanding of what they follow.
Click to expand...
And yet again you reveal you can't construct a logical argument. I guess being a a cult does that to people like you.

Let me give you an example of why your argument is a logical fallacy
Though Uncensored is in a cult he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of what that cult requires of him.
 
 
 
Diogenes said:
So you say.

Did I post an AI video in this thread?

ANSWER, Christiecrite!
Click to expand...
I suspect that everything you posted about black women and SNAP is fake. Where are all the white women AND men who use it?

The largest racial group receiving SNAP benefits in the U.S. is white, making up about 35.4% of recipients, followed by African Americans at 25.7% and Hispanics at 15.6%. Overall, SNAP serves a diverse population, with significant participation from various racial and ethnic groups. Al Jazeera propel.app
 
christiefan915 said:
I suspect that everything you posted about black women and SNAP is fake.
Click to expand...

Suspect what you like.

Needed, proof is.

fCF9mj.gif

christiefan915 said:
Where are all the white women AND men who use it?
Click to expand...


Scroll back through the thread.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
And yet again you reveal you can't construct a logical argument. I guess being a a cult does that to people like you.
Click to expand...

Ad hom does a poor job of masking your ignorance and cowardice.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Let me give you an example of why your argument is a logical fallacy
Though Uncensored is in a cult he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of what that cult requires of him.
Click to expand...

Which fallacy do you suggest that represents?

You fail to support your claim - because you can't. But there is nothing in the claim itself that constitutes a logical fallacy. No more than someone saying that you are ugly and you smell bad. The onus is on that person to support the claim you are ugly and smell bad, but the statement is not a fallacy.

Your lack of education is the key element here. You are trying to assert ideas that you lack a grasp of.

As for you being a Marxist - that is well established by the body of your posts. As for your ignorance - that is proven by your cowardice in hiding from the open debate on the subject.

You have the opportunity to demonstrate your vast knowledge of the subject at any time.

Uncensored2008

APP - Thread 'Marxism - What is it really?'

As those like Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Occasio Cortez rise in influence over the rapidly collapsing, Marxism has come to define the American democrat party.

So what exactly defines Marxism? Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The definition of Marxism is;


The opening lines of the Manifesto read;

{The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant...
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Ad hom does a poor job of masking your ignorance and cowardice.



Which fallacy do you suggest that represents?

You fail to support your claim - because you can't. But there is nothing in the claim itself that constitutes a logical fallacy. No more than someone saying that you are ugly and you smell bad. The onus is on that person to support the claim you are ugly and smell bad, but the statement is not a fallacy.
Click to expand...
It is an example of a loaded question. It assumes I am a Marxist with no evidence in support of it.
Uncensored2008 said:
Your lack of education is the key element here. You are trying to assert ideas that you lack a grasp of.

As for you being a Marxist - that is well established by the body of your posts. As for your ignorance - that is proven by your cowardice in hiding from the open debate on the subject.
Click to expand...
Another logical fallacy. Something isn't true simply because you claim it is.

Of course, you are in a cult because that has been well established by the body of your posts. (Does that statement of mine establish you are in a cult? If we follow your logic it does.)
Uncensored2008 said:
You have the opportunity to demonstrate your vast knowledge of the subject at any time.

Uncensored2008

APP - Thread 'Marxism - What is it really?'

As those like Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Occasio Cortez rise in influence over the rapidly collapsing, Marxism has come to define the American democrat party.

So what exactly defines Marxism? Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The definition of Marxism is;


The opening lines of the Manifesto read;

{The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant...
Click to expand...
You have the opportunity to demonstrate you are not in a cult. I guess until you can show you aren't in a cult it has been established you are in a cult.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Yep. 80 seems to be about right for your IQ.
Click to expand...

More ad hominem opinion-mongering?

I understand if you don't understand the illogicality of your own post, of course.

Demanding that someone prove a negative is generally illogical and fallacious.

Here's a clear breakdown of why, with reasoning and examples:

1. The Core Issue: Burden of Proof
  • In logic and rational discourse, the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim (an assertion that something exists or is true). They must provide evidence to support it.
  • Proving a negative (e.g., "Prove that you aren't in a cult" shifts this burden unfairly. It's often impossible to provide conclusive proof because:
    • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (a principle from epistemology and science).
    • The universe of possible evidence is infinite or unknowable; you can't search every corner of reality to confirm something isn't there.
2. Why It's Impractical or Impossible
  • Falsifiability problem: Philosopher Karl Popper emphasized that scientific claims must be falsifiable (you can potentially disprove them). Positive claims can often be tested (e.g., "You're in a cult" can be falsified by finding evidence that someone is in a cult. Negatives like "Prove you're not in a cult" can't be proven.
  • Example: If I claimed "You have a dildo up your ass," demanding that you prove it isn't there is illogical.
3. The Fallacy in Action: Argument from Ignorance
  • This is formally known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance). It assumes something is true (or false) just because it hasn't been proven otherwise.
    • Bad: "You can't has proven you aren't in a cult, so you must be in a cult." This illogically shifts the burden of proof to prove the negative.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top