you haven’t read any critical rationalists, and it shows.

edit: I accidentally a couple letters, but look at this fucking bad faith and proud ignorance

edit: it’s understandable I guess that when your worldview is threatened, you slink off pretending you were right all along.

now who looks ignorant

duvergers “law” is more of a tautology. it doesn’t describe any actual natural phenomenon like gravity does

duverger’s law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement 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.

Both sides"ing Democrats in general elections helps MAGA, that is a simple fact.

wrong

saying it doesn’t make it so.

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

wrong on all accounts

there is no evidence they support fascists

we can see who is dancing

you don’t think it’s true?

checkout the NoKings protests

why make an unsupported claim?

people have free will. their actions can only be said to be caused by their own will.

none of that is causal.

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. dismissing that claim is not the same as making a claim.

eating meat doesn’t cause an animal to have suffered.

an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. eating the meat doesn’t cause it to have been produced.

none of this makes eating meat cause pain or suffering. these are all problems with production, not consumption.

you are splitting hairs

I’m not the one making a positive claim.