This is hte kind of comment that gets a scoff and a 'piss off' from me, sorry mate — AmadeusD

Oh no. I'm deeply wounded now. :groan:

It is up to each of us to interpret whether it is good or bad. — javi2541997

It's like the Fool. Ambiguous and possibly holy.

Is that bad or good?

Jacques Chevrier emphasizes the singularity of such "terrible children" in West Africa culture, despite what the phrase "enfant terrible" can evoke among European readers.[1] He explores the fact how initially the enfant terrible although seen as a destructive and malevolent figure can often become the savior.[1] This paradox is explained by the fact that the enfant terrible are from the non-human or divine world and that their actions, no matter how absurd, must be interpreted as signs of superior knowledge.[2] — Wikipedia on enfant terrible

That’s an oddly good analogy. — Bob Ross

It's like beer, it's good and it's good for you.

If Donald Trump is a metaphor for something, what is that something? I mean to you, not Americans.

Besides, the idea of superiority or inferiority of a country is imaginary. One bad event and your shiny image can be broken, even if all the people are still quite the same. — ssu

I agree. And being convinced that it can't happen to us is a recipe for blindness in case it does start happening. Humility protects.

But it is very surprising when Latino countries such as Argentina had Cristina Kirchner or Eva Perón; in Honduras, Xiomara Castro is the President, etc. — javi2541997

It's just that Latino women didn't switch from Biden to Trump, but a significant number of Latino men did, so people figure it was sexism, I guess because they can't think of what else it would have been.

Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross

Think of different societies as being like plants. Some are corn plants, some are palms, and some are cacti. Each evolved to survive its own set of challenges. Governmental systems are about the survival of a society rather than about some higher good. Basically, what's healthy for a corn plant will kill a cactus.

Anyone paying any attention to the temperature of the USA over the last 12 months would have seen this coming a mile off. As i did. Perhaps be less pedantic. — AmadeusD

I don't think there was any temperature. Male Latinos didn't back Harris the way they had Biden. One swing state elected a Democratic Jew for governor, but Trump for president. Latino sexism maybe.

Trade policy since we're talking about it. A global trade war sounds like it'd be pretty bad for everyone including the US ironically enough. — Mr Bee

Yes. There was a trade war right before the Great Depression.

One can argue that the current situation is a crisis, or has the potential to lead to one. — Mr Bee

Things seem pretty peaceful to me. Where do you see crisis brewing?

At the very least I think alot of countries are gonna reassess their reliance on the US, which is to the benefit of countries like China. — Mr Bee

The US is a declining superpower, China is heading toward superpower status. For a while, I'm guessing the two will be a stable pair for the world.

If anything starting a global trade war may weaken the US's economic standing on the global stage, as other countries are more likely to become less dependent on the US market and trade with each other, strengthening China's hand. I think that is likely to happen even after Trump leaves office because the US has shown itself to be an unpredictable trading partner. That's not even going into the likely counter tariffs imposed on the US from other nations who don't like the idea of a 20% tariff being imposed on them. — Mr Bee

The global economy is fairly integrated and the US is the primary stabilizer and engine. This is a situation the whole world is creating because everyone benefits from it. Transitioning to a different structure would require some kind of massive crisis. It's not the kind of thing anyone would choose. So China will continue to do the best it can with the US.

I love his soundtrack for The Leftovers. — Michael

me too. :heart:

Trump's vice president leans toward project 2025, which is about removing opposition to Trump from the federal government. Plus he favors dictatorship, so the coming years might be pretty interesting. More isolationism, maybe a transition to dictatorship by the end of the century?

I saw Max Richter in concert last night. He played the album, Blue notebooks, which he wrote 20yrs ago in protest against the Iraq war.
Sublime experience. — Punshhh

I'm so envious! I listen to Max Richter at least once a week. Also Nils Frahm.

Dude took all the swing states. Wtf?

Ok. Thank you!

It is not valid since there are interpretations in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I guess you mean there are interpretations where the sentences are uttered in a context where they could be true. Thanks for your help.

A sad thread, this one. A low point in the history of the forums. — Banno

I don't think so. My experience with logic is with the logic gates that make up a computer's microprocessor. If it's an or-gate, either input goes through, that kind of thing. I never had to worry about validity. :lol:

Wrong — TonesInDeepFreeze

Why is it wrong? There is no interpretation where both premises are true.

I see what you're saying. The climatologist I've studied the most said that this century will see more storms and more intense storms. That's a statement of statistics, so the whole century taken as a whole. But there was recently a hurricane here that destroyed several towns in the Appalachian Mountains. There's no record of that ever happening, so everyone is pretty sure it's due to climate change.

They can never both be true only if they are inconsistent. If they are consistent then they can both be true. — Michael

@TonesInDeepFreeze is this true?

Couldn't it be:

1. The present King of France is bald.
2. The present King of France is wise.

Therefore: Cows bark.

It's valid, right?

The reason that there is no interpretation where both premises are true is because the premises are inconsistent, i.e. that their conjunction is a contradiction. As such, any conclusion follows and the argument is valid. — Michael

You may be right. Nevertheless, what Tones is pointing out is that anytime there are no cases where both premises are true, the argument will be valid. The premises don't have to be inconsistent for that. They're just never both true.

That's the same thing. — Michael

If you have an argument in which there is an interpretation where both premises are false, but there are no cases where both premises are true, then the argument is valid. That wouldn't be a case of explosion.

That is explosion. — Michael

Explosion is that any proposition can be proven from a contradiction. What Tones is explaining is that if you have an argument in which there is never a case where both premises are true, the argument is valid.

That's what I was trying to clarify. — Michael

Ok. What I was trying clarify is that he's not talking about explosion. It's simply that if there is no interpretation in which all the premises are true, the argument is valid.

I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not. — javi2541997

This is a case where blaming climate change exclusively is a problem. People need to recognize that the soil can be rehabilitated. Regulations need to change.

I think only a few are really aware of the power of the EU in this issue. — javi2541997

We have a federal department of agriculture, and it has some authority, but it couldn't stop people from changing their practices. By the way, the US is also over farming its land. Bad news.

Given that frank and I were talking about the definition of "valid", I (mis)understood him as claiming that you were saying "an argument is valid if and only if there is no interpretation in which all the premises are true". — Michael

I didn't say "if and only if." I just said that since there are no cases where both premises are true, the argument is valid.

My idea is that desertification in Spain is caused by climate change, but sadly, human reckless management is also guilty. — javi2541997

It's both. If you look at the website I cited, it mentions that there are ways to rehabilitate the soil. Desertification is a sign that it's time to go ahead and make those changes. We shouldn't give up just because climate change is underway. The next generation could come up with some genius way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Is it something the EU would have to address?

I'm sure you're aware that part of Spain's problem is poor agricultural practices. Something similar happened in the USA during the 1930s. What happens is that people get away with over farming and poor irrigation practices until a round of droughts.

So climate induced drought is only part of the reason Spain is turning into a desert. In the USA, they called it the Dust Bowl.

That's not what he's saying. I don't know how to explain this to you in an even simpler way. — Michael

You may be right. Let's double check with him. @TonesInDeepFreeze

You are claiming that he is asserting (1), when in fact he is asserting (2), as am I. — Michael

Notice that 1 and 2 are saying the same thing: The argument is valid if there is no interpretation in which

All the premises are true AND the conclusion is false.

There aren't any interpretations where all the premises are true. So it's valid.

It hinges on the definition of validity. It's weird, but according to Tones, that's how it works.

That's not what he's saying. — Michael

All he had to do is say that there aren't any cases where both premises are true, therefore it's valid.
— frank

I said it over and over and over for you.

All you had to do is read the replies given you. And that's hardly the only point I explained for you. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I can't see that we are. — Michael

You are. He's just using the definition of validity:

An argument is valid if and only if there is no interpretation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. — TonesInDeepFreeze

There is no interpretation in which all the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is valid.

Yes, the argument is valid as I said. — Michael

You're giving a different reason for why it's valid versus Tones.

I see. I don't think that's what Tones was saying though. He was saying that since there are no cases where both premises are true, the argument is valid.

As I said before, maybe climate change is not the only issue, but it is obvious that it is a feature that accelerates natural disasters. — javi2541997

It's not obvious to climatologists. They use climate modeling to determine that anthropogenic global warming is happening. They don't just say, "Oh, it's got to be that." The climate is too complex for simple analysis. That's all I meant.

No, P is A. Q is ¬A. — Michael

Ok. I see. But then, what about the second premise? If A is false, wouldn't the second premise actually be not-A?