When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
"When confronting an opponent whose entire framework consists of negation without positive articulation, you encounter what classical logic identifies as a fundamental breakdown in dialectical possibility. This isn't merely frustrating--it represents a categorical failure of rational discourse recognized since ancient philosophy.
Aristotle identified this problem in his Metaphysics when discussing those who deny the law of non-contradiction. He noted that you cannot debate someone who refuses to affirm anything meaningful, because debate requires at least two competing positive claims. When an interlocutor says only "you are wrong" without defending an alternative position, they've abandoned the basic requirements of logos--reasoned argument--for mere antithesis.
The medieval logicians had a term for this: ignoratio elenchi, or "missing the point." But this goes further--it's not missing the point accidentally but systematically refusing to establish one. In formal logic, this creates an "unfalsifiable position." Since your opponent never commits to a verifiable claim, they can never be proven wrong. This sounds like an advantage until you realize it means they can never be proven right either. They've achieved invincibility at the cost of meaninglessness.
The affirmative must prove something true; the negative must prove it false and implicitly defend an alternative. A negative debater who simply says "you're wrong" without burden of proof would be immediately disqualified. Why? Because pure negation contributes nothing to the pursuit of truth. It's intellectual vandalism masquerading as argument.
When your entire worldview is defined by opposition to another's, you've surrendered intellectual autonomy. The Stoics and later Kant emphasized that rational agency requires self-determined principles--acting from maxims you could will as universal law, not merely inverting someone else's position.
This creates a peculiar logical trap: If your opponent switches positions, the pure oppositionist must switch too, even if it means contradicting their own five-minute-old stance. This isn't principled flexibility; it's ideological servitude. The medieval philosopher Peter Abelard explored this in his work on dialectics--he argued that merely contradicting without offering reasoned alternatives was the mark of a sophist, not a philosopher.
In formal logic, this manifests as the fallacy of "bare assertion." To simply declare "you are wrong" without supporting premises is to make an unsupported claim--precisely what one supposedly objects to in the opponent. The hypocrisy is structural: they demand you defend your position while refusing to defend their opposition. Classical rhetoric identified this as a violation of stasis theory, the requirement that both parties agree on what question is being debated.
The practical impossibility of reasoning with such an opponent stems from the regression problem. Rational discourse requires shared foundational commitments--at minimum, the laws of logic and the value of truth-seeking. When someone's only principle is negation of your position, you cannot even establish these foundations. You're attempting geometry with someone who denies that points exist, then claims victory when a line cannot be drawn.
What makes this particularly insidious is its mimicry of legitimate skepticism.
The historical warning comes from Socratic dialogues: sophists who argued any side for money ultimately stood for nothing. Socrates insisted that philosophy required commitment to truth over victory. When winning the argument becomes the only goal, divorced from any positive vision, discourse dies. You're left with a parasitic mode of engagement that cannot exist independently, that generates no light of its own, but merely casts shadows on others' illumination.
But obstruction is not argument, reaction is not thought, and opposition without alternative is not philosophy--it is simply noise refusing to resolve into meaning.
The tragedy is that this approach succeeds in its own narrow terms: it can obstruct indefinitely, proving the adage from the 1983 movie "War Games" is true: the only way to win is not to play."
-https://open.substack.com/pub/michae...ure-opposition
This Brazilian woman has some great points regarding rule following in a culture that I have seen firsthand in business when dealing with with Cubanos and some New Yorkers.
This Brazilian woman has some great points regarding rule following in a culture that I have seen firsthand in business when dealing with with Cubanos and some New Yorkers.
The only way it gets better is when government gets smaller. Since Trump started, we're at 271,000+ fewer Federal employees. x10 that and I'll be happy.
But it goes further than that. The shittiest of taxes are property and income tax. Property because if you're paying for it yearly, you're just renting from the government. Income tax because all taxes are negative incentives, as Milton Friedman would say. He'd actually say it better. Trump has talked about ending both. Trump pushing for tariffs--which admittedly need to be ironed out--are at least voluntary. You don't want to pay for them? Don't buy it, or buy American. Over time manufacturing grows in America to the net benefit of all as more Americans are hired or start their own businesses.
Government is a cesspit. But it can be better. Congress-critters are happy with trimming around the edges while insider-trading. They can't be trusted to make wholesale change. Trump is not afraid to slash and burn. I'm all for it.
except Biden put a 25mm bounty on his head and declared him illegitimate and not state recognized... If anything the Biden admin set this in motion. And this ISNT war. we came, we saw, he died.
This is funny. Young Venezuelan guy interviewed in Spanish. Translation: "To those who say that the United States is only interested in our oil, what do you think the Russians in Chinese wanted? The recipe for arepas?"
Moving back to more pressing matters of domestic importance...
“Private property including any kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy.”
“We will transition from treating property as an individual good to a collective good towards the model of shared equity. White people & White Families will be especially impacted”
That is Cea Weaver, director of the newly-created New York City Mayor's Office to Protect Tenants, speaking about her agenda for re-shaping NYC into a literal communist utopia.
I... I'm not even sure what to say right now.
This is literally what my father and my uncles warned all of us about.
I've been kind of laughing it off for the longest time, thinking there's no way it could possibly happen here.
But it seems like now it might actually be starting for real.
First of all, it's "bear". Next, Venezuela "nationalized" billions in American private company assets, which will be coming back. What are the other non-tangible assets from a single-day strike?
--with sub-$50 per barrel oil, the Middle East loses clout and money
--the potential end of any "Belt and Road" influence by China in South America
--Russia pushed to the curb
--economic collapse of Cuba
--serious curtailing of drugs and narco-terrorists out of Venezuela
--somber message to Iran, Qatar, Syria, and anyone else wanting to try the "**** Around" portion of FAFO
--long memory of the Venezuelan citizens who just had a dictator removed
--The death of Dominion and Smartmatic and the people behind it, which caused the stealing of the election in 2020 as well as the Bolsanaro loss in Brazil.
Should Venezuela follow the path of Chile, Argentina and El Salvador, this could usher in a new momentum of peace, prosperity and growth for South America.
Yep, send them Polyanna memes this way, but before you do, consider that with Trump our gas prices have plummeted, interest rates dropped and will more after the Fed chair is replaced, murder is down a record 20% as are all other crimes, drug deaths have plummeted, the government has 271,000+ fewer workers, and over 2.5 million illegal aliens have self-deported or have been kicked out. That last detail is in stark contrast to the 13-14 million illegal aliens who invaded our country in 2024.
This complete improvement happened in less than a year. DJT still has a couple of weeks to pad the numbers.
Last edited by cordycord; Jan 5, 2026 at 08:55 PM.
China apparently gets most of their oil from Venezuela and Iran, and with the current geopolitical climate in both countries China is in a bit of a pickle. They can't plan an extended takeover of Taiwan (or anywhere else) if they don't have oil to run their power plants. The last time I was in China (Guanzhou, Shenzen, Hong Kong)...years ago...manufacturers were forced to limit their product to four days only because there was a lack of electricity. It's certainly gotten better since then, but it could turn on a dime if Iran falls.
1
Ya got me.
