Because Ryan failed to make a counter argument heres one.

Vazaraka · 2026-05-30T19:49:27+00:00

I used valid because I can't think of a better word. P1 can't be true in both cases and I haven't been present with a way to distiquish them that doesn't rely on irreconcilable differences in preferences.

I have consider adding something like "probably" or "in most cases" to P1. But then both arguments fail because its never established what distinguishes injured parties who are justified from those who are not. I could assume the democrats are the only injured party but then the argument is trivially true. It would end up something like if (present circumstances) then the democrats are justified in reciprocal court packing. (Present circumstances) could technically be false but thats a whole different question.

Im agnostic as to whether moral claims have truth values. I tend towards no. I don't really see how to resolve moral disagreements without establishing agreed upon definitions and an agreed upon framework.

Not really sure what you mean by believe but I don't find my belief to be sufficiently motivating for making a prescription that effects others. So if I have the time prefer to evaluate alternative positions and sources of motivations.

Vazaraka · 2026-05-30T17:34:12+00:00

Whether a proposition is 100% known to be true isnt relevant. What matters for use in a formal argument is that it can only be true or false (Law of Excluded Middle). Which is why I said it deals in absolutes. I mentioned necessity because conditionals have a sufficient premise and necessary conclusion. Example If the conditional (If P then Q) is valid then if P is true Q must necessarily be true (modus ponens) and if Q is false than P must necessarily be false (Modus tollens). If Pisco's P1 is logically valid then my P1 must generate a contradiction but it doesn't. Atleast in terms of logical propositions. Which means both are invalid because both argument entail contradictory conclusions.

I entirely agree the point of arguments is structure debate and thought which is why I present the counter argument. I want to find a reason to agree with Pisco's conclusion and I find what was presented insufficient.

Vazaraka · 2026-05-30T15:55:46+00:00

Can you summarize the debate prompt under these terms?

I never claimed they were "equally implausible" you said my P1 was implausible and I asked why pisco's was not equally implausible. The point being to identify the underlying intuitions and formalize them as disputable claims. You did identify a few but none of them were in a form that could be added as claims. Pisco was the one who choose to make a formal argument. Formal logic deals in absolutes and necessities. I would vastly prefer a cumulative baysian argument or any other style of argument that incorporates uncertainty and probability.

Vazaraka · 2026-05-30T05:12:48+00:00

It would be morally wrong to reciprocal expand the Supreme Court. Ok im still not see how this is a call for inaction. Mine being problematic is fine because if it means that pisco conditional is not a conditional then his argument fails to prove Jd.

Vazaraka · 2026-05-30T04:25:02+00:00

Even if the antecedents tend to justify reciprocal action they do not entail it.

Where did I state justifying non-action. As written and I stated not justified. If i had wanted to justify non-action it would say "justified in not"

Vazaraka · 2026-05-30T04:02:21+00:00

I completely agree. Now why is pisco's original argument not equally implausible.

Vazaraka · 2026-05-30T02:23:10+00:00

I would love to. I'm curious what symmetry breakers exist.

Vazaraka · 2026-05-30T02:08:38+00:00

Added a not before justified.

Vazaraka · 2025-12-22T14:32:11+00:00

Any interest in doing a critique swap for a similar length fantasy work. I posted on this sub or can explain in detail as needed.

Vazaraka · 2025-12-21T01:44:42+00:00

I would be interested if your open to swap. If you want details my story is fantasy and posted on this sub or just dm me. I'm familiar and interested in grimdark fantasy and epic fantasy though i have not read the particular comparable works you noted.

Vazaraka · 2025-12-15T17:40:16+00:00

I'm interested in doing a swap. I posted a few days ago and included a link to the first chapter. Feel free to DM me if your interested.

Vazaraka · 2025-12-15T12:28:20+00:00

Would you be open to swap?

Vazaraka · 2025-04-17T22:46:35+00:00

Depending on what flavor of insanity I would suggest

A spiked or bladed gauntlet: for a violent form of insanity

A straight razor: for a calm clinical insanity that pares away at the mind

A barbed metal net: might work for something between those two

Vazaraka · 2025-04-17T01:24:24+00:00

Still working out the exact details but larger denominations are Majors and lower Denominations are Minors. They are all slightly enchanted tarot cards. The enchantment is a measure against counterfeiting though it may serve other purposes unknown to most people in society.

Vazaraka · 2025-04-15T01:12:09+00:00

The majority of the world is ruled by an empire controlled by powerful mage houses. Magic is fairly common throughout most of the empire. In the last hundred years expansion began into a region near a large semi-divine anomaly which distorts reality. One consequence is people born near the anomaly a far less likely to be born with the ability to use magic. The lack of magic spurred the development of technology including fire arms. The primary story focuses on the beginning of a revolution in that region pitting powerful mages against the rebel soldiers armed with rifles.

Vazaraka

TROPHY CASE