"Marxists are clueless" (Funk N. Furter)

[Steve Ballmer]

In this case, you are a Marxist, because communism is the only way the state will ever be abolished. Congratulations, and welcome to the club, comrade!

Indeed. I reckon we could also do away with AIDS in similar fashion. I tentatively suggest we rename it "Funk N Furter's Syndrome".

Africa will be thrilled.

[Steve Ballmer]

In this case, you are a Marxist, because communism is the only way the state will ever be abolished. Congratulations, and welcome to the club, comrade!

Indeed. I reckon we could also do away with AIDS in similar fashion. I tentatively suggest we rename it to "McFunk's Syndrome".

Africa will be thrilled.

Aids is a product of capitalism, and will be eradicated with it, comrade.

You do realize that sending all carriers to "farms" would make you a douche, yip?

[H20nly]

We interrupt the regularly scheduled re-runs for this NEWS FLASH:

[H20nly]

... and now a word from our sponsor:

[Steve Ballmer]

You do realize that sending all carriers to "farms" would make you a douche, yip?

What the fuck are you banging on about Steve old bean? When did I say carriers would be sent to farms?

I never said you did. Prove me wrong.

[Steve Ballmer]

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! "- Isaiah 5:2

"A = Not-A" - Trotsky

Bibled.

[Steve Ballmer]

Sorry Steve, it's been mildly entertaining, good typing practice, but not a serious debate. Not remotely. If you want to try again sometime you'll need to do it seriously.

In case y'all wondering, this is what winning against McFunk looks like. It's really rather sad...

[Steve Ballmer]

Everyone notices that when you get to the point where you have to actually take a look at your own behavior that you just start posting .jpegs or quoting Lenin.

We all know this is your cowardly way of running from the real problem... the troll in mirror.

So i see your .jpeg and raise you a "you're a pussy"!

[Bean Machine]

Sorry Steve, it's been mildly entertaining, good typing practice, but not a serious debate.

And thus very much a serious debate, given that A = !A. I guess you're not capable of taking any position now without inherently contradicting yourself, given your axiomatic beliefs.

[Steve Ballmer]

Steve Balmer is not equal to himself, because every second one or two of his last few remaining brain cells die off.

At least one instance of myself would disagree.

[Steve Ballmer]

"‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other." (Trotsky)

Interesting theory... which unlike common descent we can test!


A:




A:



Spot the difference?

[Bean Machine]

I have never said that A=!A. You shouldn't listen to anything that Steve Balmer says. He just makes everything up. I said A?A,

I see. From this, assuming you speak the truth, we are to infer that Steve is a bloke who makes everything up? So, given that A!=A, we can reasonably conclude that Steve is in fact someone who makes nothing up? In other words, you do indeed claim that A=!A?

This much certainly makes sense, given that A!=A and A=!A are logically equivalent statements. Silly rabbit.

which I then proved, or rather Trotsky did, with his constantly changing bag of sugar.

Eh, no. Not really. In fact, the only thing you (or NOT!you, ie. Trotsky ie. NOT!Trotsky) proved (or NOT!proved) is that a bag of sugar is never quite the same when observed at two distinct instants in time. It seems like a bit of a leap of logic to then infer that every instance of A must therefore differ from itself, doncha think?

[Bean Machine]

"‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other." (Trotsky)

Of course, this quote, when combined with his ever-changing bag of sugar example, presents us with the following conundrum:

Since both letters cannot be observed at the exact same instant in time by the same person, who's to say they weren't identical at some point? This is impossible to either prove or disprove.

Seems this Trotsky chap was quite the sophist.

[Steve Ballmer]

I said A?A, which I then proved, or rather Trotsky did, with his constantly changing bag of sugar.

Actually, you said that A=A for only an instant, and then A'=A' and so forth. Trotsky says that your position renders you a sophist: "A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment” (Trotsky).

So if we are to believe Trotsky, then you're a sophist. You must either renounce your allegiance, or admit to sophistry. There's no 3rd way.

Meanwhile, let's look at Trotsky's claim:


We can posit sets A and !A, as follows:


fig. 1

As it is a logical certainty that everything must either be A or !A, we needn't posit further sets.

When asked to place A into one of these two sets, a person of normal cognitive ability would do as follows:


fig. 2

However, Mr. Fucking Genius Trotsky claims that A is not equal to A, as illustrated thus:


fig. 3

Hence, we are left with but 2 possibilities:

P1. A=!A (See fig 4.)
P2. A doesn't exist (See fig 1.)

As we can readily observe that lots of shit does in fact exist, P2 is clearly false. Hence, we can conclude that Trotsky's claim that A?A is equivalent to A=!A, as illustrated here:


fig. 4

QED

Note: No rainbows were sexually abused in the creation of this post.

[Bean Machine]

A:




A:



Spot the difference?

ay yo son, that second A rayciss, nuhmean?