It logically follows

That if you in a war you should be able to expell the people who lost from the area? To where? All of the land is occupied by sovereign nations. You win a war so now you have the right to impose 2.1 million refugees on the countries around you? That's kind of conceptually adject to the argument Douglarse Murray's stupid ass made about why no one else wants to take the Palestinians. Would ANY country take in 2.1 million unvetted immigrants? Ever? For any reason? No question asked? "We don't want these people to live here anymore and God told us that we're cosmically entitled to a country where we're an ethnic majority so... Somebody else has to take them... Or we get to do whatever we want with them... And if they don't stop fighting we need get to kill them all..."

Hym "Maybe it logically follows in the absence of 3rd parties but they 'won a war' with the assistance of 3rd parties against a less advanced population and are sustained by 3rd parties indefinitely. There's international law and universal human rights to consider. Is they weren't beholden to 3rd parties and it happened in a vaccum it wouldn't be a matter of whether or not the had the right they just WOULD do whatever they wanted. But it wouldn't necessarily be a right that's been instantiated. I know your argument is not 'If you're sovereign over an area you can expel whoever you want' Can the U.S. just decide to expel all the black people? The crime rate is too high in inner cities. They're too violent. Their culture is incompatible so we have to get right of them. And if they ever attack white dominant cities we can just start bombing Chicago. Why do people think you're good at debating? OH! Right, retard-world. Hey, where's your wife? And I see you're on team 'Be unconditionally nice to retards and women or I get to do whatever I want to you' and I can still just murder some kids and kill myself bitch. Let it go. You don't give a shit about that retard."

by Hym Iam February 23, 2024

Megan-logically challenged

Megan-logically challenged: n. A statement or opinion uttered by Megan, characterised by a high degree of inaccuracy and a tendency to defy logic and common sense. Often accompanied by a look of unwavering confidence, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Trying to explain basic valorant techniques to Megan can be a frustrating experience, given her Megan-logically challenged approach to the subject.

by Dupe-seption December 26, 2024

Meta-Logical Closed Systems

A system that takes logical systems themselves as its objects of study, but does so from a fixed, immutable perspective. It is a "closed theory about logic." For example, a specific, dogmatic philosophy of mathematics that definitively states what mathematics is (e.g., "Mathematics is nothing but the manipulation of symbols according to formal rules") and refuses to consider alternative philosophies (e.g., intuitionism, realism) is a meta-logical closed system.

Meta-Logical Closed Systems Example: Strict Logical Positivism, with its verifiability principle of meaning, acted as a Meta-Logical Closed System. It declared that any statement not empirically verifiable or analytically true was literally meaningless. This meta-framework itself was not open to empirical verification, making it a self-sealing, closed system for judging all other forms of discourse and logic.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Meta-Logical Open Systems

A reflective, evolving framework for understanding the nature, foundations, and plurality of logic itself. It acknowledges that different logical systems (classical, fuzzy, paraconsistent, intuitionistic) may be useful for different domains or problems. It is open to revising its understanding of what logic is based on insights from cognitive science, computer science, and philosophy. It treats logic not as a singular, sacred monolith, but as a toolkit of reasoning styles.

Meta-Logical Open Systems Example: The modern field of philosophical logic, which compares classical logic to non-classical logics suitable for handling vagueness, paradoxes, or quantum phenomena, operates as a Meta-Logical Open System. It doesn't seek the "One True Logic," but explores a landscape of possible logics, open to the idea that our reasoning tools must adapt to the complexities of the world and mind.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Scientistic Logicalism

The belief that the combined authority of Science™ and Logic™ forms a transcendent, perfect system that exists above and should govern the flawed physical world. It assumes that if something is scientifically described and logically consistent, it must be morally right and practically imperative, dismissing material constraints and human costs as irrelevant.

Scientistic Logicalism Example: A technocrat arguing for mandatory genetic screening and selection for “optimal” traits because “the science of genetics and the logic of maximizing health outcomes are irrefutable.” They see ethical objections about eugenics as sentimental noise interfering with a pristine, hyperreal plan.

by Abzugal February 8, 2026

Scientific Logicalism

The narrower application of formal logic as the supreme framework for validating all scientific inquiry. It holds that any scientific claim must be reducible to a syllogistic argument, and that empirical data is subordinate to logical proof. It fails where science often succeeds: through abductive reasoning and iterative grappling with messy evidence.

Scientific Logicalism Example: A researcher rejects a groundbreaking clinical trial result showing a drug works because “the mechanism of action isn’t logically deducible from our current biochemical models. The data must be flawed.” They privilege the internal consistency of their logical model over empirical, observed reality.

by Abzugal February 8, 2026

Open Logical System

A logical framework that is open to external influence—new axioms, new rules, new forms of reasoning can be incorporated as the system evolves. Unlike closed logical systems, which are fixed and self-contained, open logical systems can grow, adapt, and transform in response to new insights, challenges, or contexts. Open systems are characteristic of living traditions of thought (science, philosophy, common law) that develop over time without losing identity. They're also characteristic of healthy minds, which can learn without collapsing. Open logical systems are messy, unpredictable, and alive—the opposite of the clean, dead certainty of closed systems.

Example: "His thinking was an open logical system—always learning, always adapting, always incorporating new perspectives without losing coherence. Old friends who'd known him for decades saw him change constantly yet remain recognizably himself. The system was open, not chaotic; evolving, not unstable. That's what growth looks like in an open system."

by Abzugal February 17, 2026