Comment:
This one can be filed under the "cannot possibly be true" category.
That is to say, the Democrat's claim to be supporting "Democracy" cannot square with their support for terrorism and terrorist sympathizers.
But Donald Trump will end Democracy in America. Do these people really believe that? It isn't possible unless they are willfully blind.
Are there any Americans who actually vote for these guys? Have you noticed how SMALL Brandon's crowds are? Yet he supposedly got 81 million votes. If you doubt that he actually won in 2020, you are an "election denier".
Nothing these people say can be taken seriously. Hey! I can always ask the AI. See what it says...
Democrats are a political party primarily in the United States, and as such, they are not inherently terrorists. However, there may be individuals within the party who engage in acts of terrorism, as is the case with any political group. It is essential to distinguish between the actions of individual members and the party as a whole.- Gab AI
I'll be damned. The Democrats do what they do, but even though it should be obvious to a blind man that they are terrorists, it says here that they aren't. Knock me over with a feather.
Then I asked the obvious, and got this...
The phrase "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" is a popular adage that suggests that if something exhibits the characteristics of a particular thing, it is likely that thing. However, this saying should not be taken literally in all cases, as it is a metaphorical expression. In some situations, appearances may be deceiving, and things may not be what they seem.
Dang! This AI is smart. /sarc
7.11.24:
Just for grins, I posed the same question to another AI, and got this:
The phrase "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" is a classic example of a metaphorical expression that illustrates the concept of inductive reasoning. It suggests that if something exhibits the characteristics and behaviors of a particular thing (in this case, a duck), it is likely to be that thing.
This phrase is often used to convey that:
Actions and appearances can be more revealing than words or claims
Things are often what they seem to be, even if they are not explicitly stated
Inductive reasoning can lead to plausible conclusions based on observable evidence
However, it's important to note that this phrase is not always a foolproof method for identification or classification, as:
Things can mimic or fake characteristics (e.g., a decoy duck)
Context and additional information can change our conclusions
Inductive reasoning can lead to false conclusions if based on incomplete or biased evidence
Overall, the phrase remains a popular way to illustrate the idea that our observations and experiences can often lead us to reasonable
conclusions, but it should not be taken as a definitive or infallible method for making judgments.
No comments:
Post a Comment