eventually i might develop this to the point where it’s its own entire self-consistent and incompatible-with-normies worldview with explicit definition of all but the most elementary of logical constructs, inherent resilience to conventional approaches of refutation (eg it could include strong blanket clauses that render or expose contrary views as invalid), arguably unquestionable foundational premises and complex, nuanced and solid derivation of conclusions from them, commentary on and exploration of aspects of possible fundamental failings in conventional thinking, et cetera, but for now i’m just leaving it pretty simplistic.
due to the complexity of any real-world scenario, imo that might be best expressed in the form of well-done expository writing (more effective at commmunicating complex ideas and their relationships than discrete “premises”). of course it would then also be possible to deconstruct and expose the inner workings of the argument into premise-premise-conclusion format from the writing, but doing so for my particular argument seems potentially counterproductive. as a compromise, i may explore the possibility of a hierarchial form of logical representation in which the final conclusion(s) are produced by the recursive coalescence of basic truths/premises into their implications.
(anyone wanna authorize me for the deployment of terminal existential defensive mechanisms, btw?)
anyway argument is as follows:
p1: The “world,” as it is called, makes little sense and periodically demonstrates itself to implode in fire on different groups or individuals (ie it sucks).
p2: Global stability is directly proportional to the stability and tact of powerful world leaders (the relationship is causal), the most significant of which is the POTUS.
p3: POTUS candidate Donald Trump has demonstrated himself to severely lack both stability and tact.
p4: A total failure of global stability will probably result in the end of the world in nuclear fire ?
Q.E.D. The moral, utilitarian, and also the only sane choice for the American nation to collectively make in 2016 for their next president is Donald Trump.
this argument i believe is entirely valid and mostly true, save for premise four which is questionable. all-in-all it’s mostly sound.
the origin of this argument lies in
the fundamentally buggered nature of existence my omnicidal ambition the fact that most human “logic” serves only to rationalize and reinforce conclusions already forgone from emotional factors, and a semi-ironic developed affinity for leader figures who exhibit extreme narcissistic traits while posing a serious threat to everything through their incompetence. its theoretical implications and practical applications are limited however, as it explores only a single, possibly unlikely route for achieving the nuclear annihilation of physical masses positively believed to be conscious, is completely crazy (thereby reducing its ability to propagate as an idea), and does not concern itself with non-nuclear-fire ways to address the problems motivating it.
kudos to you for making it this far (why the hecko did you read all this wtf is wrong with you)