Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: The Philosopher who wrote (38091)	5/12/1999 2:55:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) of 108807

Sorry Christopher, you are playing semantic games. There is no point arguing definitions -- it gets us nowhere. Your success in debating using that approach is a facile but specious way around the real issue. Defining up as down does not change the laws of gravity anymore than representing an unknown in an equation with z rather than x changes the answer. Show me one set of logical assumptions (that is consistent with real-world observations) where 2+2 does not equal 4. I will not accept internal representations nor will I accept definitional ambiguities as proof of your assertion. I also will not accept rules of logic that are internally inconsistent. Some decades ago Bertrand Russell commented, during the course of a lecture on logic, that using a false premiss allowed one to prove anything. A heckler in the crowd challenged Russel to prove that he was the pope given that 2 equals three. Russell replied that if two equals three, then by subtraction 2 equals 1. Since he and the pope were 2, and since 2 equals 1, then he and the pope were 1. That's the danger in engaging in definitional and semantic arguments. They may be fun, but they prove nothing. TTFN, CTC

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next