Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coug who wrote (36450)	8/28/1999 10:53:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

But I have the right to draw a conclusion about the people I assume they support and how they deal with certain social issues. So they must go along with it or they would support somebody else. If your assumption turns out to be wrong, what happens to your conclusion? This is not a particularly generic discussion. There were four notably low scorers on the test (which is little more than a slightly silly, if fun, amusement): JFQ, Ish, myself, and Zin Master, in that order. Have any of us ever said anything that indicated that we were social conservatives, or that we give political support to those who are? One thing I have also noticed, if you call people's hand on certain issues.. and they are holding contradictory cards.. their straight flush turns out to have a card with the wrong number on it. they want to tip the table over... I've noticed the same thing. I'm noticing it a bit right now, in fact.

To: coug who wrote (36450)	8/28/1999 10:59:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

But I have the right to draw a conclusion about the people I assume they support and how they deal with certain social issues.. So they must go along with it or they would support somebody else.. Coug, what a fine example of flawed reasoning. If I get energetic I'll dig out my copy of Copi's Logic and and identify the logical fallacies you are employing. Offhand it looks like a problem with induction. You are drawing a conclusion based not on what anyone has said, but based on your own assumption of whom they might support. Hell, if that's the game then I'll assume you support Pol Pot.