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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (142764)	10/13/2005 6:19:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793912

Your complete lack of logic will be seen by even blind folks. LOL If something is by higher percentage, then logically it is not 0% and concluding it is the same as 100% assumes one is using a relative description in place of all. Say what? From which planet did that observation fly in? What in the world does 100% reference? You recollection is devoid of reality. You don't live in a red state? My mistake. Senior moment, I suppose. I judge using logic and attempt as best I'm able to quantify and qualify my judgements. People who make logical judgments are generally willing to display their rationales. They are confident enough about their rationales to share them and/or humble and collaborative enough to vet them. They don't just claim that they've made some monumental logical judgment and then label everyone and everything else illogical. You never lay out your reasoning and you never point out any specific fallacies in mine nor do you try to refute my points although I lay them all out there for you to deconstruct if you can. Sidestepping proffered rationales and offering insults instead are contra-indicators of strong logic. You would think that someone who so readily judges others to be idiots or illogical (not to mention indecent) would be able to frame a crisp and articulate set of specifications for, say, which prayers are appropriate or inappropriate in a locker room and why. Or articulate the key criteria for decency as they apply to a given scenario. Or provide a rigorous specification for the relationship among blue, diverse, and decent. Not to mention doing so with intelligible sentences. Re the insults, idiot, illogical, and indecent, I suppose it's normal to think that one's own rationales, if they've been thoughtfully formed, are superior to those of others. So I mostly overlook people calling other people idiots despite the hyperbole of it. Most things are too squishy to prove one way or the other. Illogic, though, is another matter. Logic is fairly precise. To a large extent it can be proved or disproved. So the promiscuous charge of illogic from someone disinclined or unable to offer proof does not get a pass from me. As for indecent, well, that's quite the slander. For shame! Not decent, IMO, to go around promiscuously calling people indecent.