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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (112187)	5/29/2009 1:56:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541685

If my logic is flawed you should show me how its flawed, instead you just boldly state it is with no support. But X=X only when X is identical to X. It is identical. My argument is that since its identical its equal. You seem to be support that point. My actual logic was essentially X=X, if that's flawed than all of logic is flawed. I think you have a problem with my premises not with my logic. The premise you seem to disagree with in this case being that the treatment is identical, even if it has different impact. That if you assign a 70lb child and a 350lb football player the same level of physical work to do that you are in fact treating them identically (even if your treating the kid unfairly). You seem to be asserting that it isn't identical Mme Pangloss, seemed to make a different objection. Apparently, indirectly, asserting that identical but unfair isn't equal. The later objection is a semantic issue, and in the end people are going to use words they way they want to use the words, even if you think its non-standard or confusing. So I stopped arguing against it. I'm not sure if your objection is a semantic one based on the definition of identical, or if its something else. Perhaps you could explain it more directly.