| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2003 03:04:21 PM |
| Object: |
'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
'Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
.
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 02:22:33 AM |
|
|
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in message news:aZDwb.221866$mZ5.1697020@attbi_s54...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:JuDwb.1271$f62.89619@news.uswest.net...
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in message
news:XlDwb.225959$275.860719@attbi_s53...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:s8a2sv4q4lqnse5q981on9iop8g2b3g1or@4ax.com...
Philosophical propositions are never self-evident.
Propositions the contrary of which when followed to their logical
conclusions lead to an absurd state of affairs are self evidently true.
Google reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing that
it
leads to an absurd state of affairs when followed to its logical
conclusion.
RAA is a perfectly sound means of arriving at objective logical
conclusions
perceptible by any observer.
*Any* observer?
Yes perceptible by any observer. If you ***** any living human, will it not
bleed?
Eh? Unconscious humans will. Animals do.
Perhaps you mean anyone who is minimally capable of arriving at
objectively logical conclusions?
I wouldn't say that a person in a coma would qualify as an observer would
you?
No, but it would seem like you would understand that
there must be a minimum intelligence or capacity involved.
That word objective bothers me some.
No need to be frightened of that term. All I take it to mean is that it is
perceptible by any observer. Contrast with subjective (purely a matter of
individual thought).
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
You have not given me reason not to be bothered by the term.
You must know that people are not uniformly objective.
[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on scientific
discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as
is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested - in
principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated
and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we
are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which,
on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
You're equating objectivity with empiricism?
But I'm not disagreeing.
Stop the presses! Here is someone who is not disagreeing with something I
have written! Don't you want to hurl some argument _ad hominem_ or
something, like Richardson, Makohin, Kronk, and those other sophists? 8^)
Contrary to public opinion, I do enjoy exchanging opinions and thoughts
with others, even if I do not agree with them. I am not saying I agree,
only that I have not decided, and am listening.
If you start babbling like Lee, I would stop.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR3" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 03:23:52 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:TkEwb.1278$f62.93478@news.uswest.net...
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in message
news:aZDwb.221866$mZ5.1697020@attbi_s54...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:JuDwb.1271$f62.89619@news.uswest.net...
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in message
news:XlDwb.225959$275.860719@attbi_s53...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:s8a2sv4q4lqnse5q981on9iop8g2b3g1or@4ax.com...
Philosophical propositions are never self-evident.
Propositions the contrary of which when followed to their logical
conclusions lead to an absurd state of affairs are self evidently
true.
Google reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing
that
it
leads to an absurd state of affairs when followed to its logical
conclusion.
RAA is a perfectly sound means of arriving at objective logical
conclusions
perceptible by any observer.
*Any* observer?
Yes perceptible by any observer. If you ***** any living human, will it
not
bleed?
Eh?
Any observer will observe the bleeding.
Perhaps you mean anyone who is minimally capable of arriving at
objectively logical conclusions?
I wouldn't say that a person in a coma would qualify as an observer
would
you?
No, but it would seem like you would understand that
there must be a minimum intelligence or capacity involved.
That is covered by the meaning of the term, 'observer', wouldn't you agree?
And why this diversion? How is quibbling over what constitutes an observer
relevant?
That word objective bothers me some.
No need to be frightened of that term. All I take it to mean is that it
is
perceptible by any observer. Contrast with subjective (purely a matter
of
individual thought).
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
You have not given me reason not to be bothered by the term.
You must know that people are not uniformly objective.
That is a disingenuous comment if there ever was one. The scientific method
of investigation is designed as a work around for our human tendency to rely
on personal subjective conviction, right? Here is what the term, 'scientific
objectivity' means:
[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on scientific
discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as
is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be
tested - in
principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have
repeated
and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that
we
are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events
which,
on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
You're equating objectivity with empiricism?
Oh yeah. Let's hurry up and label what Popper says here as an "ism" so that
we can justify rejecting it out of hand as a religious belief, without
stating any reasonable grounds for rejecting it.
You are taking exception to what Popper said? On what grounds?
But I'm not disagreeing.
Stop the presses! Here is someone who is not disagreeing with something
I
have written! Don't you want to hurl some argument _ad hominem_ or
something, like Richardson, Makohin, Kronk, and those other sophists?
8^)
Contrary to public opinion, I do enjoy exchanging opinions and thoughts
with others, even if I do not agree with them. I am not saying I agree,
only that I have not decided, and am listening.
If you start babbling like Lee, I would stop.
What are your grounds for taking exception to what Lee says? 'Babbling' is
just a pejorative argument _ad hominem_, just another form of the fallacy of
diversion, don't you agree?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 04:44:07 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:s8a2sv4q4lqnse5q981on9iop8g2b3g1or@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<1t9wb.630$dI1.19444@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:b912sv0pncg8ocu6sr2j7o76grv2jl2fkj@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<Sn7wb.608$dI1.13832@news.uswest.net>:
"SortingItOut" <eriley@home.com> wrote in message
news:4404b96e.0311222331.837e102@posting.google.com...
"JR" <jr@jr.com> wrote in message
news:<C0Rvb.209232$9E1.1124058@attbi_s52>...
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7Jvb.134305$Gq.17798966@twister.nyc.rr.com...
<snip>
No, it doesn't. However, the fact that the state has the
RIGHT to execute criminals makes sure that there is no
right to life that can not be taken away.
Life can always be taken away, but that does not make it right. The
right
to
life is an unalienable right (not to be taken away).
The state has the POWER, not the RIGHT. The state has the power to
take
you
into custody by force, take you to trial, find you guilty of a capital
crime, sentence you to death, and then hire an executioner to carry
out
the
execution of that sentence, thus ABROGATING (treating as nonexistent)
your
right to life. That does not make your unalienable RIGHT to life
disappear.
The right to life is an established principle:
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
that
all
Men
(except slaves)
And morons.
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of
Happiness
(except for slaves)
Including slaves. There were morons back in those days too,
and they had to be pacified in order to provide for unity.
Read history. This slave argument is one that a eighth grader
might make.
That's because even an eighth grader can see the foolishness of relying
on political invective as 'proof' of anything. Jefferson wasn't
pacifying anyone when he chose to continue to hold his own slaves. Locke
might have believed that all humans had these rights, I'm not certain.
Jefferson showed -- by his behavior -- that this was a limited claim.
It's interesting that you support your argument with an
argument about slaves, yet choose to leave out "little"
details such as what would have happened to the slaves
had they been freed.
What would have happened in a country that took the idea seriously that
all had a right to life, liberty and property?
They'd probably provide rights of speech, religion, press
and try to ensure that individual rights were not violated.
Hey, like the United States!
These people had been robbed and deserved restitution.
That is arguable, but not relevant.
Even the writers of those high flown
words that you defend weren't willing to give the slaves anything to
back up their words.
Some were not. But whether some were not
willing to back up their words is not evidence that
those truths were and are not self-evident.
A murderer might not care if another's rights are
violated, but he certainly wouldn't want his violated.
That's what's wrong with such assertions, nothing
about them is valid.
No, that is not what was wrong with the assertion.
There was and is nothing wrong with the assertion.
I think another thing self-evident (not to all) is that
there will always be morons and the brain-dead
who can not see what is self-evident.
Philosophical propositions are never self-evident.
Your existence is not a philosophical proposition.
There are many things self-evident in man. Greed,
avarice, dishonesty are but a few. We sometimes
have to live with them.
Truths can be denied to be truths, but does
not make them untruths. The world is
not perfect, and governments can not
be perfect.
Go live somewhere else if you regard the
basic principles of our society as being
"political invective".
I think that the Declaration had many great ideals, but they were
political invective. They were not serious and the writers were only
serious about it in contrast to the way they, as wealthy landowners of
the Colonies, thought they ought to be treated by the King. They didn't
care a bit about those who were not rich like them.
The only thing here spewing invective is you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 06:25:46 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<tMawb.637$dI1.23370@news.uswest.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:s8a2sv4q4lqnse5q981on9iop8g2b3g1or@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<1t9wb.630$dI1.19444@news.uswest.net>:
....
It's interesting that you support your argument with an
argument about slaves, yet choose to leave out "little"
details such as what would have happened to the slaves
had they been freed.
What would have happened in a country that took the idea seriously that
all had a right to life, liberty and property?
They'd probably provide rights of speech, religion, press
and try to ensure that individual rights were not violated.
Hey, like the United States!
Well, the US has been working in that direction, but that is not because
there is any legal underpinning to the claim. No law supports this.
These people had been robbed and deserved restitution.
That is arguable, but not relevant.
Even the writers of those high flown
words that you defend weren't willing to give the slaves anything to
back up their words.
Some were not. But whether some were not
willing to back up their words is not evidence that
those truths were and are not self-evident.
A murderer might not care if another's rights are
violated, but he certainly wouldn't want his violated.
That has nothing to do with the idea of unalienable. Something that is
unalienable is something that you are _not_ allowed by law to dispose
of. You are holding it in trust.
That's what's wrong with such assertions, nothing
about them is valid.
No, that is not what was wrong with the assertion.
There was and is nothing wrong with the assertion.
It is irrelevent to the law.
I think another thing self-evident (not to all) is that
there will always be morons and the brain-dead
who can not see what is self-evident.
Philosophical propositions are never self-evident.
Your existence is not a philosophical proposition.
My existence has nothing to do with the unalienability of my life,
liberty or right to hold property.
There are many things self-evident in man. Greed,
avarice, dishonesty are but a few. We sometimes
have to live with them.
Truths can be denied to be truths, but does
not make them untruths. The world is
not perfect, and governments can not
be perfect.
Go live somewhere else if you regard the
basic principles of our society as being
"political invective".
I think that the Declaration had many great ideals, but they were
political invective. They were not serious and the writers were only
serious about it in contrast to the way they, as wealthy landowners of
the Colonies, thought they ought to be treated by the King. They didn't
care a bit about those who were not rich like them.
The only thing here spewing invective is you.
So you say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 12:55:28 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:orj2svsnsiphprt2u12cc9cj8srbd6ojdr@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in
<tMawb.637$dI1.23370@news.uswest.net>:
A murderer might not care if another's rights are
violated, but he certainly wouldn't want his violated.
That has nothing to do with the idea of unalienable. Something that is
unalienable is something that you are _not_ allowed by law to dispose
of. You are holding it in trust.
un·al·ien·a·ble
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away ...
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
We hold it to be self-evidently true
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
that all persons come into the world equal,
that they come into the world automatically endowed with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes one happy, within reason.
(See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 06:57:18 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
Philosophical propositions are never self-evident.
I'd be careful there. For instance,
"'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white"
could be taken as a "philosophical proposition";
certainly it was proposed by a philosopher (Tarski).
And it appears to me, at least, to be self-evident.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 09:47:23 AM |
|
|
SortingItOut wrote:
"JR" <jr@jr.com> wrote in message news:<C0Rvb.209232$9E1.1124058@attbi_s52>...
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7Jvb.134305$Gq.17798966@twister.nyc.rr.com...
<snip>
7
(except slaves)
And woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 12:27:36 PM |
|
|
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:bE4wb.124043$ri.18607408@twister.nyc.rr.com...
SortingItOut wrote:
"JR" <jr@jr.com> wrote in message
news:<C0Rvb.209232$9E1.1124058@attbi_s52>...
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7Jvb.134305$Gq.17798966@twister.nyc.rr.com...
<snip>
7
(except slaves)
And woman.
No exceptions.
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 12:43:26 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<X%6wb.215728$275.802598@attbi_s53>:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:bE4wb.124043$ri.18607408@twister.nyc.rr.com...
SortingItOut wrote:
"JR" <jr@jr.com> wrote in message
news:<C0Rvb.209232$9E1.1124058@attbi_s52>...
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7Jvb.134305$Gq.17798966@twister.nyc.rr.com...
<snip>
7
(except slaves)
And woman.
No exceptions.
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
Valid quote, meaningless argument.
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
Absurd interpolation that has not been demonstrated.
that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness."
Yet, even these writers did not think that most adults had the
unalienable right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness
(property).
(See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
Political pamphlets are not proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 05:36:57 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsv1svs6fn1gh6inbf14mp1r2uu1g3mfis@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in
<X%6wb.215728$275.802598@attbi_s53>:
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:bE4wb.124043$ri.18607408@twister.nyc.rr.com...
SortingItOut wrote:
"JR" <jr@jr.com> wrote in message
news:<C0Rvb.209232$9E1.1124058@attbi_s52>...
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7Jvb.134305$Gq.17798966@twister.nyc.rr.com...
<snip>
7
(except slaves)
And woman.
No exceptions.
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
Valid quote, meaningless argument.
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
Absurd interpolation that has not been demonstrated.
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a proposition by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness."
Yet, even these writers did not think that most adults had the
unalienable right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness
(property).
Doesn't matter what any individual or group believes. It is the principle
that matters. You understand what a principle is?
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 06:04:54 PM |
|
|
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a proposition by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
23 Nov 2003 10:21:25 PM |
|
|
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a proposition by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 09:58:40 AM |
|
|
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a proposition by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
There's nothing "untenable" about a "barbaric state of affairs".
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 11:45:39 AM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to imaple is, properly, to put to death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as "riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
There's nothing "untenable" about a "barbaric state of affairs".
That's a patently absurd statement, contradictory to common sense. Would you
agree that it is reasonable for a theocracy to be free to impale you on a
charge of heresy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Balter" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 06:05:50 PM |
|
|
JR2 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
No, actually, it's a fact of life.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to imaple is, properly, to put to death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as "riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
There's nothing "untenable" about a "barbaric state of affairs".
That's a patently absurd statement, contradictory to common sense. Would you
agree that it is reasonable for a theocracy to be free to impale you on a
charge of heresy?
That it's *morally* unreasonable does not make it *logically* untenable;
clearly not, since such states of affairs *do exist*, and what exists is
possible.
--
<J Q B>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 06:39:53 PM |
|
|
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:_2xwb.6305$ML6.3928@fed1read01...
JR2 wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale
heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
No, actually, it's a fact of life.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in
the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to imaple is, properly, to put to
death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left
in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of
the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other
parts of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely
employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole
of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as
"riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet
impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against
religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it
is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able
to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of
the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
There's nothing "untenable" about a "barbaric state of affairs".
That's a patently absurd statement, contradictory to common sense. Would
you
agree that it is reasonable for a theocracy to be free to impale you on
a
charge of heresy?
That it's *morally* unreasonable does not make it *logically* untenable;
clearly not, since such states of affairs *do exist*, and what exists is
possible.
Nobody but your straw man says that abrogating (treating as nonexistent) the
unalienable (not to be taken away) rights of the peons is not POSSIBLE,
knucklehead. Why don't you give up building your straw man long enough to
concentrate on trying to understand the self-evident truths the real people
are pointing out for you?
The idea you are selling, just go along with despotism, because it is just
an unchangeable fact of life, is an absurdity that is in contradiction to
common sense.
We hold it to be self-evidently true
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs],
that all persons come into the world equal,
that they come into the world automatically endowed with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or whatever
makes one happy, within reason.
(See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 01:13:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope. It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to imaple is, properly, to put to death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as "riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
There's nothing "untenable" about a "barbaric state of affairs".
That's a patently absurd statement, contradictory to common sense. Would you
agree that it is reasonable for a theocracy to be free to impale you on a
charge of heresy?
--
Replace nospam with group to email
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 02:12:42 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale
heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope. It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
What are you arguing, that a precedent of tradition establishes a right of
despots and theocracies to continue to murder, impale, burn at the stake,
and behead heretics and dissenters, abrogating their unalienable (not to be
taken away) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with which
everyone comes into the world endowed as a birthright?
No, I can't agree with that. What you propose defies common sense, and robs
me of my birthright. I will put my life on the line to defend your right to
say whatever you want, within reason, but I cannot agree with what you
propose here today, since it defies common sense.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to imaple is, properly, to put to
death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left
in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of
the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts
of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely
employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole
of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as
"riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet
impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against
religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able
to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of
the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
There's nothing "untenable" about a "barbaric state of affairs".
That's a patently absurd statement, contradictory to common sense. Would
you
agree that it is reasonable for a theocracy to be free to impale you on a
charge of heresy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 02:39:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:12:42 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale
heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope. It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
What are you arguing, that a precedent of tradition establishes a right of
despots and theocracies to continue to murder, impale, burn at the stake,
and behead heretics and dissenters, abrogating their unalienable (not to be
taken away) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with which
everyone comes into the world endowed as a birthright?
Nope. Read for comprehension. I never argued that there is any right
for people to commit such despicable acts.
No, I can't agree with that. What you propose defies common sense, and robs
me of my birthright. I will put my life on the line to defend your right to
say whatever you want, within reason, but I cannot agree with what you
propose here today, since it defies common sense.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to imaple is, properly, to put to
death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left
in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of
the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts
of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely
employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole
of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as
"riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet
impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against
religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able
to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of
the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
There's nothing "untenable" about a "barbaric state of affairs".
That's a patently absurd statement, contradictory to common sense. Would
you
agree that it is reasonable for a theocracy to be free to impale you on a
charge of heresy?
--
Replace nospam with group to email
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 03:03:29 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a0r4svcqfmmv045jjnab04tnl2tpe7adkv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:12:42 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it
leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale
heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope. It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
What are you arguing, that a precedent of tradition establishes a right
of
despots and theocracies to continue to murder, impale, burn at the stake,
and behead heretics and dissenters, abrogating their unalienable (not to
be
taken away) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with
which
everyone comes into the world endowed as a birthright?
Nope. Read for comprehension. I never argued that there is any right
for people to commit such despicable acts.
"Divine Right of Kings" is you phrase, isn't it?
Your agument is that it "can and has happened, and it may happen again."
That is an argument for justifying it's establishment by precident, that it
has a tradition of happening, therefore, that is just the way things are,
the natural order of things.
I can't agree with that. What you propose defies common sense, and robs me
of my birthright. Our common goal is more civilization, not less (unless you
are a royal who thinks he has a divine right to rule despotically, or you
are part of a potential theocracy who believe they are on a mission from God
to rid the world of heretics and schismatics).
No, I can't agree with that. What you propose defies common sense, and
robs
me of my birthright. I will put my life on the line to defend your right
to
say whatever you want, within reason, but I cannot agree with what you
propose here today, since it defies common sense.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in
the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to imaple is, properly, to put to
death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being
left
in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of
the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other
parts
of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely
employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the
"stoole
of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as
"riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet
impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against
religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it
is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in
actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by
what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if
able
to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of
the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
http://www.m-w.com
reductio ad absrudum : disproof of a proposition by showing that
it
leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
There's nothing "untenable" about a "barbaric state of affairs".
That's a patently absurd statement, contradictory to common sense.
Would
you
agree that it is reasonable for a theocracy to be free to impale you
on a
charge of heresy?
--
Replace nospam with group to email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 04:26:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:03:29 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a0r4svcqfmmv045jjnab04tnl2tpe7adkv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:12:42 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it
leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale
heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope. It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
What are you arguing, that a precedent of tradition establishes a right
of
despots and theocracies to continue to murder, impale, burn at the stake,
and behead heretics and dissenters, abrogating their unalienable (not to
be
taken away) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with
which
everyone comes into the world endowed as a birthright?
Nope. Read for comprehension. I never argued that there is any right
for people to commit such despicable acts.
"Divine Right of Kings" is you phrase, isn't it?
Not my phrase. Never used it or anything close to it.
<snip>
--
Replace nospam with group to email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 01:29:34 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope.
That is not a contradiction of common sense?
Not a barbaric state of affairs?
It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
It is not a contradiction to the common sense of those who are
impaled?
It's not a contradiction because ______________________
______________________________________________.
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 01:54:36 PM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:G%swb.535$f62.35942@news.uswest.net...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it
leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale
heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope.
That is not a contradiction of common sense?
Not a barbaric state of affairs?
It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
It is not a contradiction to the common sense of those who are
impaled?
It's not a contradiction because ______________________
______________________________________________.
snip
Yeah, Mr. Lemming is way off here. Lots of murders have been committed, and
there have been lots of impalements and burnings of heretics by theocracies,
and lots of despots have shouted on a whim, "Off with their heads!" But a
tradition of bad behavior does not make murder, impalement, burning, and
beheading acceptable behavior, as Mr. Lemming's argument implies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 02:38:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:54:36 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:G%swb.535$f62.35942@news.uswest.net...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it
leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale
heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope.
That is not a contradiction of common sense?
Not a barbaric state of affairs?
It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
It is not a contradiction to the common sense of those who are
impaled?
It's not a contradiction because ______________________
______________________________________________.
snip
Yeah, Mr. Lemming is way off here. Lots of murders have been committed, and
there have been lots of impalements and burnings of heretics by theocracies,
and lots of despots have shouted on a whim, "Off with their heads!" But a
tradition of bad behavior does not make murder, impalement, burning, and
beheading acceptable behavior, as Mr. Lemming's argument implies.
I never claimed it was acceptable behavior, and I believe that it is
not acceptable behavior.
However, I do not believe that such acts are violations of inalienable
rights, since that would be a contradiction in terms.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 03:10:47 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:esq4sv01m2f1aee63ai1qtshgf1iser3lm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:54:36 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:G%swb.535$f62.35942@news.uswest.net...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric state of affairs to which it
leads?
reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by
pointing
out that it leads to a *contradiction*, dumbfuck.
reductio ad absurdum : disproof of a proposition by showing an
absurdity
to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
Yes, a logical absurdity -- i.e., a contradiction.
An absurd barbaric state of affairs in which a despot is free to
take
anyone's life on a whim, or in which a theocracy is free to impale
heretics,
is a contradiction of common sense.
Nope.
That is not a contradiction of common sense?
Not a barbaric state of affairs?
It would be horrible, but it can and has happened, and it may
happen again. It's not a contradiction.
It is not a contradiction to the common sense of those who are
impaled?
It's not a contradiction because ______________________
______________________________________________.
snip
Yeah, Mr. Lemming is way off here. Lots of murders have been committed,
and
there have been lots of impalements and burnings of heretics by
theocracies,
and lots of despots have shouted on a whim, "Off with their heads!" But a
tradition of bad behavior does not make murder, impalement, burning, and
beheading acceptable behavior, as Mr. Lemming's argument implies.
I never claimed it was acceptable behavior, and I believe that it is
not acceptable behavior.
However, I do not believe that such acts are violations of inalienable
rights, since that would be a contradiction in terms.
Well you can't have it both ways, Mr. Lemming. Either we, each one of us
peons, have as a birthright an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, or the royals and the theocrats have a divine right to
murder, impale, burn, and behead dissenters, heretics and schismatics. Pick
one or the other. Holding both is logically contradictory, ruled out by
reductio ad absurdum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Unalienable right: was Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 04:25:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:10:47 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:esq4sv01m2f1aee63ai1qtshgf1iser3lm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:54:36 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:G%swb.535$f62.35942@news.uswest.net...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lvl4sv47r3arjo6gvunu0h4ul1lkndqnb1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC), "JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote:
"Jim Balter" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:o4owb.6206$ML6.168@fed1read01...
Arn wrote:
Jim Balter wrote:
JR2 wrote:
You never heard of reductio ad absurdum, the disproof of a
proposition
by
pointing out the absurd barbaric st | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
