G
Guest
Guest
Lisa, lovebug, yeah. You and Joe give me hope, so if I can count on bumping into either of you I'll lurk a while more. Btw, my insight is often someone else's trash.Lisa Denton said:
P.Pointless argumentative thread alert
- Thread starter minsue
- Start date
P.
impressive
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Posts
- 27,372
minsue said:
That pretty much sums it up for me, too.
Shall we now discuss the afterlife?
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
For Pure:
Simply stated, you can't prove or disprove a value judgement/opinion. You can prove it's based on erroneous information, provided you have a full accounting of all the factors that influenced someone's judgement; and provided that your information is substantially more credible by the criteria considered important by the person whose opinion this is.
Dick says, "It's a fact that the president is an idiot." Dick can state this as a fact, but without a commonly understood and measurable definition of idiocy, Dick's appraisal of the president's intelligence remains in the realm of opinions/value judgements.
By the same token, if Carlotta thinks Dick is misjudging the president, the president's idiocy remains a matter of opinon that neither party can prove or disprove - unless Carlotta, Dick and the rest of the world can arrive at a universally understood definition of idiocy and a measurable test of idiocy.
Dick may define idiocy as the inability of an adult in a position of authority to form a coherent sentence without a teleprompter. Carlotta may define idiocy as showing up in pajamas and fuzzy bedroom slippers for global summit conferences; and even then, only if there was a published dress code that had been previously agreed upon by all parties involved.
----------
Bob says, "Dodos are extinct." This falls into the category of fact rather than value judgement, for these reasons: "extinct" has a universally understood definition ("There ain't no more dodos, Bubba"); the extinction of dodos has been assumed for so many years that it has become a part of the "common knowledge," disputed by nobody but a fringe group of dodo believers.
The acceptance of dodo extinction as fact by all but those few, does not negate the possibility that one or more live dodos might exist. But it does place the burden of proof on those who insist that Bob is merely dodo-bashing.
To prove that Bob is wrong, all the dodo believers have to do is produce a live dodo or demonstrate its existence beyond any reasonable doubt (by "reasonable," I mean more credible than eye-witness testimony about Bigfoot sightings, or films of alien autopsies.)
I rest my case.
I don't know why I made my case, only that I'm resting it.
Simply stated, you can't prove or disprove a value judgement/opinion. You can prove it's based on erroneous information, provided you have a full accounting of all the factors that influenced someone's judgement; and provided that your information is substantially more credible by the criteria considered important by the person whose opinion this is.
Dick says, "It's a fact that the president is an idiot." Dick can state this as a fact, but without a commonly understood and measurable definition of idiocy, Dick's appraisal of the president's intelligence remains in the realm of opinions/value judgements.
By the same token, if Carlotta thinks Dick is misjudging the president, the president's idiocy remains a matter of opinon that neither party can prove or disprove - unless Carlotta, Dick and the rest of the world can arrive at a universally understood definition of idiocy and a measurable test of idiocy.
Dick may define idiocy as the inability of an adult in a position of authority to form a coherent sentence without a teleprompter. Carlotta may define idiocy as showing up in pajamas and fuzzy bedroom slippers for global summit conferences; and even then, only if there was a published dress code that had been previously agreed upon by all parties involved.
----------
Bob says, "Dodos are extinct." This falls into the category of fact rather than value judgement, for these reasons: "extinct" has a universally understood definition ("There ain't no more dodos, Bubba"); the extinction of dodos has been assumed for so many years that it has become a part of the "common knowledge," disputed by nobody but a fringe group of dodo believers.
The acceptance of dodo extinction as fact by all but those few, does not negate the possibility that one or more live dodos might exist. But it does place the burden of proof on those who insist that Bob is merely dodo-bashing.
To prove that Bob is wrong, all the dodo believers have to do is produce a live dodo or demonstrate its existence beyond any reasonable doubt (by "reasonable," I mean more credible than eye-witness testimony about Bigfoot sightings, or films of alien autopsies.)
I rest my case.
I don't know why I made my case, only that I'm resting it.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
I see you're arguing for a hard, fact/value distinction. One I used to believe in, myself.
I no longer 'buy' it: not because there aren't cases such as you describe (GWB is an idiot), which can't be resolved, for several reasons; but because there are a whole range of terms that fall into the 'gray area', from 'choice' applied to apples, to 'courageous' or 'honest' applied to people; "unfaithful" applied to a spouse.
Indeed, facts and judgments cannot be separated, as in
*"This stone is a diamond."
A recent TV documentary looked at moissonite manmade gems, which fooled most jewelers (as the filmmakers showed), in respect of being diamonds.
So statement (*) includes a kind of appraisal or assessment.
Admittedly you can 'take apart' the appraisal: you can say, "Why is it a diamond in your opinion?" Answer: "Its hardness, its lustre, clarity etc. "
You might want to say *those* are the facts, that the rest is judgment. But it's not that useful an exercise. Everyone understands that "This stone is a diamond." is a statement of fact.
Most of your arguments (e.g., the 'idiot' one) deal in terms which are vague or have large 'gray' areas. But this is a problem cutting across factual and value judgments. Facts: This breast is soft. This cookie is crumbly. He makes unreliable promises.
These statements involve terms with gray areas just as much as what you would call judgements: This breast is gorgeous; This cookie is delicious; His promising is amoral.
I no longer 'buy' it: not because there aren't cases such as you describe (GWB is an idiot), which can't be resolved, for several reasons; but because there are a whole range of terms that fall into the 'gray area', from 'choice' applied to apples, to 'courageous' or 'honest' applied to people; "unfaithful" applied to a spouse.
Indeed, facts and judgments cannot be separated, as in
*"This stone is a diamond."
A recent TV documentary looked at moissonite manmade gems, which fooled most jewelers (as the filmmakers showed), in respect of being diamonds.
So statement (*) includes a kind of appraisal or assessment.
Admittedly you can 'take apart' the appraisal: you can say, "Why is it a diamond in your opinion?" Answer: "Its hardness, its lustre, clarity etc. "
You might want to say *those* are the facts, that the rest is judgment. But it's not that useful an exercise. Everyone understands that "This stone is a diamond." is a statement of fact.
Most of your arguments (e.g., the 'idiot' one) deal in terms which are vague or have large 'gray' areas. But this is a problem cutting across factual and value judgments. Facts: This breast is soft. This cookie is crumbly. He makes unreliable promises.
These statements involve terms with gray areas just as much as what you would call judgements: This breast is gorgeous; This cookie is delicious; His promising is amoral.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Well, she does. I'd say why, but then I'd get all embarassed and shit.
The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
Ten Commandments of Reason
I Thou shalt not believe in fairy tales.
II Thou shalt not let fear of the supernatural rule your life.
III Thou shalt not lie to your children about reality.
IV Thou shalt not give prayer in place of medicine.
V Thou shalt not discriminate against those with different beliefs.
VI Thou shalt not label people abominations because of who they love.
VII Thou shalt not kill in the name of god.
VIII Thou shalt not destroy cultures in the name of saving souls.
IX Thou shalt not pray for the end of the world.
X Thou shalt not fear death.
I Thou shalt not believe in fairy tales.
II Thou shalt not let fear of the supernatural rule your life.
III Thou shalt not lie to your children about reality.
IV Thou shalt not give prayer in place of medicine.
V Thou shalt not discriminate against those with different beliefs.
VI Thou shalt not label people abominations because of who they love.
VII Thou shalt not kill in the name of god.
VIII Thou shalt not destroy cultures in the name of saving souls.
IX Thou shalt not pray for the end of the world.
X Thou shalt not fear death.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Speaking as a logician, I'd say they are more accurately put this way:
I. Though shalt extend possibility to fairy tales, and when eliminating all logical possibility, then disbelieve them.
II. Thou shalt give the supernatural its due, until such a time as logical possibility is eliminated from it and disbelief then has reason
III. Thou shalt regard reality as a general pile of possibilities and not teach children things from the impossible pile.
IV. Thou shalt not give "cliche'" in the place of logic.
V. Thouh shalt accept contradictions as bad beliefs, non-contradictions as promising ones, perfect ones as correct
VI. Thou shalt label people what is most logically accurate.
VII Thou shalt do what is rationally substantiated.
VIII. Though shalt destroy what is rationally substantiated.
IX Though shalt pray for what is rationally substatiated.
X Though shalt fear what is ratoinally substantiated.
That would be what a logician would have to admit as to what commandments of reason likely are. What you posted was more like "Commandments of people against Christianity'. But "against Christianity" and "Reason" are not synonymous.
Randi Grail
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 28, 2004
- Posts
- 492
If it walks like a dodo, and it talks like a dodo...The Mutt said:What about the statement , "The President is a Dodo?"
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Before I head off for a post-pointless-argument bubblebath and a trashy paperback, I'll just toss this sickening little McNugget onto the floor of the Argument Clinic.
It's no fun to argue about a crime this obvious, this inexcusable, this well-connected and this successful. Crime pays, people. Provided the scope, and the sheer, shameless gall of the crime are inconceivable to anybody caught up in the "support the troops" rah-rah, a crime at their expense - and ours - pays very well indeed.
Enjoy.
Army Says It May Not Withhold Halliburton Payments
By Sue Pleming
Reuters
Tuesday, August 17, 2004; 11:46 PM
The U.S. Army reversed a decision late Tuesday to withhold payment on 15 percent of future invoices of Halliburton Co.'s logistics deal in Iraq and gave the company more time to resolve a billing dispute.
The Army said earlier Tuesday it had decided that starting Wednesday it would withhold 15 percent of payments on future bills from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root for a logistics contract servicing U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait.
But later the Army indicated it would continue to reimburse in full Kellogg Brown and Root, the Army's biggest contractor in Iraq, for feeding and housing troops there.
"I just got a phone call putting on hold the 15 percent withhold clause implementation and I don't know why or any of the particulars," said Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois.
Halliburton, which was run by Dick Cheney from 1995-2000 before he became vice president of the United States, said it did not have any new information and the company was seeking clarity.
The company said earlier it believed any impact of a possible withholding would be mitigated since KBR would, in turn, put a 15 percent withholding of payments to subcontractors.
STOCK AFFECTED
Halliburton shares slid more than 4 percent, or $1.34, to $26.45 on the New York Stock Exchange but recovered later to $27.30, a 1.76 percent dip from the previous day. The shares have tumbled 16 percent since the beginning of August.
There have been confusing signals from both the military and the company in recent days over the billing dispute and whether the Army would take any action.
The company put out a statement on Monday that money would not be withheld but then announced Tuesday along with the Army that it had been told payment of 15 percent of future invoices would be withheld starting Wednesday.
Halliburton had vowed to fight the decision and argued the withholding should not apply to any of its Iraq work, which according to government estimates could top $18 billion.
"Halliburton is confident the government action is not justified and expects that its legal arguments will be upheld in litigation," said a company statement.
The 15 percent withholding can be implemented under Federal Acquisition Regulations which Theis said were commonly used and not done specifically to target KBR.
The Army had estimated the withholding could amount to about $60 million a month based on current KBR billing schedules, but this figure could be amended. An estimated $8.2 billion in future work orders in Iraq could potentially be affected.
The threat to dock payments hung over the company for months because of a dispute over whether KBR properly documented bills for feeding and housing troops in Iraq and Kuwait. Two previous extensions were granted and another one had been expected by KBR when a deadline expired last Sunday.
So far, Halliburton has been paid more than $4.3 billion under its logistics contract in Iraq, doing tasks that range from delivering mail to building bases and cooking meals.
Halliburton's work has been under intense scrutiny in Iraq, with allegations the company overcharged for some services, such as providing fuel to Iraqi civilians and for meals.
Its woes were compounded last week when a leaked Pentagon audit said KBR had not adequately accounted for more than $1.8 billion of work done in Iraq and Kuwait and found flaws in KBR's system for estimating costs.
It's no fun to argue about a crime this obvious, this inexcusable, this well-connected and this successful. Crime pays, people. Provided the scope, and the sheer, shameless gall of the crime are inconceivable to anybody caught up in the "support the troops" rah-rah, a crime at their expense - and ours - pays very well indeed.
Enjoy.
Army Says It May Not Withhold Halliburton Payments
By Sue Pleming
Reuters
Tuesday, August 17, 2004; 11:46 PM
The U.S. Army reversed a decision late Tuesday to withhold payment on 15 percent of future invoices of Halliburton Co.'s logistics deal in Iraq and gave the company more time to resolve a billing dispute.
The Army said earlier Tuesday it had decided that starting Wednesday it would withhold 15 percent of payments on future bills from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root for a logistics contract servicing U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait.
But later the Army indicated it would continue to reimburse in full Kellogg Brown and Root, the Army's biggest contractor in Iraq, for feeding and housing troops there.
"I just got a phone call putting on hold the 15 percent withhold clause implementation and I don't know why or any of the particulars," said Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois.
Halliburton, which was run by Dick Cheney from 1995-2000 before he became vice president of the United States, said it did not have any new information and the company was seeking clarity.
The company said earlier it believed any impact of a possible withholding would be mitigated since KBR would, in turn, put a 15 percent withholding of payments to subcontractors.
STOCK AFFECTED
Halliburton shares slid more than 4 percent, or $1.34, to $26.45 on the New York Stock Exchange but recovered later to $27.30, a 1.76 percent dip from the previous day. The shares have tumbled 16 percent since the beginning of August.
There have been confusing signals from both the military and the company in recent days over the billing dispute and whether the Army would take any action.
The company put out a statement on Monday that money would not be withheld but then announced Tuesday along with the Army that it had been told payment of 15 percent of future invoices would be withheld starting Wednesday.
Halliburton had vowed to fight the decision and argued the withholding should not apply to any of its Iraq work, which according to government estimates could top $18 billion.
"Halliburton is confident the government action is not justified and expects that its legal arguments will be upheld in litigation," said a company statement.
The 15 percent withholding can be implemented under Federal Acquisition Regulations which Theis said were commonly used and not done specifically to target KBR.
The Army had estimated the withholding could amount to about $60 million a month based on current KBR billing schedules, but this figure could be amended. An estimated $8.2 billion in future work orders in Iraq could potentially be affected.
The threat to dock payments hung over the company for months because of a dispute over whether KBR properly documented bills for feeding and housing troops in Iraq and Kuwait. Two previous extensions were granted and another one had been expected by KBR when a deadline expired last Sunday.
So far, Halliburton has been paid more than $4.3 billion under its logistics contract in Iraq, doing tasks that range from delivering mail to building bases and cooking meals.
Halliburton's work has been under intense scrutiny in Iraq, with allegations the company overcharged for some services, such as providing fuel to Iraqi civilians and for meals.
Its woes were compounded last week when a leaked Pentagon audit said KBR had not adequately accounted for more than $1.8 billion of work done in Iraq and Kuwait and found flaws in KBR's system for estimating costs.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Wow, that is some weird shit.
Ten Commandments of Reason
VII Thou shalt not kill in the name of god.
How exactly does "Reason" command anything about respect for other religions and cultures?
Is it *irrational* (as opposed to evil) to say, "my culture and group are superior and all others should be sacrificied to it."
For Joe
VII Thou shalt do what is rationally substantiated.
VIII. Though shalt [not?]destroy what is rationally substantiated.
IX Though shalt pray for what is rationally substatiated.
X Though shalt fear what is ratoinally substantiated.
1)What the fuck is "rationally substantiated", and 2)why are events with this character to be prayed for [see IX]?
3)Is that supposed to help make them happen?
As far as destroying (or not; your typos are overwhelming) what is rationally substantiated.
4)Does my dog count as 'rationally substantiated.' 5) Are the mice in my basement 'rationally substantiated'? 6) Does this property help me decide who to preserve and who to destroy-- as opposed to the property of damaging my food supplies and leaving little shits all around the place.
Ten Commandments of Reason
VII Thou shalt not kill in the name of god.
How exactly does "Reason" command anything about respect for other religions and cultures?
Is it *irrational* (as opposed to evil) to say, "my culture and group are superior and all others should be sacrificied to it."
For Joe
VII Thou shalt do what is rationally substantiated.
VIII. Though shalt [not?]destroy what is rationally substantiated.
IX Though shalt pray for what is rationally substatiated.
X Though shalt fear what is ratoinally substantiated.
1)What the fuck is "rationally substantiated", and 2)why are events with this character to be prayed for [see IX]?
3)Is that supposed to help make them happen?
As far as destroying (or not; your typos are overwhelming) what is rationally substantiated.
4)Does my dog count as 'rationally substantiated.' 5) Are the mice in my basement 'rationally substantiated'? 6) Does this property help me decide who to preserve and who to destroy-- as opposed to the property of damaging my food supplies and leaving little shits all around the place.
The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
Pure said:
You're right, Pure. Reason is not the perfect word to describe what I am writing about. But it is the generally accepted word among the non-religious to describe what we devote our lives to.
Sanity, rational thought, common sense, science, truth. The voice of reason.
As opposed to invisible boogymen who live in the sky.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Well, the reason for those was to address the "commandments" they were based on. "Rationally substantiated" would mean something like "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic". Not many things are.
For instance "if a thing is to be prayed for, then it is a thing that must, first, be necessitated by logic to be prayed for" would be something that a strictly rational person must think about prayer. That isn't to say that anything fits that criterion, just that if we're to talk about "prayer" in regards to the strictly logical man, then that is what the strictly logical man would pray for... namely, "something necessitated by logic".
Personally I don't think "prayer' has any real association with logic. But were it to, that would be it.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Joe said,
"Rationally substantiated" would mean something like "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic". Not many things are.
I find this unilluminating. Substituting in your 'commandments'
VII Thou shalt do "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic".
VIII. Though shalt [not?]destroy "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic".
IX Though shalt pray for "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic".
X Though shalt fear "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic".
------
I do note one thing, regardless of what the new phrase means: you say "not many things are" (supported as a necessity for logic).
It follows that in terms of what to do, pray for, destroy or fear, your commandments offer extremely limited guidance.
There are very few things--according to your commandments-- to do, destroy or fear.
For instance here is a list of some things humans have thought they should do; I'm trying for a broad scope:
Serve God
Serve one's fellow man
Work for the greatest good of the greatest number in one's society
Work for the good of one's family and friends
Work for the advancement of knowledge
Work for concrete improvement in how people in the community, live.
Strive for social recognition
Strive to bear and nurture healthy children
Make efforts to develop one's gifts
Turn some of them to the benefit of others
Produce great works of art
Gratify one's sensual desires so long as they don't hurt others.
Develop one's will and persistence
Discover bliss consciousness
Discover 'no mind.'
----
I suspect none of these would be 'supported as necessity for logic', i.e. called for under your DO commandment. Is this correct?
========
[all but the beginning of this PS is deleted as making no sense]
PS. I suspect there is an eleventh commandment:
[deleted]
"Rationally substantiated" would mean something like "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic". Not many things are.
I find this unilluminating. Substituting in your 'commandments'
VII Thou shalt do "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic".
VIII. Though shalt [not?]destroy "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic".
IX Though shalt pray for "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic".
X Though shalt fear "whatever it is that is supported as a necessity for logic".
------
I do note one thing, regardless of what the new phrase means: you say "not many things are" (supported as a necessity for logic).
It follows that in terms of what to do, pray for, destroy or fear, your commandments offer extremely limited guidance.
There are very few things--according to your commandments-- to do, destroy or fear.
For instance here is a list of some things humans have thought they should do; I'm trying for a broad scope:
Serve God
Serve one's fellow man
Work for the greatest good of the greatest number in one's society
Work for the good of one's family and friends
Work for the advancement of knowledge
Work for concrete improvement in how people in the community, live.
Strive for social recognition
Strive to bear and nurture healthy children
Make efforts to develop one's gifts
Turn some of them to the benefit of others
Produce great works of art
Gratify one's sensual desires so long as they don't hurt others.
Develop one's will and persistence
Discover bliss consciousness
Discover 'no mind.'
----
I suspect none of these would be 'supported as necessity for logic', i.e. called for under your DO commandment. Is this correct?
========
[all but the beginning of this PS is deleted as making no sense]
PS. I suspect there is an eleventh commandment:
[deleted]
Last edited:
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
...that would be accurate, yes. A true "commandments of Reason" would have very little to say about things like prayer, fear, destruction, etc. as Reason is not designed to deal with such things in any way but a strictly analytical one. So, ultimately, the only relationship Reason has with prayer, fear, and destruction is limited to "if something is logically proven to be necessarily (prayed for, feared, destroyed), then one should". That's just logic, really. Nothing new and innovative in that.
Nope, though there have been many arguments that have attempted (even came close, philosophically) to substantiate some of them.
Not really--not doing what is a logical necessity doesn't make much sense. More like "Thou shalt not do what is supported as impossibility for logic"... if you're to add one. But that's more of a statement of fact, than anything else.
I'm having an issue with your phrasing (hard to understand). If you made a list of atrocities, then none of them would be in (previously YOURS not MY number XI, but let's deal with both)?
If you had a list of atrocities, some of them may have been alright by your XI as some of them could have been a logical necessity. Similarly, they may be alright by my XI, so long as they're strictly possible.
The XI thing is kinda confusing... please rephrase what you meant by it because I can't make heads or tails of it. I may simply not be smart enough.
Similar threads
