A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #681  
Old December 6th 06, 02:13 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.sport.nascar,rec.motorcycles,misc.transport.trucking,alt.california
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,318
Default Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL


Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> >
> >Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Brent P > wrote:
> >> >In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Brent P wrote:
> >> >>> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > The support is biased, and the supporting logic is based on the logical
> >> >>> > fallacy of slippery slope.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Wether or not slippery slope is a logical fallacy, government makes use
> >> >>> of the concept. People get conditioned and then can be made to accept the
> >> >>> next step. Something which had it been proposed initially would have met
> >> >>> with significant resistance goes in easily.
> >> >>
> >> >> Supporting a logical fallacy with a nested identical logical fallacy
> >> >> doesn't make the original one disappear.
> >> >
> >> >You should go inform MADD they are running a logical fallacy... They'll
> >> >just inform you that it's working well for them. Not to mention those who
> >> >wage the war on drugs and the war on terror in the government.
> >> >
> >> >There was a progression that resulted in no knock searches. Just because
> >> >it's a logical fallacy doesn't change what has happened one bit.
> >>
> >> The argument that one is travelling down a slippery slope is not, in
> >> itself, a logical fallacy. Any fallacy lies in the lack of causal
> >> connection between the points on the slope.

> >
> >Not quite. Weak causal connection, or many intervening steps can also
> >cause the fallacy.

>
> It doesn't matter how many intervening steps there are if the causal
> connection is perfect. A->B, B->C, C->D, D->E, E->F, F->G
> demonstrates A->G, and would even if there were a thousand steps.


That's true. But the likelihood of each causal connection being
perfect becomes less as you go up in number of steps.

That's why, when you read the discussion of the logical falllacy of the
slippery slope, it mentions "many steps."

> >In the case of this argument, the weak causal links and the ultimate
> >reversiblity of the links make it a fallacious argument.

>
> >Reductio arguments are not always sound, BTW.

>
> The reductio is a sound logical argument. Not all arguments which
> appear to be reductios are, and of course any argument build on false
> premises is unsound.


The reductio *can* be sound. But in this particular discussion, the
argument cannot be considered a reductio ad absurdum argument because
causal connections have not been established from one thing to another.

E.P.

Ads
  #682  
Old December 6th 06, 02:55 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.sport.nascar,rec.motorcycles,misc.transport.trucking,alt.california
gringo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL

wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:05:22 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>> In article >, gringo wrote:
>>
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not going to argue D vs. R propoganda. It's a waste of energy. The
>>>> bad things shrub has done vs. the bad things bubba has done as been
>>>> beaten to death.
>>>>
>>> What bad thing did Clinton do, other than get a BJ from a willing
>>> female?
>>>

>
> Ummm.... committed perjury under oath while in office, a
> felony for which he was later convicted and disbarred.
>
> What the left refuses to admit, although they know it well, is
> that the Impeachment was never merely about 'getting a BJ', it was
> about perjury and obstruction of justice while in office.
>
>



excuse me. This has all been debated a hundred times, but I don't mind
giving you Rightards another dose of realism. Clinton was not convicted
in his impeachment trial. He was only temporarily disbarred *from
arguing a case before the Supreme Court ONLY*. That really hurt him a
lot, didn't it, a former president who is unlikley to ever need his law
license. But that was a handspank, charged on a technicality. He did
not legally commit perjury, as any one who pays attention to world
events would have known. When asked the key question, he asked for and
received a legal definition (read from statute book), and answering that
definition only, he DID NOT commit perjury. A very smart man. Unlike
Bush who can't utter a complete sentence unless it's fed to him through
an earpiece.

But just what harm did his sexual activities have to do with the rest of
us anyway? Did he wipe his ass with his left hand or his right hand?
I'm sure it matters to the likes of you.

For almost seven years Bush has been ****ing over this nation and our
next five generations. Which is the greater sin? getting a blowjob or
allowing 3,000 people to die on 9/11 for his political ambitions,
getting 3,000 Americans killed in Iraq and another 40,000 maimed over a LIE.
Even Conservative guru Pat Buchanan says that Bush ought to be impeached.



>
>> Before you mention it, yes, he did push through NAFTA, but
>>
>> I don't think you need a rehash of everything from carnivore to NAFTA to
>> Waco and then some. I know I don't.
>>
>> What shrub has done would not have been possible without what bubba did.
>> Just as what bubba did was dependent on those before him.
>>
>> Until D's convince me with their actions, not their words, I will see
>> them as just another wing of the same party. I will be surprised if they
>> roll back the MCA, etc.. but I don't see that as likely given the
>> indications thus far. My guess is we'll get the ADL's hate speech law and
>> some form of signficant amnesty for illegal aliens. Not exactly what
>> the public was looking for by kicking out Rs.
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
>



--
*fas-cism* (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
-- The American Heritage Dictionary



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
  #683  
Old December 6th 06, 04:16 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,318
Default Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL


Alan Baker wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Someone else obviously needs logic lessons. Look up "slippery slope
> > > > logical fallacy" in google.
> > >
> > > You're full of yourself.

> >
> > Logical fallacy: ad hominem.

>
> Actually, the first ad hominem was yours: "someone else obviously needs
> logic lessons".


If somebody doesn't know what a particular logical fallacy is, is
pointing that out in itself a logical fallacy?

Explain that, if you can.

E.P.

  #684  
Old December 6th 06, 04:17 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,318
Default Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL


gringo wrote:
>
> Maybe you should concentrate on your argument rather than trying to
> display your "superior" vocabulary, eh?


Tough words from an anonymous trucker.

E.P.

  #685  
Old December 6th 06, 07:24 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.trucking
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,804
Default Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL

[trimming groups to r.a.d. and m.t.t.]
Ed Pirrero wrote:

> The reductio *can* be sound. But in this particular discussion, the
> argument cannot be considered a reductio ad absurdum argument because
> causal connections have not been established from one thing to another.


It may not be possible to establish causal connections for a number of
real world events. Here are two arguments to demonstrate that fact.

1. It's cloudy
2. Therefore it will rain

1. It's sunny
2. Therefore it will rain

Neither argument demonstrates a causal connection between #1 and #2, but
from previous experience, the first argument's outcome is more likely
than the second argument's outcome, given the first condition in either
argument.

Similarly, one can rely on previous experience to reasonably predict
outcomes in the form of future laws and civil liberties restriction
based on past government action. So while it's possible that seat belt
checkpoints may be found illegal tomorrow, it's not as likely as the
fact that they will remain legal and other types of checkpoints may
become legal.

  #686  
Old December 6th 06, 08:25 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.trucking
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,318
Default Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL


Arif Khokar wrote:
> [trimming groups to r.a.d. and m.t.t.]
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> > The reductio *can* be sound. But in this particular discussion, the
> > argument cannot be considered a reductio ad absurdum argument because
> > causal connections have not been established from one thing to another.

>
> It may not be possible to establish causal connections for a number of
> real world events. Here are two arguments to demonstrate that fact.
>
> 1. It's cloudy
> 2. Therefore it will rain
>
> 1. It's sunny
> 2. Therefore it will rain


To be a slippery slope, it really needs to have more than one step.

In addtion, I'll guess that there are locations on the planet where
it's both sunny, cloudy, and never rains.

> Neither argument demonstrates a causal connection between #1 and #2, but
> from previous experience, the first argument's outcome is more likely
> than the second argument's outcome, given the first condition in either
> argument.


But there is no further prediction that can be made. One cannot
predict drought or flood from either of those things, just like one
cannot predict totalitarian police state from secondary seatbelt
enforcement.

> Similarly, one can rely on previous experience to reasonably predict
> outcomes in the form of future laws and civil liberties restriction
> based on past government action. So while it's possible that seat belt
> checkpoints may be found illegal tomorrow, it's not as likely as the
> fact that they will remain legal and other types of checkpoints may
> become legal.


But the possibility still exists. For an anti-slippery slope sort of
example, one could cite Prohibition, and the repeal thereof. Part of
the issue is the very narrow frame of reference for what constitutes
"declining rights." Expand the time frame, and expand the various
groups of people looked at.

E.P.

  #687  
Old December 6th 06, 08:30 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.trucking
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> To be a slippery slope, it really needs to have more than one step.


So much for that then.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"My daughter had a right to be on the road that night," Innis said. "He didn't." [email protected] Driving 465 August 9th 06 07:27 AM
Research claims women are idiots about cars laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE Driving 2 March 9th 06 06:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.