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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#681
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 05:26 PM |