The End of an Era - That of The Natural Numbers
in [Logic]
|
Prev: What are deliberately flawed & fallacious Arguments? Sophistry!
Next: sci.lang is not meant for advertising
From: Michael Stemper on 7 May 2010 13:38 In article <4BE4483A.2050802(a)osu.edu>, James Burns <burns.87(a)osu.edu> writes: >Transfer Principle wrote: >> At least I've never asked anyone to define "is." If other >> posters really wanted to convince me not to divide them into >> two groups, they can give those with whom they disagree the >> benefit of the doubt once in a while. If they want me to stop >> worrying about five-letter words, then they should stop >> worrying about two-letter words, for one thing. > >Am I in this group of posters who want to convince you >not to divide them into two groups? You see, there are two kinds of posters: 1. Those who want to convince him divide them into two groups. 2. Those who don't care. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
From: William Hughes on 7 May 2010 13:48 On May 7, 2:38 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > In article <4BE4483A.2050...(a)osu.edu>, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> writes: > >Transfer Principle wrote: > >> At least I've never asked anyone to define "is." If other > >> posters really wanted to convince me not to divide them into > >> two groups, they can give those with whom they disagree the > >> benefit of the doubt once in a while. If they want me to stop > >> worrying about five-letter words, then they should stop > >> worrying about two-letter words, for one thing. > > >Am I in this group of posters who want to convince you > >not to divide them into two groups? > > You see, there are two kinds of posters: > 1. Those who want to convince him divide them into two groups. > 2. Those who don't care. > There are three groups of posters - those who can divide things into groups properly - those who can't - William Hughes
From: MoeBlee on 7 May 2010 13:59 On May 6, 4:26 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 3:42 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > If Clinton had wanted to further the discussion Why should Clinton want to further the discussion? He was in an adversial hearing. My point is not that Clinton wanted to further the discussion. My point is that his ridiculed response was actually a legitimate point. > Which bit of "I neither know nor care" did you fail to understand? I don't care whether you care or not. I'm posting for the general reader; I'm posting to make a point about an historical incident that has come to be misunderstood due to media and other people incorrectly simplifying it and ridiculing something that, at first blush, seemed ridiculous but was actually legitimate. > I suppose that if the remark was correct you might have to say > he was "playing with words" rather than "*just* playing with > words". I fail to see a big difference. The remark > does not become a good remark just > because it was correct. I'm not claiming it was a "good" remark. My point only is that the substance of the incident got mangled by the media and by simplistic public joking about it. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 7 May 2010 14:01 On May 6, 4:55 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > You can see more context -- in which it becomes clear that Clinton is > discussing temporal aspects of the issue -- athttp://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm#sexual. It's all I'm really sayin'. Thank you, Jesse. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 7 May 2010 14:10
On May 6, 5:15 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps you see A as an attempt to give a clear answer to Q. > I see A as an obvious obfuscation. Clinton was not obligated to give clear answers. He was obligated not to commit perjury. And whether obfuscatory or confusing or unclear or whatever, the mere fact that he drew a distinction in a sense of 'is' was not ridiculous or in itself obfuscatory. And what WOULD disservice "advancing the discussion" would be to override the important temporal disctinction Clinton was making. (By the way, I'm not addressing the larger question of whether Clinton did perjure himself at various points.) > It certainly reinforces my > view that > > "It all depends on what you mean by 'is'" > > is a very good example for using a demand for definition > to block debate. No, it doesn't. It wasn't a DEBATE. It wasnt' anything LIKE a debate even. Clinton was in no POSITION even to block any debate that was not even occurring. Rather, Clinton was under examination in an ADVERSARIAL context, in which context he has the right to draw whatever fine distinctions (and this distinction was not just gratuiously fine) he feels are needed to answer the question accurately and even in as best light to himself as he can. When he made the remark about 'is' he was drawing attention to an important point regarding the particular question. MoeBlee |