eagleye13 wrote:
Singularity;Are you really concerned with logical reasoning?
If yes;
How can you choose socialism?
Frederic Bastiat's 'The Law' (French economist, statesman and author, 1801 to 1850) is a must read for anyone that finds logic as being of importance.
Best I have ever read on exposing the fallacies of socialism.
Who said I "choose socialism?" I am a humanist, best I can figure the labels.
But thanks for the reference.👍
Blade_Runner wrote:
Nothing exists without a cause, things do not manifest out of nothing.
The act of loving, by its very nature, creates a need where none existed before.
If you cultivate love for a fantasy, it will always be one sided, but if you have a good imagination and/or good technological interfaces you can fool yourself and be totally content.
Living in the matrix.
Blade_Runner wrote:
What's the difference? You and Pete are the same face of the atheist coin.
Logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.
Logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals.
FYI: Gravity, along with Electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, is one of the four Fundamental Forces in the Universe. We're talking quantum level here.
Why Can't Quantum Mechanics Explain Gravity?Live Science: Greatest Mysteries: What Causes Gravity?What's the difference? You and Pete are the same f... (
show quote)
God Blade, you are spinning so fast you are about to spin of that flat earth you live on... If my wife and I are having a general conversation the rules of logic we use are relaxed and informal. If my wife is teaching a class the rules of logic she uses are formal and very specific. The types of logic we use depends on the types of conversations we have. If we are trying to understand why QM can't explain gravity we defeat ourselves if we use fallacies. The same if we are discussing politics or god or anything where we are tying to form a truth. You are welcome to play with fallacies all you like but if you can't separate out when you should be using informal logic and formal logic then you will never be able to understand truth.
Blade_Runner wrote:
And Homer Simpson.
Ad Comicem fallacy, lol.
Words wouldn't change meaning depending upon what technology forms the phonemes, or intermediary code letters in written transmission. In fact since writing was invented, and as we learn words could be communicated by writing and reading signals, the actual production of sound becomes redundant.
Curiously, a lot of us retain the habit of moving the lips as we read. Which, by the way slows us down, because people can learn to read orders of magnitude faster then they can speak/move their lips to form the sounds. If we habitually form the sounds, we habitually slow our reading comprehension process down to speaking speed.
Some retain a superstitious underthought that saying something makes it so. I just said, "twenty dollars!" out loud, in an authoritative, commanding tone. It earned me nothing, $0. To be fair at the experiment, I've said it in a whiney tone, angry tone, sarcastic, frightened, and neutral tone. $0 x 0 successes = $0. Y'all try it.
Or that evil is an actual substance that can be invisibly inserted into a thought and transmitted by sounds from speaker to listener, contaminating both, instead of just relaying the spoken information. So that the relative Good/Evil of the originator of the message might actually affect its truth value!
Pretty wild stuff, huh!?!
eagleye13 wrote:
Singularity;Are you really concerned with logical reasoning?
If yes;
How can you choose socialism?
Frederic Bastiat's 'The Law' (French economist, statesman and author, 1801 to 1850) is a must read for anyone that finds logic as being of importance.
Best I have ever read on exposing the fallacies of socialism.
One doesn't choose socialism--it is a bi-product of Capitalism. Social Security was created because our capitalistic system didn't provide for people once they were unable to work. Medicare was created because capitalism didn't provide for health care for the aged. The same with Medicaid, the creation of Obamacare, and our social welfare system. None of this would exist if Capitalism would provide fully for society.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.