Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #223656 > unrolled thread

technical terms overhaul

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-19 21:20 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 21:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 21:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 22:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 22:10 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 02:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 05:00 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2020-06-20 05:30 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 06:20 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 09:30 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 16:00 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 16:40 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 21:10 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-20 18:00 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-22 15:50 +0200
                        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-22 19:20 +0200
                          Re: technical terms overhaul Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2020-06-22 19:30 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 18:10 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-19 22:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul riveravaldez <riveravaldezmail@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 00:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-20 12:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 14:10 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 15:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 00:00 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 00:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 05:50 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-21 07:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 07:50 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@rootsland.net> - 2020-06-21 12:20 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul fmneto@gmail.com - 2020-06-19 21:50 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-06-19 22:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2020-06-19 23:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2020-06-20 16:10 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-20 18:10 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2020-06-19 22:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 01:10 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 13:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-20 14:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 17:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2020-06-19 23:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2020-06-20 11:30 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-06-20 01:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 01:20 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-20 03:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson@freevolt.org - 2020-06-20 04:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-20 03:10 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:30 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2020-06-20 16:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 19:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-20 20:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 20:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 23:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 05:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 08:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-06-21 09:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 11:10 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 11:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-06-20 21:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Francisco Mariano Neto <fmneto@usp.br> - 2020-06-20 21:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-20 21:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-21 08:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 08:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-21 19:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:10 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 22:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 07:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-06-21 17:40 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2020-06-21 12:20 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 13:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 14:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-21 14:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 16:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2020-06-21 17:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 16:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 19:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-06-21 19:10 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-06-21 20:30 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2020-06-21 21:00 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-06-21 22:50 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-21 23:30 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 23:30 +0200
                        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson@freevolt.org - 2020-06-21 23:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-21 19:30 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul nemo <moelmoel2714@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 22:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-21 15:10 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 18:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 21:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 22:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 23:00 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 23:10 +0200

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#223749

elvis wrote:

> Since the terms have nothing to do with race, then no. Are you proposing
> to rename everything with the word black in it? Sometimes a cigar is
> just a cigar.
> 
> 
>> "allowlist" and "rejectlist"
>> instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like to
>> propose the terms:
> 
> But it is a master and slave relationship. So what? How is this related
> in any way to human masters and slaves?

I just decided to flag all of this as liberal trolling - I do not have a
better or more politically correct approach of that.

Unfortunately wide spread in computer societies - no idea how it will end.

I recently demanded that companies/businesses and also our technically
focused communities should not participate in such discussions, movements
or whatever.

The reason was LGBT inclusion movement in a company. I asked them how would
they approach the fact that logically only one thing can be considered
correct/normal (by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can
be true). If you consider LGBT to be normal, then all the rest is
considered as not normal or vv.
I asked what is coming next - pedos, canibals or other mental disorders.
They asked me to delete the post and then deleted all posts - but not the
LGBT/inclusion site ...

Same here - resist for the sake of truth and logic. Otherwise we'll end up
as the modern version of Daesh.

Thank you for your opinion 
Thumbs up
Regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223751

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 07:33:16PM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> [...] (by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can
> be true). If you consider LGBT to be normal, then all the rest is
> considered as not normal or vv.

Wait a sec. This is getting really weird now. Logic doesn't care about
your views.

Too weird for me. I'm out. perhaps I should filter out your
mails.

-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223764

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> Wait a sec. This is getting really weird now. Logic doesn't care about
> your views.
> 

Neither it cares about yours tomas. And regarding filtering out - I really
can't tell - so why writing it down?

I read yours with pleasure as far as they are of technical nature

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223752

Hi,

deloptes wrote:
> by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can be true

Any system of thought, which follows the principles of classical logic
and which contains the usual math of natural numbers, contains statements
which are neither true nor false.
Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Formally_Undecidable_Propositions_of_Principia_Mathematica_and_Related_Systems

Whether the idea of the existence of ontology belongs to this category of
statement still has to be decided. :))
After Goedel gave the project of logicism the kiss of death, the old idea
of Pythagoras was revived that everything is a number. Further meanings and
batteries are not included.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223766

Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> Any system of thought, which follows the principles of classical logic
> and which contains the usual math of natural numbers, contains statements
> which are neither true nor false.
> Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Formally_Undecidable_Propositions_of_Principia_Mathematica_and_Related_Systems
> 
> Whether the idea of the existence of ontology belongs to this category of
> statement still has to be decided. :))
> After Goedel gave the project of logicism the kiss of death, the old idea
> of Pythagoras was revived that everything is a number. Further meanings
> and batteries are not included.
> 
> 
> Have a nice day :)

If you've been studying logic you would know better, but it is forgiven.

Have a nice day too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223774

Hi,

i wrote:
> > Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem.

deloptes wrote:
> If you've been studying logic you would know better,

Ahum. Which of the preconditions of the theorem are not fulfilled by the
kind of logic you refer to ?
- Can some of its true statements not be written down as finite sequences
  of symbols from a finite or countably infinte alphabet ?
- Does it deny any of these fundamental properties of natural numbers:
  unlimited addition, multiplication as iteration of addition, prime numbers ?
- Is it not compliant to classical logic, as used throughout mathematics
  until about 1930 ?


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223776

Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> i wrote:
>> > Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem.
> 
> deloptes wrote:
>> If you've been studying logic you would know better,
> 

Exactly you wrote Goedel - the science of logic did not end up with
Goedel ... at least not for me ;-)
But Thomas - I do not want to argue here - you understand may be better the
notion of truth - or perhaps not.
By terms of ontology there is only one truth right - even if we do not know
what it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223794

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:47:36 +0200
"Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> deloptes wrote:
> > by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can be true
> 
> Any system of thought, which follows the principles of classical logic
> and which contains the usual math of natural numbers, contains statements
> which are neither true nor false.
> Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem.
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Formally_Undecidable_Propositions_of_Principia_Mathematica_and_Related_Systems

No - Gödel proved that any such (formal) system will contain statements
such that neither they nor their negations are *provable within the
system*. These statements are actually "true", using a normal
definition of truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223804

Hi,

i wrote:

> > statements which are neither true nor false.
> > Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem.

Celejar wrote:
> No - Gödel proved that any such (formal) system will contain statements
> such that neither they nor their negations are *provable within the
> system*. These statements are actually "true", using a normal
> definition of truth.

A system which contains this "normal definition of truth" must itself
contain statements which cannot be proven within that system - unless
it is too weird to be written down or too dull for the theory of numbers.

Consider the normal pitfall of philosophy to believe that human mind
and reasoning can cope with everything. I.e. axioms are for cowards.
So what does the free-wheeling philospher think about the truth of the
following statement:

  "This statement itself is false."


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223812

	Put more simply, every formal proof must contain at least one 
assumption and at least one undefined term.  In practice, three 
undefined terms and three postulates is a fairly tight, well contained 
logical construct.

	"This statement is false" isn't really anything profound.  It does 
illustrate there can exist internally inconsistent logical entities, but 
really it is merely an artifact of the situation that just because a 
string of words is grammatically correct does not imply it has any meaning.

	Is this really a good discussion for the Debian User list?

On 6/21/2020 1:19 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> i wrote:
> 
>>> statements which are neither true nor false.
>>> Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem.
> 
> Celejar wrote:
>> No - Gödel proved that any such (formal) system will contain statements
>> such that neither they nor their negations are *provable within the
>> system*. These statements are actually "true", using a normal
>> definition of truth.
> 
> A system which contains this "normal definition of truth" must itself
> contain statements which cannot be proven within that system - unless
> it is too weird to be written down or too dull for the theory of numbers.
> 
> Consider the normal pitfall of philosophy to believe that human mind
> and reasoning can cope with everything. I.e. axioms are for cowards.
> So what does the free-wheeling philospher think about the truth of the
> following statement:
> 
>    "This statement itself is false."
> 
> 
> Have a nice day :)
> 
> Thomas
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223814

Hi,

Leslie Rhorer wrote:
> "This statement is false" isn't really anything profound.  It does
> illustrate there can exist internally inconsistent logical entities, but
> really it is merely an artifact of the situation that just because a string
> of words is grammatically correct does not imply it has any meaning.

Yes. Antinomies are painful and the reflex to call them meaningless
is not far to seek.
But the movement of logicism tried to rule out such statements and
after decades of effort faded away, discouraged by the insight that no
list of axioms can unambiguously identify the "meaningless" statements.

In the end, we have to face the fact that there are statements which
have no truth value. And that is what i wanted to emphasize to defute
the argument that either "P" or "not P" must be true for all statements P.


>         Is this really a good discussion for the Debian User list?

Probably not. But what else shall i do with my memories form a year of
model theory lectures ?


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223815

Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> In the end, we have to face the fact that there are statements which
> have no truth value. And that is what i wanted to emphasize to defute
> the argument that either "P" or "not P" must be true for all statements P.

Yes, taken out of context, thank you (very helpful)!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223753

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-06-20 at 13:33, deloptes wrote:

> (by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can be true).
> If you consider LGBT to be normal, then all the rest is considered as
> not normal or vv.

By this same reasoning:

* If you consider white to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., black) is
considered to be not normal.

* If you consider male to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., female) is
considered to be not normal.

* If you consider right-handed to be normal, then all the rest (e.g.,
left-handed) is considered to be not normal.

In reality, of course, in each of those cases there are multiple
distinguishable things which all fall within the range of what is
considered "normal".

There is no inherent reason why the same could not apply to the context
you cite.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223757

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Wow, lots of responses here!

Going back to a more productive approach, let me suggest another pair:
yes-list and no-list. It's easy to understand, non-dubious, and easily
translated.

[]'s
Francisco

Em sáb, 20 de jun de 2020 15:54, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>
escreveu:

> On 2020-06-20 at 13:33, deloptes wrote:
>
> > (by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can be true).
> > If you consider LGBT to be normal, then all the rest is considered as
> > not normal or vv.
>
> By this same reasoning:
>
> * If you consider white to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., black) is
> considered to be not normal.
>
> * If you consider male to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., female) is
> considered to be not normal.
>
> * If you consider right-handed to be normal, then all the rest (e.g.,
> left-handed) is considered to be not normal.
>
> In reality, of course, in each of those cases there are multiple
> distinguishable things which all fall within the range of what is
> considered "normal".
>
> There is no inherent reason why the same could not apply to the context
> you cite.
>
> --
>    The Wanderer
>
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
> progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223767

The Wanderer wrote:

> * If you consider white to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., black) is
> considered to be not normal.
> 
> * If you consider male to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., female) is
> considered to be not normal.
> 
> * If you consider right-handed to be normal, then all the rest (e.g.,
> left-handed) is considered to be not normal.
> 
> In reality, of course, in each of those cases there are multiple
> distinguishable things which all fall within the range of what is
> considered "normal".
> 
> There is no inherent reason why the same could not apply to the context
> you cite.

Bingo! Exactly this is the point.

It is not about being black or white. You are mixing the levels of logic to
operate at. You are not above the ontology - that is the given by God or
Nature (as you wish).
Being black or white, male or female is Ontology - you are born like this.

The problems arise at lower levels where we try to meet an agreement what is
normal and not (deontic/epistemic). 

I once did a research how the great minds of the 19th century came to light.

You know how the school system looked like?

1. 2y Latin Grammar
2. 2y Logic
3. 2y Rhetoric

explained
1. You can't talk if you don't know the language
2. Even if you know the language you can not put forward meaningful
statements if you don't know logic
3. even if you know the language and you know logic, you can not lead a
dispute if you do not know rhetoric

I am afraid people miss that a lot. Let me ask you how many of you did have
Logic at school?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223760

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:33:16 +0200
deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello deloptes,

>be true). If you consider LGBT to be normal, then all the rest is
>considered as not normal or vv.

{leaving aside that language isn't maths, binary logic doesn't apply to
people, and any other canard you care to take a swing at}

That's why the term used most often now is LGBTQ+, which includes more
sexualities.  The goalposts are still moving, however.

Above info received from my daughter.

OMG!  Did I just assume their gender?

....

No, I checked:  She identifies as female.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
We don't need no-one to tell us what's right or wrong
The Modern World - The Jam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223769

Brad Rogers wrote:

> {leaving aside that language isn't maths, binary logic doesn't apply to
> people, and any other canard you care to take a swing at}
> 
> That's why the term used most often now is LGBTQ+, which includes more
> sexualities.  The goalposts are still moving, however.
> 
> Above info received from my daughter.
> 
> OMG!  Did I just assume their gender?

I know I know - but no one cares. In 100y it will be all gone because the
truth is 99% is male or female and the rest is joke of nature - again pure
ontology.
The wanna bes are candidates for the psychologist.

You didn't miss anything important - just the blow of the wind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223801

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 22:49:45 +0200
deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello deloptes,

>I know I know - but no one cares. I

So very true.  How's the slave trade going?

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
I'm in need of your help now
Burn - Judgement Centre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223807

Brad Rogers wrote:

> Hello deloptes,
> 
>>I know I know - but no one cares. I
> 
> So very true.  How's the slave trade going?

When you look at Saudi Arabia and alike (Israel is not better)- it works
just fine. Also in the west - in example all the companies that use child
labor.
So you (I dare to call you all cowards) do not stand up against modern day
slavery, but destroy history and try to change change language.
You are miserable mob!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223839

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 08:36:33 +0200
deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello deloptes,

I'm simply going to ignore most of what you wrote, but this, I won't
pass by;

>just fine. Also in the west - in example all the companies that use
>child labor.
>So you (I dare to call you all cowards) do not stand up against modern

To say I do nothing about it makes assumptions about me based on no
evidence whatsoever.  To include 'everybody' in your assumption of
'laissez-faire' is even more offensive.  You have no idea what all other
individual's activities are.

AFAIAC, EOT.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
My limbs are like palm trees swaying in the breeze
Mirage - Siouxsie & The Banshees

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web