Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:13 pm
Xocrates wrote:If this is wrong, then it's physically impossible for two persons to have divergent opinions by having only the same facts.
"Physically possible"? Is logic a physical entity now?
Xocrates wrote:I admit the colour argument was not the best since you can give a quite definite definition, but many definitions are subjective and vague. Borderline cases are extremely difficult to define. We can't even agree if the fetus is part of the mother.
The question of the fetus being part of the mother or not doesn't really matter in the end. There is a reality there that can be measured just like the color example. The debate about whether it is part of the mother is really just semantic. The fetus is what it is. The real issue is how we think it should be treated. My view is based on biological dependence which is a fact (not that that makes my view right). I don't base my view on whether you consider the fetus part of the mother. I was simply using that argument to try and get you to explain your views more fully.
Xocrates wrote:If that isn't clear by now you haven't been paying attention.
Yes, if I disagree it must be because I haven't been paying attention. . .
Xocrates wrote:Hum... You're probably right. But that depends on how you define logic.
Yes, but if you use the accepted definitions of "logic" and "notation" the distinction between binary representation and decimal representation is clearly notational.
I could define "logic" to mean "pink" after all. There is a certain point at which a definition becomes simply silly. I think trying make "logic" mean "notation" is beyond that point.
Xocrates wrote:And are thus subject to human fallacy. Most definitions are not definite.
Certainly not. That doesn't really matter in the end.
Xocrates wrote:However the true flaw on your argument is that definitions affect the way we think, not what things are. Since definitions are not definite neither is the way people think.
How is that a flaw in my argument? I don't believe I've argued anything to the contrary. Language is clearly an extension of our thought process and thus the two are intimately connected. However our thoughts don't alter reality (despite what some might want to think).
Xocrates wrote:At no point I said it wasn't. I simply said that from the beginning I didn't care what it was and when I set out on that argument I wanted my side to fail, because I wasn't trying to prove abortion right or wrong. I was doing something completely different.
You don't care what my argument was? That explains a lot.
Xocrates wrote:Considering I started that point of argument, it seems to me it was you that missed the point.
It seems to me you don't even know what your argument is. You are so all over the place, it seems you've even confused yourself.
Part of your problem is that you like blaming people for misunderstanding you, but you make no effort to correct them. You go off say "that's not what I was arguing" without saying what you thought you were arguing. You keep saying you've proven something without laying out the proof. It's really a very lazy and insulting method of debate.