111–120 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But since |BP| is both 1 and 2 it means Bertrand Russell is both the Pope, and not the Pope.
... yes. That is indeed what is meant by ex falso quodlibet . It does not make the example invalid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Paradox: if I say: "I don't want freedom of speech for anybody but myself". Why would anyone defend my point of view? I don't think all ideas are defendable, but then I cannot make a list of what ideas deserve to be defended are what not: this always seemed to me like the notion of love (you don't know how to define it, besides the…
if you ask me I would defend your right to express that opinion, but I would also expect that if you ever come close to having the power to make it real, you would be stopped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Declining to continue to employ someone, or be associated with them in public, is not silencing them.
Exactly, that's discrimination on the grounds of political views. Congratulations, you're against European human rights and against the law of some US states. For the records, even if you hold this opinion, I personally wouldn't care and I would hire you based on how you perform at the interview (or keep you hired if you're an employe of mine). I definitely wouldn't associate with you in public, though (nothing perso…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
conclusive evidence
Can you please expand on your point?
Of course not.
Russell meant "conclusive" with respect to a small group of right minded people, that should be deciding things.
He wasn't against an arbitrary group of elites deciding what is true, he was just against the wrong group vaguely identified as "the State".
I'm not saying I'm pro or con anyone censoring things, my point is that people who talked about censorship traditionally took for granted that someone responsible was in control if the people they didn't like weren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear that a lot. Wealth, science, infrastructure are better ergo the political system and decisions were good. I hear that from such diverse sides as Bill Gates and capitalism apologists as well as Soviet apologists. The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in a…
Not saying I agree with it, but: A frequent answer to that from proponents of a strong unitary state (e.g. China, but also Russia and a few other countries) is that society there is too divided for the state to survive without a heavy hand. And then, once the state breaks down and the country splits into fiefdoms ruled by warlords, the collapse of infrastructure and violence means that the average person wouldn't be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Infinity plus one" is completely legal and well-defined in multiple mathematical formalisms [0], not least of which (and my personal favorite) are the surreal numbers [1]. [0] https://blog.plover.com/math/infinity-for-kids.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number#Transfinite_ind...
I meant adding infinity to both sides
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... yes. That is indeed what is meant by ex falso quodlibet . It does not make the example invalid.
The point was merely that it cannot be used to prove "anything" since the actual conclusions do not necessarily follow, leaving the original claim that you can prove anything with false axioms unproven.
The conclusion "Bertrand Russell is not the Pope" also follows. Yes, this is a contradiction. So is 1=0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"
I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The evidence is overwhelming, unlike the case with Iraq's WMDs.
"Evidence" like satellite photos of school complexes, markets, and such being reported (in mainstream media nonetheless) as "concentration camps" and debunked by on-the-field checks?
Of course, you know this. Why you seek to deny it it's anyone's guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please expand on your point?
Has there ever been any evidence for anything that has ended debate on the topic for everyone, universally? Of course not. Russell meant "conclusive" with respect to a small group of right minded people, that should be deciding things. He wasn't against an arbitrary group of elites deciding what is true, he was just against the wrong group vaguely identified as "the State". I'm not saying I'm pro or con anyone censor…