From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 11:39:05 MDT
--- John K Clark <jonkc@att.net> wrote:
> "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
>
>> We can say without drawing much objection that a
>> member of the KKK is "scum" for the reason that
>> White Supremicism has been widely discredited by
>> intelligent thoughtful people with *valid logical
>> arguments*.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more.
Well, good.
>> However such statements are not themselves part
>> of any valid logical argument.
>
> I couldn't disagree with you more. Saying they are
> scum is PART of a valid logical argument, it is the
> conclusion.
If the object of your argument is to judge the moral
character of other people, (to "play God" as some
might say), then sure, it can be a "conclusion" of
sorts.
You might argue with a Nazi:
1) Moral people believe and act according to maxims a,
b, and c.
2) Those like you who believe and act according to
Nazism do not act according to maxims a, b and c.
3) Therefore those who like you who believe and act
according to Nazism are not moral and may be defined
as "scum."
This argument does nothing however to actually prove
the critical assumptions inherent in 1) or 2).
Valid logical arguments must have both 1) logical
consistency and 2) valid premises.
The loyal Nazi would disagree with your assumption in
1) and perhaps also in 2). He would object to your
argument, stating that it is logical but not valid;
that you had failed to first prove your premises. And
he would be correct, logically speaking.
As I understand it, you were lambasted by your fellow
extropes at one time for calling another extropian a
"blithering idiot." If that is so, then it was because
your assumptions were not widely accepted here as
true, and/or because your statement was perceived as
just downright *rude*.
It is quite possible to be perfectly logical and also
perfectly rude. Such things happen occasionally (none
of us are perfectly rational, non-emotional beings)
and when they do an apology is usually in order.
There is nothing rational about violating the rules of
social etiquette, and one might argue that intentional
violations of those rules are in fact irrational, in
that they usually back-fire if one's intention is to
convince others of the validity of one's views.
Rudeness generally does not earn anyone brownie points
in the credibility category.
It's true that 2+2 does not equal 5, but calling those
who believe otherwise "blithering idiots" is not going
to help the math professor interested in furthering
his career.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 11:46:48 MDT