Logic @ MindSay

Nimbo posted an entry titled:  Why I Believe In God.    I found the effort, the presentation very convoluted and beyond my comprehension. Her reply request states: "Tell me that you love me".  I replyed.  Then this came down.

 

namastelaoshi on July 3, 2008 at 1:55 PM

HUH?

Okay, I love you. Oh, I also believe that you are... are... are... I don't know. Certainly, for me, your "argument" with whomever, is so, so convoluted and, again, for me, so nonsenseical that I cannot follow it. I am inclined to state that what you presented is insane in its' presentation.

 

To quote Forest Gump "I am not a smart man." I never studied logic and only had general math in high school. I say this to let you know that I do not hold myself out to be authoratative with my evaluation of your presentation.

 

With that being true I am not uncomfotable stating that noting that you have presented can stand any test of lucidity. It's, I say with sincere considered seriousness, I say your presentation is immature in the least and, more probably insane. It is insane. It is crazy; worthy only of being discarded out of hand. -David

 

swanginbajingo on July 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Re: HUH?

Wait. You couldn't follow with what he said, but you stand to claim that you can make a proper judgment?

You might as well say the Chinese are all insane just because you couldn't decipher their language but recognize that they have numerous ways to say one thing.

At least he presented reference points and elaborations: you simply took numerous sentences to say and repeat "your argument is insane," making your entire post superfluous and more convoluted than his explanation, which is interesting because you said much less than he did.

But your entire lack of reasoning stems from the fact that his title said "Why I believe in God" and you decided this wasn't an elaborate explanation, but instead an "argument," which is a mistake too many people who "argue" religion make. Even if you had taken courses in logic, it wouldn't have helped you one bit. He answered a hypothetical question, not imposed a debate. Logic doesn't apply here; context and reading comprehension do.

 

nimbo on July 3, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Re: HUH?

Thank you, namastelaoshi, for your honesty. And thanks for standing up to [for] me swanginbajingo. In some ways, you are both right. (Also, I'm a girl.)

 

swanginbajingo on July 3, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Re: HUH?

XD Whoops. I fall into the group of people who use "he" as a generic pronoun for people and "she" as a generic pronoun for things. XD

 

namastelaoshi on July 3, 2008 at 9:42 PM

HUH? I mean huh again?

"You couldn't follow with what he said, but you stand to claim that you can make a proper judgment?" so say you. Correct? Well I thought that I made it perfectly clear that I was not too smart and that my "judgement" [I thought I was making and observation] should be highly questioned.

 

To clarify a error in my reply to Ms. Nimbo I offer the following: "...I am not uncomfotable stating that noting that you have presented cannot stand any test of lucidity." is an error. I should read "...nothing that you have presented can stand any test of lucidity."

 

Then "...he [she] presented reference points and elaborations:" True. She did a lot that which led to my observation that all such was so too, too convoluted to render it anything but immature in presentation and maybe even insane. It is what I said and I do not back down from what I said in this instance from the perspective of a not-smart man who, by the way, cannot also comprehend your presentation either.

 

I know that you know what is in my mind and what and how I think because, you did did you not, say that above? Thanks for your advise not to take a course in logic [something I had truly been considering at age 67]. Being assured by you that I would be a failure at it you have saved me some time and expense; neither of which I have great resources of. You so kind and considerate. Thanks, David

 

swanginbajingo on July 3, 2008 at 9:43 PM Re: HUH? I mean huh again? It's okay. You're welcome.

 

namastelaoshi on July 3, 2008 at 10:32 PM

HUH? HUH? HUH?

That's it? Really? You are so, so much better than me, indeed, and better than all of we and that's it? HUH? -David

 

swanginbajingo on July 3, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Re: HUH? HUH? HUH?

Now, now. Don't get emotional on someone else's blog. We don't need to flood her inbox. If you have a complaint, come to my blog. This will be my last message so as to avoid any further nonsense on her recent updates.

 

namastelaoshi on July 3, 2008 at 11:10 PM

Me thinks me understands.

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." - President Harry S. Truman

It happened again yesterday.  Some talking head on a news broadcast misused the term 'begging the question.'  This usually happen something like this: "Since he is now a serial killer, it begs the question, how was he  reared?"  But begging the question is a logic term that means the premise assumes the conclusion is true.  Here is an example:

• God exists.
• How do you know?
• The Bible says so.
• Why should I believe the Bible?
• Because it was written by God.

I used this example because so many of we Christians do it.  Stop it.

I swear, what is it with people who try to defend their point by trying to tell you who you are and what you do?  Today someone actually told me what he THOUGHT I wasn't interested in and what blogging networks he THOUGHT I was interested in. He even bet a nickel on his ASSumptions.  I told him he should keep his nickel. Only a fool bets on something or someone they know nothing about. My God, the next thing you know, he's going to tell me I had Frosted Flakes and wheat toast for breakfast and insist that I did. Too bad it was left over pound cake and coffee.  It is always a BIG mistake to use phrases like "you're the kind of person" or "people like you think", when having a discussion with people you don't know. To me this is common sense. I guess for some people it isn't. Why?

 

This political blogger is more full of shit than I thought he was. As a matter of fact this guy must shit straw, because he only seems to be able to debate someone by building a strawman!  Step one - create a false premise. Step two - defend said premise while ignoring the fact that it is false. 

 

I know this is a rambling post, but don't you think if you are going to get into a discussion with someone, it would be wise to ask questions rather than assume things about them? Is this guy this presumptious in the sack?

"People like you like it when someone puts his tongue in your ear."

"Actually, I hate that."

"Yeah, right. You know you like it. People like you always like it."

 

 Let's hope he isn't in a field that requires investigative skills.  Deductive reasoning seems to be beyond his scope.  Ugh! Along with sociology, logic is now on my list of subjects that should be required in high school.

 

• One of the reasons I  sometimes don't like to tell people that I do my own hair is because they tend to ask me to do theirs.  I absolutely hate doing hair even though I'm rather good at doing it.  The problem is that even though you come out and say, "I hate doing hair." They tend to say, "I know, but could you just this one time...?"  Most of the time I just do it anyway.  Today a woman at church tried to get me to put a relaxer on her hair immediately after church was over.  I told her I didn' t like doing other people's hair and I had to run some errands after church was out. She still insisted that it wouldn't take long, etc.  I stood my ground and said "no." Since she was an older lady, I got the feeling that she thought I was being disrespectful, but honestly, I couldn't make it any plainer. Plus, when I need to get my hair done, suddenly nobody can come through for me. This is one of the reasons I do it my damn self!

 

• Do people truly not know the difference between fact and opinion? Do people not understand that most of the time what they deem to be true is subjective?  Maybe my background in science makes me have a more rigid definition of facts and maybe my background in psychology gives me a clearer understanding of perception. Therefore, I can understand why people perceive their strong beliefs as facts.  Political blogs are filled with so much rhetoric sometimes that it makes me sick to my stomach! Certainly the blogs that boast beliefs contrary to my own appear to be even more nauseating, but at least I am willing to admit that bias.  I was on one site where this black conservative was spitting mad at this black liberal blogger for referring to Republicans as Re-puke-licans. In the next sentence the man who was so opposed to name calling referred to all of this blogger's readers as "synchophants" (whatever that means.  I thought the word was SYCOPHANTS myself, but eh...why split hairs </sarcasm>) who lacked the "testicular fortitude" to challenge "real" Republicans.  He then challenged this blogger to name five "real" Republicans who subscribed to racist thinking.  Well, I happened to point out the flaws in this "challenge". Number one - What exactly is a "real" Republican? Number two - whether or not someone THINKS someone subscribes to racist thinking is subjective.  As a matter of fact, everything about the "challenge" was subjective and left the challenger the advantage of defining who a "real" Republican is and what is and is not racist.  The so called intelligent, college-educated man couldn't or wouldn't understand why I would make these points in the first place. In his mind he made a clear challenge with quantifiable terms.  Ugh! Give me science, philosophy or psychology any fucking day of the week! Science likes real facts. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Philosophy gave us formal and informal logic (thank God!)  A is TRUE <---> B is TRUE.  B is TRUE .: A is TRUE, and Psychology gave us the tools to recognize our own bullshit!  What did politics give us? The antithesis of all three apparently.  I really think politicians study logical fallacies, just to be able to skillfully litter their speeches with them! Sacre bleu!

 

• What's up with this look where guys tuck half of their shirts in?  I don't get it.

 

• I'm sure this post is full of typos and grammatical errors, but I'm too tired to give a flying fig! It sucks being nocturnal when you have to get up at 6:30 AM for work. I haven't been able to fall asleep before 5 AM for the past 2 1/2 - 3 weeks.

 

Sometimes I sit here in my small corner of the universe and wonder about the ability of those in the world who have discussions to whip out the Race card simply because they disagree with a person's point of view. That same point of view might have a bearing on a certain race just because of statistical norms, but that doesn't mean the comment itself is pointed solely at one race or another.

To see the truth and call it as it is has never been popular, and in today's society of "smooth it all over" I can only surmise that the trend of calling a Disagreement in philosophy a racial slur will continue. This whole experiment in societal evolution has come to an unexpected turn. No longer does a person get to have the privilege of a right to speak their mind and have the essence of what they say taken at face value. Instead, the person must assume that they will be called all sorts of things that are completely out of line with what their initial statement said.

Take for example the recent post by Daenarys. She says nothing more than her personal opinion on the state of victim hood in today's society. She says that people who have control over their lives but refuse to work towards their own better tomorrow are not truly victims so they should stuff their whining. Where in that whole statement does one get the right to call her a racist? A truly thoughtful person would see that this is a racially even statement. One cannot simply pick and choose to feel put upon by hearing such a statement. One chooses to be a victim because one likes to feel a victim.

Misterskank has pointed out the evils of the Forerunners of the Caucasians in America. But instead of seeing the irrationality of blaming all those who are today Caucasian American for the troubles the Forerunners caused, he wades in by assuming that Daenarys is racist because she does not want to hear whining from the indolent. How can one possibly compare the two?

This is an example of yet another person who wants to feel self justified at calling someone else racist. One has to see that flawed vision of the world for what it is: simple selfishness twisting an already warped mind to hurt someone who speaks the truth. Is this to be rigorously defended? I can only assume that the majority of those who were ranting against Daenarys would agree with Misterskank's twisted and erroneous perceptions.

As to accepting the blame on my generation for the errors of preceding generations, might I point out that it was the Moors of Africa that sold the BlackMan into slavery in the first place. Does that make the slave ships free of the guilt? No. But put blame where blame is due. Simply picking a convenient scapegoat is not Justice. And neither is blaming an innocent generation hundreds of years later.

But don't let me confuse you with the facts.