You're raving again, Kalevi. It's obvious that this was a
horrible crime. It is not, however, any kind of emergency
situation that the public needs constant updates on. Particularly
not for someone in irrelevant Finland. Do you want the
authorities to do something unusual or possibly illegal and
possibly damage the case just to satisfy your sick fascination
with mass murderers?
I doubt you'd believe anything they said anyway, unless it
happened to agree with your desired outcome. You sound like a
deranged Trumper.
If it were the kind of imminent crisis that required you be
updated there'd be a lot more incidents of crimes of this
magnitude or worse.
Face it, the guy is a nut.
I don't think we
can draw any generalized conclusions about why such people do
these things.
Why did Anders Breivik commit quantitatively worse
crimes in Norway in 2011? Apparently it was to bring attention to
his manifesto which called for mass deportations of muslims? Now
does that make any sense to you?
Should we draw conclusions that those of Norwegian
descent are by default mass murderers? Or
maybe of all Christians or neo-pagan Odinists?
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:> jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:>> You're raving again, Kalevi. It's obvious that this was a >> horrible crime. It is not, however, any kind of emergency >> situation that the public needs constantupdates on. >> Particularly >> not for someone in irrelevant Finland. Do you want the >> authorities to do something unusual or possibly illegal and >> possibly damage the case just to satisfy your sick fascination >> with mass murderers?>> This case is
Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.
Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.
On 14.8.2024 14.14, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.
Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.
Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did approve.
Good luck.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 14.8.2024 14.14, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.
Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.
Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did
approve.
Breivik should not have used violence. Instead he should have
founded a political party/movement whose goal is to make
islam illegal in Norway. That is the correct way to proceed.
You're presuming he was sane.
Clearly he isn't. Just like I'm sure "Axel" isn't either.
It's just not normal behavior for a
human in any society or religion to go around murdering children.
Hell, one of my closest friends growing up was a first generation
muslim. He never stabbed anyone, expressed any desire to, nor was
he encouraged to do so at his mosque to my knowledge.
Look, I get that you're angry about this but it's foolhardy to
jump to conclusions before you know the facts. The last thing you
want is for the authorities to screw up the case by leaking
prejudicial information to the public before the trial. Let it
play out a bit.
What if someone claims that we cannot outlaw religion because
of freedom of religion? United Nations says so.
Fuck the freedom of religion. Fuck the fools of UN.
You certainly can outlaw religions, just like they
have outlawed scientology in Germany. In fact they
even refused to acknowledge scientology as a religion
- they have labeled it as a dangerous extremist
movement or a hoax of some kind. That is very
respectable.
br,
KK
Well if they can make religion illegal I suppose they can make
atheism or agnosticism illegal too.
Would that make you happy?
Banning religion is not effective, it just drives said religion
underground where it festers and generates more extremists.
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 14.8.2024 14.14, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
Breivik was absolutely right in that islam is the worst
enemy of the western, civilized world. It is a disgusting,
horrendous doctrine invented by the Devil himself. Islam
turns normal people into mindless brain-slaves. Let's
not forget that christianity is almost as bad, too.
Sorry, I forgot to add that I do not approve Breivik's
crimes in any way.
Phew. For a moment there, you sure made it sound like you did approve.
Breivik should not have used violence. Instead he should have
founded a political party/movement whose goal is to make
islam illegal in Norway. That is the correct way to proceed.
What if someone claims that we cannot outlaw religion because
of freedom of religion? United Nations says so.
Fuck the freedom of religion. Fuck the fools of UN.
You certainly can outlaw religions, just like they
have outlawed scientology in Germany. In fact they
even refused to acknowledge scientology as a religion
- they have labeled it as a dangerous extremist
movement or a hoax of some kind. That is very
respectable.
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
Good luck.
Pelle, for the sake of argument, let's consider
a hypothetical thought experiment. If you had the
magical power to turn all muslims into atheists
or agnostics in a blink of an eye, would you do so?
Or do you love islam so much that you would
preserve it? I need an honest answer from you.
On 14.8.2024 20.00, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
Good luck.
Pelle, for the sake of argument, let's consider
a hypothetical thought experiment. If you had the
magical power to turn all muslims into atheists
or agnostics in a blink of an eye, would you do so?
Or do you love islam so much that you would
preserve it? I need an honest answer from you.
My honest answer: It's a mind-blowingly stupid question.
Stop smoking mushrooms and get some fresh air.
I can construct another thought experiment for you
that is structurally the same as my original one:
If you were given magical powers to remove
all suffering forever, would you do so, or would
you keep things the way they are now?
Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma.
It's not worth a thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.
You're presuming he was sane. Clearly he isn't. Just like I'm sure
"Axel" isn't either. It's just not normal behavior for a human in any society or religion to go around murdering children.
Hell, one of my
closest friends growing up was a first generation muslim.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
When I constructed my thought experiment, I was pretty sure that you
would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the leftists are very afraid
of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our heads with their lies
and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you support, Pelle. It
was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!
Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma. It's not worth a thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.
In Finland, we have no free speech or free press
for that matter. I am sad to say that Finland
resembles North-Korea in many ways.
Axel Muganwa Rudakubana
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 14.8.2024 klo 19.04:
You're presuming he was sane. Clearly he isn't. Just like I'm sure
"Axel" isn't either. It's just not normal behavior for a human in
any society or religion to go around murdering children.
Yes. Although it's probably ok for muslims if the victim is Israeli.
Hell, one of my closest friends growing up was a first generation
muslim.
No such thing, imo.
What do you mean by that?
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 15.8.2024 klo 18.20:
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma. It's not worth a
When I constructed my thought experiment, I was pretty sure that
you would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the leftists are very
afraid of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our heads with their
lies and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you support, Pelle. It
was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!
thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.
It's a valid question. I think any remotely sane
Christian/Hindu/atheist etc would wish that Islam didn't exist.
Unless they're uncurably woke or very naive.
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by someone
with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.
In any case, the facts seem to suggest the kid was more likely to urged
to kill by Jesus than Allah. His family was christian and he went to church, right?
You two were wrong about the kid being a migrant, and
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.
It is not a logical fallacy at all! Hahahaaa! :-)))
It is just a hypothetical thought experiment with
not real logic involved in it.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 17.8.2024 klo 20.29:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 15.8.2024 klo 18.20:It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
Cut the smokescreen, you set up a false dilemma. It's not worth a
When I constructed my thought experiment, I was pretty sure that
you would somehow avoid this
question. Why? Because in general I know the leftists are very
afraid of facing the facts.
They usually hate the truths and try to fill our heads with their
lies and delusions. Despite
knowing the situation in advance, I cannot hide
my huge disappointment: It was an honest question
meant to test what kind of values and ethics you support, Pelle. It >>>>>> was also a test of honesty and
you have *failed*.
I do not smoke mushrooms, I *eat* them. I smoke
good weed, to be sure. Hahahahahaahaa!
thoughtful response.
You're just making a fool of yourself.
It's a valid question. I think any remotely sane
Christian/Hindu/atheist etc would wish that Islam didn't exist.
Unless they're uncurably woke or very naive.
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.
Where was the logical fallacy?
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument down to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated. I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take positions on almost every topic here.
In any case, the facts seem to suggest the kid was more likely to
urged to kill by Jesus than Allah. His family was christian and he
went to church, right?
I haven't heard so. That claim is probably based on statistics, not
much else. btw, in Ruanda their most common religion is
christianity/animism, I read somewhere.
So you haven't been following the case?
You two were wrong about the kid being a migrant, and
I don't think so.
https://img.ifunny.co/images/fbfd2dda38ed8f1cfdad367fbbdd73a22a6aba74e386bad08259ba1e236dc781_1.jpg
Ok *skript...
On 17.8.2024 21.02, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.
It is not a logical fallacy at all! Hahahaaa! :-)))
It is just a hypothetical thought experiment with
not real logic involved in it.
Jesus. Finland has a dark future. Philosophy dpt drop-outs just don't
cut it.
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument
down to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more
complicated. I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage
in "black or white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take
positions on almost every topic here.
Jesus. Finland has a dark future. Philosophy dpt drop-outs just don't
cut it.
It wasn't reality based question. I think these sort of hypothetical questions are quite common in ethics etc.
Maybe it was a test.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not a valid question. It was a logical fallacy framed by
someone with an agenda, that you happen to agree with.
It is not a logical fallacy at all! Hahahaaa! :-)))
It is just a hypothetical thought experiment with
not real logic involved in it.
Most logical fallacies are just that. So I correctly called it.
Please read my two
follow-ups and you will find out that the question
is perfect is all right.
Your two followups were even more incoherent and irrelevant. Not
worth the time to address them.
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following
condition "Or do you love islam so much that you would preserve
it?" So you've given two choices: either he eliminates Islam and
only Islam (presumably because he hates it or thinks it's
dangerous) or he doesn't because he "loves" it. Framed so there
is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure looks exactly like a
false dilemma to me.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument down
to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.
I did not "boil it down" to binary choice. It was an IF-statement:
What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or
do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?" So you've given
two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he "loves" it. Framed so there is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.
Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 20.05, jdeluise wrote:
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument down >>>>> to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.
I did not "boil it down" to binary choice. It was an IF-statement:
What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or >>> do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?" So you've given >>> two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it. Framed so there is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure >>> looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.
The "if" is binary and it is loaded.
Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"
Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative are
caused by a religion and the religion only is preposterously dumb short
circuiting.
This kind of crap is what you typically hear in a dive for sophomores.
What's a fat fifty on mushrooms doing there.
As can be seen, all Pelle is capable of doing is personal attack.
On 18.8.2024 20.05, jdeluise wrote:
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument down
to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.
I did not "boil it down" to binary choice. It was an IF-statement:
What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or
do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?" So you've given
two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it. Framed so there is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure >> looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.
The "if" is binary and it is loaded.
Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"
Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative are caused by a religion and the religion only is preposterously dumb short circuiting.
This kind of crap is what you typically hear in a dive for sophomores.
What's a fat fifty on mushrooms doing there.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following
condition "Or do you love islam so much that you would preserve
it?" So you've given two choices: either he eliminates Islam
and
only Islam (presumably because he hates it or thinks it's
dangerous) or he doesn't because he "loves" it. Framed so
there
is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure looks exactly like
a
false dilemma to me.
It is not. This is a *HYPOTHETICAL* situation where I
have, for the sake of the argument, given you two choices.
It is a perfectly valid thought experiment. I can easily
illustrate it further below.
Why do you think that hypothetical scenario can't also be an
example of a false dilemma? It absolutely can and in most cases
it is.
Here are some examples taken from google. https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
The first example given of a false dilemma is "America: Love it or
leave it". If we simplify your original hypothetical scenario to
a similar framing it would be "Islam: Love it or eliminate it".
Yes, your "thought experiment" almost perfectly matches the first
example given of a false dilemma.
You can certainly think of a possible world where modal
logic would quality the situation I described
as "possible". Let's take Pelle as a concrete example:
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Now the leader of these aliens could give Pelle two
choices: If he so desires, he can spread the alien virus
all over the world, or if he so desires, he can do
nothing. Regardless of Pelle's free choice, the aliens
would return him to Earth afterwards. Granted the
aliens *could* give more alternatives, but in this
particular hypothetical scenario they give him only
these two.
As you can see, we can well imagine a "possible world"
such as this where Pelle could live in. This is, of course,
quite far-fetched and imaginary, but *completely free of
logical contradictions*. These is nothing wrong with
posing a question like this, but because the *subject
matter has to do with islam*, it drives the Woke folks
quite crazy. That is why Pelle refused to answer. Like
a true Woke, Pelle sees all muslims as "victims" and
sees hardly anything wrong in that belief system!
Now we can see that a structurally similar thought
experiment would be acceptable to Woke folks. This
shows the double standard of the Woke sicokes. We
can keep the alien scenario mostly as I just described
it. Only this time the alien leader gives Pelle the
following two choices:
Pelle can remove all suffering from the Earth, or he
can leave things as they are. We can suppose that
aliens have invented another virus that causes all
people to become totally friendly and anti-war.
This question is on a par with my islam example, it
is the same structure only with the subject matter changed.
However, the Woke folks would accept this "what if"
scenario as valid because it is not against their Woke
ideology.
They would not complain:"Why have you given us only
two options? The aliens could remove just 50% of
suffering!".
The Woke folks are mentally ill. They want to
ban comics (Carl Barks, Don Rosa). They want to
ban music (Kake Singers). They want to ban movies
(Pekka ja Pätkä Neekereinä). There is no way I would
support these sickos, no!
OK, so you've descended to ranting about a bunch of other
off-topic subjects.
Briefly, at least in the US it's not just
"woke folks" wanting to ban/edit media, and I agree some are. In
the meantime, the Christian right are doing their best to ban
media they believe to be obscene, immoral or anti-christian or
that present racially charged topics in particular way. Many of
these right-wingers also want to ban forms of personal expression
such as sports figures kneeling before the flag.
And apparently *you* want to take it a step further and ban an
entire religion too! That's some pretty amazing Elon Musk-level
hypocrisy there.
In any case, this topic is irrelevant. "Axel" (which is
apparently a variant of the biblical name Absalom) was not an
immigrant, he was born in the UK. And all evidence we have so far
indicates he's part of a devout Christian family heavily involved
in church activities. Until we find out otherwise you're just
tilting at windmills.
Briefly, at least in the US it's not just "woke folks" wanting to
ban/edit media, and I agree some are. In the meantime, the Christian
right are doing their best to ban media they believe to be obscene,
immoral or anti-christian or that present racially charged topics in particular way. Many of these right-wingers also want to ban forms of personal expression such as sports figures kneeling before the flag.
And apparently *you* want to take it a step further and ban an entire religion too! That's some pretty amazing Elon Musk-level hypocrisy there.
Isn't it interesting how it's always woke people who defend Islam... a religion which advocates anything but progressive - medieval - values...
There was absolute no ranting there. I only concluled with
the final paragraph telling the truth about the Woke sickos
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.
Kalevi Kolttonen kirjoitti 18.8.2024 klo 22.09:
There was absolute no ranting there. I only concluled with
the final paragraph telling the truth about the Woke sickos
Trending today on Twitter:
https://x.com/ORostila/status/1825202075766038582
Gay youth club/community centre for children aged 13-29, in Jyväskylä, Finland...
"Axel" (which is apparently a variant of the biblical name Absalom) was not an immigrant, he was born in the UK.
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.
Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
On 18.8.2024 20.05, jdeluise wrote:What if you had 2 kids and a brainwashing alien said it would make you hate one of them? Which would you pick? :-)
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument down
to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.
I did not "boil it down" to binary choice. It was an IF-statement:
What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or
do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?" So you've given
two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it. Framed so there is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure >> looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.
The "if" is binary and it is loaded.
Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"
Third, the assumption that all the unvoiced ills that are just waiting
behind the corner to clobber you if you choose the wrong alternative are >caused by a religion and the religion only is preposterously dumb short >circuiting.
This kind of crap is what you typically hear in a dive for sophomores.
What's a fat fifty on mushrooms doing there.
--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional
In article <v9tcrf$2f3kv$1@dont-email.me>,
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 20.05, jdeluise wrote:What if you had 2 kids and a brainwashing alien said it would make you hate one of them? Which would you pick? :-)
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
I already said it was a false dilemma. He boiled his argument down >>>>> to a binary choice where in fact reality is a lot more complicated.
I don't expect you to get it, you regularly engage in "black or
white" thinking too. It's evident from how you take positions on
almost every topic here.
I did not "boil it down" to binary choice. It was an IF-statement:
What *if* you had two choices like these? No logical fallacy.
According to modal logic, something is possible if there is
a possible world where things could be so and so. The only
requirement really is that a proposition is free from
contradictions. It is possible that one could find himself
in a situation I just described. All it takes is some imagination.
My thought experiment is perfectly valid, there is absolutely
no logical fallacy in iy. I must give some credit to Pelle. He
just refused to answer because of his cowardice, but he did not
excuses that my question was a "logical fallacy" or anything
silly like that.
jdeluise is not a very bright thinker.
But Kalevi, your thought experiment included the following condition "Or >>> do you love islam so much that you would preserve it?" So you've given >>> two choices: either he eliminates Islam and only Islam (presumably
because he hates it or thinks it's dangerous) or he doesn't because he
"loves" it. Framed so there is no middle ground allowed. Gosh, it sure >>> looks exactly like a false dilemma to me.
The "if" is binary and it is loaded.
Nobody of sound mind thinks along these lines. It's not my business in
any way to judge the beliefs of anybody. Let alone lobotomise someone if
he does believe in what I don't want him to believe in. The whole idea
is preposterous. Where does this end? This is framed by someone in need
of therapy. "Why do I hate?"
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen kirjoitti 18.8.2024 klo 22.09:
There was absolute no ranting there. I only concluled with
the final paragraph telling the truth about the Woke sickos
Trending today on Twitter:
https://x.com/ORostila/status/1825202075766038582
Gay youth club/community centre for children aged 13-29, in Jyväskylä,
Finland...
Nothing bad about it. I fully support the LGBT movement. Hey the Woke, does islam also support it?
br,
KK
Kalevi Kolttonen kirjoitti 18.8.2024 klo 20.48:
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Nice idea.
Btw, Alien lifeforms do exist, and visit Earth. Or perhaps intelligent
Alien drones. I saw an UFO decades ago, and I still can not explain the movement & speed of the object with any other explanation, or explain
lack of sound when suddenly breaking multiple Mach speed from
stationary. That's not possible for human made vehicles even today.
On 18.8.2024 22.20, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it.
The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill.
Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.
"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.
No, Islam doesn't support it but regardless many Muslim men just love underage boys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
Btw, Alien lifeforms do exist, and visit Earth. Or perhaps intelligent
Alien drones. I saw an UFO decades ago, and I still can not explain the
movement & speed of the object with any other explanation, or explain
lack of sound when suddenly breaking multiple Mach speed from
stationary. That's not possible for human made vehicles even today.
Yes, the UFOs and aliens are for real.
br,
KK
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 22.20, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it. >>>> The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill. >>>Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.
"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.
As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it.
It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.
The Woke are so pathetic.
Well, that was easier than I expected. :)
Now I don't get to tell about Obama's comments, USS Nimitz case etc.
Interesting about pretty much all of these (credible) cases is that they never make sound despite obvious breaking of multiple sound barriers -
same as with my own incident.
On 18.8.2024 22.57, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen kirjoitti 18.8.2024 klo 20.48:
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Nice idea.
Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
the situation. About jdeluise's page:
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
It says:
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.
Isn't that what JD said.
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.
Of course there are. You see religion as the sole explainer of whatnot
ills you attribute to it. It of course isn't.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen kirjoitti 18.8.2024 klo 20.48:
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Nice idea.
Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
the situation. About jdeluise's page:
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
It says:
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 22.57, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen kirjoitti 18.8.2024 klo 20.48:
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Nice idea.
Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
the situation. About jdeluise's page:
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
It says:
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.
Isn't that what JD said.
Are you crazy? The quote above is *the definition* of false dilemmas.
jdeluise quite clearly stated that my thought experiment was a
false dilemma. And naturally he was *so wrong*.
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.
Of course there are. You see religion as the sole explainer of whatnot
ills you attribute to it. It of course isn't.
Your understanding of philosophy
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 22.59, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 22.20, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it. >>>>>> The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill. >>>>>Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.
"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.
As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it.
Oh, I've said that many times already. It's a pile of poo. I agree with
what JD has said about it, and added some more. You seem to live on an
island.
You agree with jdeluise's wrong claim that my thought
experiment was a "false dilemma"? You are both so wrong.
It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.
The Woke are so pathetic.
You don't get high, or any, marks in philosophy exams with that.
Hahahah! I spoke the truth: The Woke cowardice forced you to
ignore my question. jdeluise even incorrectly identified my
thought experiment as a "false dilemma".
For centuries,
we thought that Newton was right, but then it turned out
that his formulas were incorrect.
Einstein overturned his
theories.
On 8/18/24 12:19 PM, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
Isn't it interesting how it's always woke people who defend Islam... aExactly.
religion which advocates anything but progressive - medieval - values...
There's on obvious answer to this paradox that is apparently to someone
who lives in the US. Pelle doesn't fit this, but I've given up
attempting to explain Pelle's views. He's an outlier.
You want to know why woke progressives in the US might favor Islam over Judaism? It's simple: here in the US, among the woke, there is a
REFLEXIVE affinity for perceived traditional underdogs. Muslims are misunderstood underdogs so far as the US woke are concerned, and hence
worthy of immediate and unquestioned support.
It's sorta like #metoo, but for ethnic groups. Anything they say is by default true, no question. Don't expect logic--and hence
consistency--expect whim and emotion, which permits inconsistencies if
they *feel* right.
So the rule of thumb on any such question involving two parties is:
which is the historical underdog? Then favor the underdog as an article
of faith.
I suspect that the UK has gone this way, too. New Zealand also. Not sure about Australia.
On 18.8.2024 22.59, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 22.20, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it. >>>>> The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill. >>>>Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.
"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.
As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it.
Oh, I've said that many times already. It's a pile of poo. I agree with
what JD has said about it, and added some more. You seem to live on an island.
It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.
The Woke are so pathetic.
You don't get high, or any, marks in philosophy exams with that.
On 18.8.2024 23.25, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 22.59, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 22.20, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
Honey, don't boo-hoo-hoo. You asked for an honest opinion. You got it. >>>>>>> The barbs come from the taunting. Empty barrels do get a push downhill. >>>>>>Pelle, you are nothing but a Woke fool incapable understanding
any deeper issues.
"Deep issues"? Drop-out speak.
As can be seen, you are incapable of handling my
thought experiment and instead you resort to personal
insults. But you are probably smarter than jdeluise
because you did not claim the thought experiment had
to something wrong in it.
Oh, I've said that many times already. It's a pile of poo. I agree with
what JD has said about it, and added some more. You seem to live on an
island.
You agree with jdeluise's wrong claim that my thought
experiment was a "false dilemma"? You are both so wrong.
It is just your Woke
cowardice that prevented you from answering.
The Woke are so pathetic.
You don't get high, or any, marks in philosophy exams with that.
Hahahah! I spoke the truth: The Woke cowardice forced you to
ignore my question. jdeluise even incorrectly identified my
thought experiment as a "false dilemma".
Unspeakably poor response. Wnen you stop seeing replies to your posts,
you know the reason why in advance.
On 18.8.2024 23.23, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 22.57, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen kirjoitti 18.8.2024 klo 20.48:
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Nice idea.
Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
the situation. About jdeluise's page:
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
It says:
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.
Isn't that what JD said.
Are you crazy? The quote above is *the definition* of false dilemmas.
Sober up. I know that.
jdeluise quite clearly stated that my thought experiment was a
false dilemma. And naturally he was *so wrong*.
He said you truncated the issue into a binary framework. That is
correct. That satisfies the definition above.
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false dilemma.
Of course there are. You see religion as the sole explainer of whatnot
ills you attribute to it. It of course isn't.
Your understanding of philosophy
I see you're still smoking with the frat boys. After all these years.
The only thing needed is to check your "experiment" against the
definition above. JD provided one angle, I another. Your only answer is
the silly, ex cathedra "you don't understand".
We all understand. You're a crackpot from Finland.
On 18.8.2024 23.19, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
For centuries,
we thought that Newton was right, but then it turned out
that his formulas were incorrect.
You can put a man on the moon with Newton. I believe they all made it back.
Einstein overturned his
theories.
"Overturned" is the wrong choice of words. Newton is a very good approximation of Einstein where it applies. "Extended" is the correct word.
What is it you do get right?
But as I said, I'm doubtful there are actual living aliens inside the
vessels - unless you count advanced A.I. as living. My theory is that
they have been here thousands of years - maybe much longer... and spend
much of the time under/over water in oceans & in general avoid us.
"Logic" is a western patriarchal concept designed to disempower women
and minorities. To refuse to use logic is to oppose the oppressors.
Now do you get it?
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
Well, that was easier than I expected. :)
A few years ago, I bought many UFO-related books and
studied this phenomenon quite a lot. The UFO scene
is unfortunately at least 95% of hoaxes and lunatics,
but the remaining 5% is solid evidence.
Now I don't get to tell about Obama's comments, USS Nimitz case etc.
Interesting about pretty much all of these (credible) cases is that they
never make sound despite obvious breaking of multiple sound barriers -
same as with my own incident.
There are probably many different races of aliens. The ones
that visit us are way ahead of our science and technology.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
But as I said, I'm doubtful there are actual living aliens inside the
vessels - unless you count advanced A.I. as living. My theory is that
they have been here thousands of years - maybe much longer... and spend
much of the time under/over water in oceans & in general avoid us.
I tend to believe in flesh-and-blood aliens, or at any rate in biological alien entities. Based on *our* physics, we cannot comprehend how living creatures could survive the high speed maneuvers that we see, but again,
this may be just a limitation of our current scientific knowledge. The
aliens may have found a way to shield themselves from the crushing gravitational forces. They may also have found out ways to stop aging
so that they can live for a long time or even eternally.
Many native tribes in the USA, namely different kind of Indians, have
oral histories that extend thousands of years back. Of course the
details have become blurred, but many natives' oral history says
that the tribes were visited by beings who came from the Sky. Apparently
the beings were biological aliens, but okay, they may have been some
kind of robots or cyborgs as well. These beings were teachers to the
Indians. Some American Indian tribes even believe that their ancestors
came from the Stars a long time ago.
br,
KK
We all understand. You're a crackpot from Finland.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 18.8.2024 23.19, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
For centuries,
we thought that Newton was right, but then it turned out
that his formulas were incorrect.
You can put a man on the moon with Newton. I believe they all
made it back.
Einstein overturned his
theories.
"Overturned" is the wrong choice of words. Newton is a very
good
approximation of Einstein where it applies. "Extended" is the
correct word.
What is it you do get right?
You are totally *wrong* again. Newton's physics is simply
mathematically *wrong*. It does have limited use as an
approximation, but the mathematical equations are wrong.
Einstein's theory indeed overturned Newton's.
Your understanding of proper logical reasoning
is very poor indeed. You do not even understand
basic mathematics.
I would use the word "superseded" rather than "overturned", yet
that's not entirely accurate either. In fact they were both
"wrong", technically, about some things. Still, Newtonian physics
is taught and is regularly used even in professional settings to
this day, quite a lot more than "limited use". Einstein greatly
admired Newton. He wrote this forward to Newton's "Opticks"
posthumously:
"Fortunate Newton, happy childhood of science! He who has time and tranquility can by reading this book live again the wonderful
events which the great Newton experienced in his young
days. Nature to him was an open book, whose letters he could read
without effort. The conceptions which he used to reduce the
material of existence to order seemed to flow spontaneously from
experience itself, from the beautiful experiments which he ranged
in order like playthings and describes with an affectionate wealth
of detail. On one person he combined the experimenter, the
theorist, the mechanic and, not least, the artist in exposition."
Newton himself said "If I have seen further it is by standing on
the shoulders of Giants". I think Einstein would agree.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> wrote:
Kalevi Kolttonen kirjoitti 18.8.2024 klo 20.48:
There could be an advanced alien civilization that could
abduct Pelle into their spaceship. These aliens could
possess vastly superior science to our own. They would
be able create viruses that scan the brains of human
beings, looking for certain beliefs. These aliens could
have the power to create a highly contagious virus that
can detect belief in islam and then completely replace
it with atheism.
Nice idea.
Just one possible world to give an example. It illustrates
the situation. About jdeluise's page:
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/false-dilemma.html
It says:
---begin quote----
False Dilemma
When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't
considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.
---end quote----
In my thought experiment, Pelle is given only two choices. There
are no additional "all relevant possibilities" in this
particular
possible world. So my thought experiment is *not* a false
dilemma.
Your aggressive insistence that you're right about this thing is
pretty comical. I mean here you are writing voluminous posts
about it, mixing in a bunch of ad hominem attacks about me in
replies to others. And you've since posted something like a half
a dozen alternate scenarios to try to cover up or convince me that
your original statement wasn't what it obviously was: a logical
fallacy. Now you're quoting from a definition of "false dilemma",
which PERFECTLY describes what you did.
Yet you seem to think it
shows the opposite?! You're not fooling anyone, I don't think
even TT or *skript are buying your argument here. Though they may
agree with your underlying sentiment so they won't want to
publicly admit it.
What a waste of time and energy! If you would have just said
originally "yeah I know, it was just a bit of hyperbole to make a
point" and left it at that I probably wouldn't have said a word in
reply. But oh no, you had to argue that up is down and white is
black... all so you don't have to admit you made a poorly framed
argument. Big whoop, we all do it from time to time.
You remind me so much of Court_1. Not only in your general
writing style but also in your reluctance to admit when you made a
mistake.
Anyway, if you want your considerable pride to do irreparable
damage your credibility, keep on trying to prove whatever you're
trying to prove. The important thing to me is that *I* know
you're wrong and I know I've provided enough credible evidence to
show it. You haven't done a damn thing.
Or maybe it helps if you cool down and try rational thinking
for a while?
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
I guess I have to help you a little bit, since you seem to
be totally honest in the middle of your confusion... Cool
down first of all and stop insisting that you must be right.
The web page you found and linked is correct. How?
My thought experiment would indeed be a *logical fallacy* in
*this
particular world* that we currently live in. In this world
I cannot make Pelle to choose between those two options,
since *in this world* we *do have* other options. It would
indeed be a false dilemma *in this world*. Get it?
But for the sake of argument, to test Pelle's value
and ethics, I have *supposed* there could be a *logically
consistent alternative world* that gives Pelle only two
options. Like I said in my earlier post, the only way you
could refute the validity of my thought experiment would
be to show that my alternative world *just cannot exist*.
You would prove that by deriving a logical contradiction
in the definition of the alternative world. This cannot
be done here, because there is no logical contradiction.
Remember what I also said? The leader alien gives Pelle these
two options and no more. This is all part of the definition
of this alternative world. There is no contradiction or
fallacy in this case.
Relax and use your imagination and use it hard.
*COULD* the alien case happen in theory? Could there
be such an alien that he would only give two options
and no more? YES, of course! It is possible. It
is fine to have only two choices in that alternative
world.
Sure there can be many more alternative possible worlds where
the leader alien would give Pelle three, four, five, six,
seven options. But in this case Pelle has just two and
this world is logically consistent and thus it is a
possible world in the modal logical sense.
Again, if you do not get it by now, please consult
your smarter friends about this matter.
br,
KK
But it seems you're the one who is ill at ease here. After all,
you're busy writing lengthy replies to yourself(!), begging me to
calm down while frantically constructing more and more scaffolding
around your little two sentence turd. Hahaha!!
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
The noblest purpose of all science, including physics, is to
discover theories that are *true* in accordance with Alfred
Tarski's theory of truth. In other words, the theories must
describe reality accurately.
Newton's theories are simply false even though they can be
useful in limited circustances.
Stop right there... "limited circumstances"? Newtonian mechanics
holds up very well for large, slow-moving objects not under strong gravitational force... basically the kind of thing we humans deal
with everyday. Let me get this straight, you think we use
relativistic mechanics to calculate the trajectory of artillery
shells, bullets or tennis balls from ball machines? Or when
calculating forces acting on skyscrapers and bridges? How about
aerodynamics or vehicle engineering? Do police investigators use
it when calculating the likely velocity of a vehicle after a
crash? No, of course not. For GPS, sure! Limited
circumstances?!! What are you talking about?
Yes, Newton's physics is
still taught in high schools in Finland. The formulas are
extremely easy to understand and do not require advanced
mathematics like Einstein's theories do.
Newton's theories were incomplete for sure. But there are many
possible worlds (see what I did there? :>) in which Einstein's
theories may also be "false" (or incomplete). They have held up
well so far, so long as dark matter is introduced.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
That is utter and complete rubbish.
Jesus Christ you must be pretty stupid. My thought experiment
is perfectly valid. It describes *one particular possible world
in modal logical terms*, and in this possible world, Pelle is
given
*exactly two choices*. This is a hypothetical "what if you
were in a situation like this" case. Is it really that hard to
understand?
The only way you could refute my thought experiment
would be to show that I have described a possible world that
cannot exist, i.e. it would contain a contradiction. But my
possible world is perfectly logically consistent.
Do you even understand what "a possible world" means in modal
logic?
You are seriously delusional.
I always admit my mistakes.
So did Court_1. Here's the kicker, she never made any!
No, you just do not understand what is a hypothetical
thought experiment involving a possible world. You are
quite seriously confused. Maybe you have smarter friends who
understand logical reasoning and you can consult them about
this matter?
Or maybe it helps if you cool down and try rational thinking
for a while?
You're not fooling anyone.
Kaveli's possible worlds modal logic scenario: 'If you had the
magical power to turn all muslims into atheists or agnostics in a
blink of an eye, would you do so? Or do you love islam so much
that you would preserve it?'
This tiny little turd doesn't "describe *one particular possible
world in modal logical terms*" as you stated above and it really
has nothing to do with logic at all. But it perfectly resembles a
*logical fallacy* written in a hurry and angrily attempting to
paint Pelle as some kind of partisan ally to muslims. THAT'S all
it really was. We all know it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 201:58:44 |
| Calls: | 9,602 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,682 |
| Messages: | 6,152,745 |
