Re: Okay, exaggerated -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:32:10 05/24/04 Mon
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Re: Okay, exaggerated
In reply to: Chris 's message, "Re: Okay, exaggerated" on 09:28:06 05/23/04 Sun

Are we going to play the game how deep we can nest meaningless answers?

No, I definitely do not want to play this game, I much rather wanted to make a point that when one can find an article or even a handful of articles, yes even an incredible large amount of articles, containing evidence for a certain thing, this still does not automatically constitute that viewpoint "proper", as I hopefully have proven sufficiently with my previous postings. This is as true for the existence as for the non-existence of a given thing.
Anyway, if there is a description and a definition for a term, it does not matter whether the likewise described item really exists, what does matter is whether a given item can be checked against said term.
For example:

I define a "FXNIJL" is a living being with a single head, hairs on top, two arms, two legs and walking upright.
Now I take a human being. I can check it against the definition of a "FXNIJL" without first having proven (or disproven, for that cause) whether "FXNIJL"'s exist. I would still find that according to the defintion, a human being perfectly well fits the definition of a "FXNIJL", and that alone would be sufficient to prove that "FXNIJL"s exist, even when I can find a gazillion resources which would prove to me that neither the word "FXNJIL" exists nor that a "FXNIJL" has ever been sighted. Humans would STILL be "FXNIJL"s, like it or not.

And we can do exactly the same with "indoctrination" as with "FXNIJL"s. Take the definition of the word and see whether a method fitting that definition exists, that is sufficient proof of "indoctrination" to exist, regardless of the fact that the word may have a negative connotation, is used in a "loaded" way, or supposedly is even inexistent.
Mathematical logic works in this simple way: if something fits a given definition without ANY restriction, then that definition describes this something (maybe inadequately with omission but still it's a descriptor).

In Christ,
Mike K.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

... putting an end to this -- Chris, 02:36:26 05/24/04 Mon