1. Originally Posted by thermophysics
A logician is concerned with validity - validity concerns syntax.

If (P) then (Q). (Q), ergo (P)

The above logical form, the syntax, is an invalid logical form - no matter what semantic components are inserted into the propositional place holders P and Q.

Take P as: It is raining
Take Q as: The roads are wet

If (it is raining) then (the roads are wet). (The roads are wet), ergo (It is raining)

You can see that since "raining this very minute" is not the only way roads could become, or be, wet - then, just because the roads are wet, it does not mean it necessarily is raining right now - hence the argument or belief is invalid.

So who decides the validity of beliefs? Logicians do.

But we are talking only the semantics here. Propositions that is - statements that are either true or false.

Now, back to your main objection:

Imagine you claimed the kitchen light works and I claimed the kitchen light is blown. Because both beliefs cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense it necessarily is true that one of us will be experiencing a rights violation - according to your definition of the right to hold an opinion. One of us has a false belief and so to determine who's right to hold only true beliefs is being violated the debate or investigation must go on - not cease.

So someone tells me that Mohamed flew to Jerusalem on the back of a donkey. I say "bollocks - what a load of crock!" and that person replies "You must respect my beliefs". Again I say bollocks - what is the difference between suggesting I respect someone's beliefs and I must cease questioning those beliefs because they have a right to hold them?

Instead we say, in a free society, we have the right to express and defend our beliefs and we have the right to challenge and disagree with the beliefs of others.
*{SIGH}*

You already have the right to challenge, debate and disagree with any person, group or institution you choose. You can scream "bollocks" and worse till the cows come home - knock yourself out. I have absolutely no problem with it.

Right up until you seek the aid of an authority capable of assessing penalties for some perceived "false belief."

Just state for us this is not what you are edging towards nor promoting.

2. On first glance, the OP statement looks fundamentally sound on logical level, however if we take Art for example, it is our illogical opinion that counts,therefore the OP statement is just an opinion and not a fact.

3. Originally Posted by barbar
On first glance, the OP statement looks fundamentally sound on logical level, however if we take Art for example, it is our illogical opinion that counts,therefore the OP statement is just an opinion and not a fact.
Art would be the least of my worries. As stated previously, nobody is going to be debating at what temperature ice freezes or ohm's law. It's those trickier issues that usually have something to do with life and liberty.

What manner of criteria, what wise council or authority will be consulted if the issue is whether to keep grandma alive?

4. Originally Posted by hurtinhvac
Art would be the least of my worries. As stated previously, nobody is going to be debating at what temperature ice freezes or ohm's law. It's those trickier issues that usually have something to do with life and liberty.

What manner of criteria, what wise council or authority will be consulted if the issue is whether to keep grandma alive?
Art was only an example and easily proved of owning one,s opinion, so this on its own null and voids the original statement.

As far as granny, that is down to one,s own belief and/or emotional structure.

5. Originally Posted by barbar
Art was only an example and easily proved of owning one,s opinion, so this on its own null and voids the original statement.

As far as granny, that is down to one,s own belief and/or emotional structure.
Maybe not, at least as far as OP may or may not be saying - I really can't tell. Hard to get a concrete answer.

It suddenly occurs to me that all his offerings in this thread are strangely similar to "I have a right to my opinion..."

6. Originally Posted by hurtinhvac
...................It suddenly occurs to me that all his offerings in this thread are strangely similar to "I have a right to my opinion..."
And even "my opinion is always right". He has already told us in so many words that he is not just the jack of all trades but the "Master of all trades" and basically superior to all the rest of us "drones" here on this site. Gees talk about being insufferable Thermo takes the cake. Thank you, thank you very much

7. Originally Posted by glennac
And even "my opinion is always right". He has already told us in so many words that he is not just the jack of all trades but the "Master of all trades" and basically superior to all the rest of us "drones" here on this site. Gees talk about being insufferable Thermo takes the cake. Thank you, thank you very much
I may botch this explanation, but I will attempt it. Somebody explained to me in an earlier thread that philosophy is just musings. It has no practical or logical application, neither is it intended to. It is just meant to be thought provoking. That's all. That is why we have a thread with 200 opinions of why we should or should not have opinions. It is in fact, mindless prattle. I think I can credit Scrogg with that great explanation to me if I remember correct. It is important here to note that is what I took from the explanation, that is not what was actually said.

Frustrating logic to rational men, it is more a discussion for pointy-headed professors and trans-gender trekkies. I would expect most women will get it, mindless prattle and all, just sayin'. Point being, it is not intended as serious, it is just mental musing.

I think this site needs a poetry and philosophy section so we can 'move' this mindless nonsense out of ARP. I would locate it next to the junkyard.

8. Professional Member
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
432
Post Likes
Originally Posted by hurtinhvac
You already have the right to challenge, debate and disagree with any person, group or institution you choose. You can scream "bollocks" and worse till the cows come home - knock yourself out. I have absolutely no problem with it.
How is this relevant?

9. Professional Member
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
432
Post Likes
Originally Posted by barbar
Art was only an example and easily proved of owning one,s opinion, so this on its own null and voids the original statement.
How can art be made to be a counter example to the observations made in the original post?

10. Originally Posted by thermophysics
...what is the difference between suggesting I respect someone's beliefs and I must cease questioning those beliefs because they have a right to hold them?
I don't see that this thread is about opinions. It's about whether you have a right to tell people that believe in God that they are full of it.

I agree - It's mindless prattle mixed with dodging and dancing. IMO, you do not have all your bases covered with your debate. It should be back to your teachers for a refresher course.

11. Professional Member
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
432
Post Likes
Originally Posted by Brian GC
I don't see that this thread is about opinions. It's about whether you have a right to tell people that believe in God that they are full of it.

I agree - It's mindless prattle mixed with dodging and dancing. IMO, you do not have all your bases covered with your debate. It should be back to your teachers for a refresher course.
Which bases are not covered?

Maybe you can copy and paste here what your teachers say about the bases? Maybe I can interpret them better?

12. Originally Posted by thermophysics
How is this relevant?
I have absolutely no idea anymore and no longer care. You are either so freakishly, myopically and dysfunctionally intelligent as to render yourself unable to communicate with anyone other than yourself; or simultaneousy smart, crazy and dumb like a fox.

Whatever the case, this thread is a train wreck. I am unsuscribed.

13. Professional Member
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
432
Post Likes
Originally Posted by hurtinhvac
I have absolutely no idea anymore and no longer care. You are either so freakishly, myopically and dysfunctionally intelligent as to render yourself unable to communicate with anyone other than yourself; or simultaneousy smart, crazy and dumb like a fox.

Whatever the case, this thread is a train wreck. I am unsuscribed.

You said "You already have the right to challenge, debate and disagree with any person, group or institution you choose. You can scream "bollocks" and worse till the cows come home - knock yourself out. I have absolutely no problem with it."

But this is not mutually exclusive of the claims made in the original post. The two can be true together. So you mentioning the above merely changes the subject to an irrelevance.

And any way, if read in a certain sense, if you read the claims made in the original post in the sense intended by the authors, then what you say above affirms precisely what is being claimed in the OP.

So - it seems to me that in the end all that happened is that you went from being half off the tracks to completely off the tracks.

A possible solution would be for you to study properly the original post.

Page 10 of 14 First ... 34567891011121314 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

## Related Forums

The place where Electrical professionals meet.