View Single Post
Old 12-03-2005, 04:54 PM
imported_luckyme imported_luckyme is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Default Re: Logically inconsistant, my ***

Cheeesh, My intent was to hide behind -
I intend this as stimulative, not definitive, have at it..

[/ QUOTE ]
So essentially you are making the same mistake as someone who says "if you have AA you should raise." The fact you have failed to specify any conditions or qualifications indicates a very real flaw in the statement. If you suggest folding AA at some later date, you are being inconsistent with your previous position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everything in context. I commented - [ QUOTE ]
So, what is logically inconsistant with having a SOP of being against shooting people, but having no qualms about ventilating a burglar about to crowbar your child?

[/ QUOTE ] SOP means that if you are given a typical scenario you have confidence that some default reaction is likely appropriate, it totally leaves the door open for non-standard or unusual circumstances that would cause you to deviate from SOP.

It's not logically inconsistant to state "My SOP is to raise with AA" then at a later date to say, "Oh, well, sure if there's a maniac 2 doors down then I'll limp."
My personal slogan is "there are no final decisions". That doesn't mean when somebody asks if I like fried eggs I can't say, "yep." without going into all the offbeat scenarios where I would refuse them.

IOW, it's debatable where the flaw sits. Is it in the belief that all statements are absolutes when there are no caveats/disclaimers, or is it in the belief that no statements are absolutes unless specified as such.

Does, "I'm against killing" mean
a) I'm absolutely against killing in every conceiveble situation.
b) I'm against killing in the huge majority of situations but it's not inconceiveble that some exceptional situations exist.

I don't think either a/b is implied, because in most exchanges it's not relevant. If a specific discussion needs that clarified it's easy to do, either upfront or as needed.

Absolute positions are so rare that if I had to choose I'd say (b) is what people tentatively assume in any given statement. If simple statements were absolutes then why would people yell at me, "I'm ABSOLUTELY against licking." when they could simply say "i'm against licking" relying on me to know that 'absolute' goes with all phrases unless disavowed.

"I like sex" doesn't mean always and all kinds.
"I don't like braggards" is a default (unless they turn out to be the most generous, kind soul I've met).

If (a) is correct, then I've been misinterpreting virtually everything that I've heard and misinforming virtually everyone I've spoken to for decades.

My take is that neither a or b is correct, and the 'undefined' c is the norm. Poker is a great game because the "it depends" is taken for granted and you don't have to say it 300 times a day. Life seems to work similarly.
The problem with making sweeping statements is that even if they aren't intended to be categorical, they're vague enough to allow you to change your position as it suits you.

[/ QUOTE ] But, if they're not intended as categorical then you haven't changed your position. You may have temporarily confused an absolutist, but the fact he goes around slapping words into my statements doesn't mean we can't sort it out this time and be more careful when dealing with him next time. ??
But, I'm willing to hear where I messed up, and I do appreciate the spash of cold water.. luckyme
Reply With Quote