Rebuttals

[Questor]

Something that has tickled my fancy for many years now is to write a column on some sort of a regular basis. And this column would mainly be rebuttals and corrections made to pronouncements made by the hyperinflated windbags in politics and the media. I would fire salvos at their faulty premises, undercutting their position and exposing the truth for all to see.

Since I'm basically apolitical, this column would cut VERY wide swaths in all directions. There would be no sacred cows to spare, save the god of Logic which I so fondly and deeply admire. No icons would be left standing upon their pedestals, no toes would be too sensitive to step on. Just as much pure, cold, deep cutting logic as I could muster and present to my readers is what I would offer up.

And if someone came along and proved me to be wrong, well I would not hesitate to eat some crow and take my lumps. But I feel pretty safe in making that statement as I feel it would not happen very often. Besides, I don't like crow served either hot or cold any more than the average person, so I would try my best to make sure that it DIDN'T happen.

This fancied column of mine would be triggered by what ever irony or fallacy caught my eyes and ears. Whether it came from the internet, the daily rag, boob tube, a magazine or directly from the mouth of some fool that I was trying to suffer gladly. Truth knows no bounds, and is no respector of anything but itself.

And in keeping with the spirit of my endeavor, I would pen these articles under the psuedonymn "Rebutticus". A playful jab in many directions at once.



Randy Gaumond, Sui Juris (aka Questor)

Originally Posted by Questor

There would be no sacred cows to spare, save the god of Logic which I so fondly and deeply admire.

You can't win with "logic."



Every political issue--without exception--when carried to a "logical" conclusion results in an extremism no one is prepared to accept.

[Jerseee]

Questor,



Logic is subjective. Truth isn't. Truth is truth when accepted.



Why not just expose them instead of useless political bantering back and forth.



When they open their filthy cakeholes to speak, you can cut all of that down with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.



The Declaration of Independence tells the whores of our rights--not just the King of England--but the whole world, including your parents, children, spouse and friends.



Use this platform and watch the fireworks.

[Questor]

Jersee,

Logic is not subjective at all. It is based upon mathematical principles. That's why in logic there is something called a truth table. You put in all of your elements or possibilities as you may want to call them, and then the truth table sorts them out. It's very simple to use.

It's truth that is subjective. What's true for me is true for me. And the same thing goes for everyone else too. What you may perceive as true may not be true for me. This is where religionists go astray and try to cram their own brand of it down other people's throats.

To Randy; the reason why some people cannot accept a logical conclusion is because they cannot divorce themself from their emotions. This is why political and environmental extremists start sputtering and foaming at the mouth when I skewer their sacred cows. Like when they say CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and therefore bad for the environment. Well WHY do we have greenhouses in the first place then? It's because they are GOOD for plant growth! DUH!! Or when I point out to creationists that bacteria acquiring a resistance to certain antibiotics is an evolutionary process, they flip out and stop talking.



Questor

Originally Posted by Questor

Jersee,

Logic is not subjective at all. It is based upon mathematical principles. Questor

Isn't that Vulcan theory?

Originally Posted by Questor

Or when I point out to creationists that bacteria acquiring a resistance to certain antibiotics is an evolutionary process, they flip out and stop talking.



Questor

(raising hand) I have a question.



Adaptation is an evolutionary process?



So if I go outside and see that it is cold, and come back inside and put on a coat, I have just evolved?



I don't understand. Not trying to hijack the thread, I just don't understand how adaptation supports an evolution position.



HB. (Creationist, still talking and not flipping out)

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]I wanted to jump in myself. I think we should start a Creation/Evolution thread in the Religion section. Even though the THEORY of Evolution is more of a Religion than creationism.



Did I just flip out

[Ice]

Actually, you did not flip out.



Anyone ever hear of Prof. Gentry ?



I'll wait to see if someone has.



Ice

[Questor]

Henry,



That's not the kind of adaptation I was referring to. I'm talking there about the genes in the bacteria changing and passing on a resistance to a poison that almost killed its ancestors. Didn't that organism then evolve? It's not the same as it was before, right? If you were to splice some of the genes from that bacteria into another cell of a previous generation which did not have that in its make up, the new cells will then have it. Proof positive that evolution does occur. This is what's so damn scary about recombinant DNA work. Sometimes surprises occur, like the recent mouse pox work. A super powerful virus was created unintentionally. Or at least that's how they said it was done, by accident.



Questor

[Jerseee]

Questor,



I said:



"Questor,



Logic is subjective. Truth isn't. Truth is truth when accepted."







You said:



"Jersee,

Logic is not subjective at all. It is based upon mathematical principles. That's why in logic there is something called a <u>truth table</u>. You put in all of your elements or possibilities as you may want to call them, and then the truth table sorts them out. It's very simple to use.

It's truth that is subjective. What's true for me is true for me. And the same thing goes for everyone else too. What you may perceive as true may not be true for me."



So you're saying that truth is the basis of logic?



You stated that, "It's truth that is subjective." If this is the case, why would you base a logical decision on something subjective?



If this is what you are saying, then my original statement still applies. If you're using a "truth table" to create any logic, then logic is subjective, since truth is not truth until it is accepted.



You said it yourself, "That's why in logic there is something called a truth table." "What you may <u>perceive </u>as true may not be true for me."



Therefore, if I said that logic is subjective and truth is truth only when accepted as truth...what is the difference in what you have stated? You've actually proven to agree with me.



Well at least that is what I <u>perceived </u>by reading. LOL---good thread!!!