one shouldn't fall into the trap of believing it is OUR taxpayer money paying for it.
How do you suppose those companies manage to pay for the levies the government has put upon them?
The fact is that people just pay for this indirectly instead of directly.
Yes, technically you are correct "our taxpayer money" is not paying for it. However it is absurd to believe that we are not paying for it in the end.
Also, the more money that is collected from business to fund such ridiculous sites, the less that is available to do the actual work the levies were collected for.
So, not only do we end up paying higher prices in the stores, we get less actual benefit for it as the monies are wasted on shiny useless toys instead of providing the real benefits the levies are supposed to provide.
I would pit the knowledge, technical skill, and ability to recognize an online scam of the average Linux user against those traits of the average Windows user. Any day.
When this is no longer true, it will be the Year of Linux, on the Desktop.
I'm sorry to say but YOUR point of view is the one of the facist overlords, "buddy".
You are merely stating that anyone with enough cash can monopolize the market, and everyone else has to just suck it up.
The heart of the current corporatist ideology, which you seem to have bought into, is that there is value in any and every form of intermediation.
In your example, you are merely being a parasite and leach, provding NEGATIVE value to the entire chain of transactions. Oh yeah, except for you. Of course, that is kind of the definition of "parasite".
Unfortunately, both creators and potential audiences are currently being directly harmed by the layers of unnecesary intermediation.
Until these are disposed with, both will continue to be harmed.
The creators will be harmed by people not paying anything for their stuff.
However, this is a logical reaction to the twisted set of current laws.
We as a people have supported these artists through our contract as a society, which they are certainly a part of.
We deserve to have the ability to play with works that have been produced within our own lifetime.
This is our culture, not theirs. I imagine that by now, everything in my youth should be a free for all. 20 years or so. This stuff is part of who we are. You are what you eat, and most of us have eaten quite a lot of ideas produced by other people.
People are not there to satisfy a particular business model. You cannot treat them as cattle to be herded this way and that by spurious laws that only are written to line your own pockets. There it is.
Until the horrible inequities that currently exist in Established Law have been redressed, it is really premature to go about blaming the victims, err, "consumers".
On something that the entire policy of the World hinges upon, I believe the following steps:
All raw data that exists should be put in the Commons, and all people should have access to this data.
All intermediate result sets that exist should be put into the Commons, and all people should have access to that data.
All versions of all extant climate programs, documentation and specifications, any ConOps, user documentation, assumption sets and explanatory documentation should be put into the Commons, along with the input and output sets that were used to produced the Published Research.
What do you feel would be "moderate" enough to attract a wide body of support?
I'm not sure I know the answer.
I'm not so much for less government as effective government. I am assuming that in the longer term, this will result in less, and lest costly, government.
I'm not so much for restricting anyone's liberty to do as they will, as long as their right ends before swinging at my nose.
Perhaps the biggest split is the concept of Government as a Power to help Citizens in need. I believe there in fact may be two parties spawned over that.
Sure, switching because of a single bad batch might not be worth it or even very smart. I can certainly understand how a batch of parts from one of your suppliers could go tits up. I can even understand how this slipped through QC. But the company's actions from then on should determine your response, beacuse these things do happen.
If one factors in the quote from the OP and another from (former) Dell tech support:
Thing with Dell is, they seem to go out of their way to blame your use of the product in cases like this.
I worked as Dell telephone tech support, I can honestly say they DO know about the issues. Nice big red screen pops up when you call them that says "Do not read this to the customer" it contains a full description of the issue your having 99% of the time.
It becomes a bit more than just a bad batch, even without deliberately selling defective devices. It becomes a company that is out to screw you.
And to voluntarily accept that is bad business. Not so much for them, but for you.
The more that I think of it, in the original construct the more I believe you are wrong.
"I have two pieces of fruit. One is a banana. How many bananas do I have?"
All the other English statements that you are trying to use as examples do not fully follow this form, and trying to use them as substitutes for the original is probably an issue.
"One is..." is exactly what I have been using as an example. Everything I've explained to you applies to those 3 sentences. Perhaps English isn't your first language.
Oh, if that were only the case.
In English, we have this nifty concept called "context" in the context of those three sentences, it becomes increasingly unlikely that there is one and only one banana.
This is largely due to the question being posed in the third sentence.
Now, if you can come up with a cogent reason why you are correct (and why no other interpretation is correct), using the original full quote, I would be very impressed.
Already done. That you can't or don't want to understand is neither here nor there.
As I thought, you decline. I perfectly understand your point, it's just wrong.
All of your other examples are missing the particular contextual structure of the quote. Trying to "explain" "One is..." all by itself is simply not enough without looking at the context it is being used in.
In this case, since the third sentence is the question that it is, that third sentence throws doubt into any certainty that there is only one banana.
You are incorrect in how you parsed the original quote. You have focused on one part of the quote and made it much more important than it is in context. In fact, the third sentence hints that the other fruit may very well be a banana.
No, I'm simply pointing out that in real life people don't mean what mathematicians seem to think they mean.
And then go on to say:
My interpretation is the correct one as written.
You interpretation is not the "correct one".
Your interpretation may be A correct one but is certainly not THE correct one.
Should I point out that in real life there are multiple real meanings to any specific English sentence?
Back to the full original quote:
I have two pieces of fruit. One is a banana. How many bananas do I have?
In fact, using standard English interpretations it becomes even less probable that your interpretation is correct with these particular sentence structures.
All the other English statements that you are trying to use as examples do not fully follow this form, and trying to use them as substitutes for the original is probably an issue.
Now, if you can come up with a cogent reason why you are correct (and why no other interpretation is correct), using the original full quote, I would be very impressed.
Don't count on me holding my breath, though, because I don't believe you can.
It's too bad you decided not to post under an account.
because as a single parent, there's plenty of other times when you can do the groceries, the laundry, and general housekeeping
Right, because keeping your household running is the same as playing WOW. Get a hierarchy, would you?
That applies to your attitude as well. It's called polarisation, mostly due to us having to cope with ever larger societies. But lack of adequate education certainly contributes to that. And contrary to you, by "adequate education" I do not mean "my mummy should hold my hand wherever I go", but I mean "while I'm growing up, I need to be exposed to as many different people and views as possible, so I don't grow up to be a narrow-minded adult".
Please let me know how my attitude is polarized or causes that reaction. What it the filter, and what do I place on one side as "Us" and the other side as "Them"? What emotionally coloured words or other rhetorical tricks do I use to produce this polarization? Please provide examples. Thanks.
Your mischaracterization of my view of education is not only an adhominem, but actually laughable. I expect my concept of an "adequate education" for human beings would curl your toenails.
Your rights to go play WOW do not trump your childrens' rights to an adequate developmental environment
Jeebs, now I'm thoroughly impressed: a real "think of the children" argument, with the usual false dichotomy at its side. Allow me to counter with another dichotomy:
Good job there. Nice use of labeling an argument so you don't have to actually discuss it.
Do you believe that your right to play WOW does indeed trump a child's right to an adequate developmental environment?
No? Ok. (If "Yes", then we are done here - I have no arguments against that line of reasoning)
Do you believe that part of an adequate developmental environment for children is to participate in some manner in activities that your children are into?
Yes? Ok (Again, I have no avenue of further discussion with a "No" answer)
Do you believe I am tyring to set up some sort of behavioural absolute?
Yes? Ok, that is part of our communication problem. I'm not.
No? Then what is your issue, because it seems, through your post that this is it:
Allow me to counter with another dichotomy: what do you think has a bigger impact on a child's life: his mother not cheering him/her on at his weekly game, or his mother being depressed throughout his/her childhood because she never stopped and allowed time for herself?
You clearly are not a single parent
As in my other posts, let me reiterate. No one can, or should, give 100% of themselves to anyone or anything else. It's just not supported on this hardware/OS configuration. However, I believe that if you have children you *should* (there's that word again!) be involved enough to prioritize your kid's activities well ahead of many other types of things you may rather be doing. It's part of parenthood.
I would also counter that in your example, the mother would likely be depressed in either scenario.
You clearly are not a single parent
You are right. But my mom was, with multiple spawn. Somehow she managed to be able to take me to soccer practice instead of playing bingo.
It is inadmissible garbage logic to say a parent who doesn't go to every one of his or her child's school events is an unfit parent.
Your original response was that no one can do those things all the time and you castigated me for telling you that you MUST go to EVERY $X that your children are into, and then went off about that.
It's nice that you choose to cut and paste only the parts of my post that give you a leg to stand on, but hmm, maybe not much of one.
That is what you were railing about, and I have no beef with that. I even plainly stated such in my follow on, just in case you missed it.
Now, you come back again with the same complaint. Sorry but no, you are only painting your own imagination with that brush this time. You cannot truthfully take my original quote, after I have clarified my statements and present it as what I said.
Do you disagree that parents should be involved with their children's activities, to the point that they should go to some of them?
Somehow I doubt it.
I think YOU are missing the point that it's not about staying home and playing WoW... You don't get to decide what I *am supposed* to do. I do. Preachy, see?
Well, what is your point then?
You see, I *do* get to decide. *Everyone* decides what they themselves and other people are supposed to do. To pretend otherwise is foolish. You are correct in that I cannot (and do not want to) force you into doing what I think you are supposed to do, but that's not your point now is it?
If you don't meet my expectations, I have various options. One is to amend my expectations. Another is to call you out about it. Another is to shrug and continue my life.
I took option two.
Call me "preachy" if you want. Oh wait, you already did. That will not lessen my feelings that parents should be involved with their children. In fact, I'll have to thank you for that description. It's a nice change from all the shrugging and modifying I've done over the years.
I think your real point is that you feel bad that someone is dissing your parental skills by proxy. In return, to smooth over your own cognitive dissonance you have slapped me with a nice label so you can file my responses away and not have to actually think about anything I've said.
No, I'm simply pointing out that in real life people don't mean what mathematicians seem to think they mean
Now, THAT i can get behind.
Of course, in real life people don't mean what any other person thinks they mean.
Luckily, the original statement had to do with mathematics, specifically probability, so perhaps you can cut some slack for strictly sticking to what was written, rather than what might have been meant by what was written?
Wow, aren't you preachy. Nobody can tell me I'm "supposed to be out with the children" and "not at home doing X".
Well, clearly that's not factual, as I just did. What you choose to do with those statement is your own problem.
I have no legal obligation to go to my kids baseball game or swim meet
True, there is no legal obligation to be a good parent. Hell, even when doing illegal things, such as abusing your child, you CAN do so up 'till you get caught (and sometimes even that doesn't stop abuse). Go figure.
No one is MAKING you a good parent. No one is MAKING you listen to criticism.
But your choices as a parent are not inviolate, either. We others do indeed get to discuss, with you or anyone else, what we feel about your disclosed methods. Even if they are legal.
It is inadmissible garbage logic to say a parent who doesn't go to every one of his or her child's school events is an unfit parent.
Well, it's a good thing I never said anything like that isn't it? Yes, life happens, and we cannot be there for everyone all the time (not even ourselves, it appears.) But really, to stay home and play WOW instead of going to the concert? I guess we might have different definitions of unfit.
I think people who think like YOU are the ones that should "get that or don't have kids".
I think that you are projecting onto my post something that wasn't there. We all know that no one can devote themselves to anyone 24/7/365.24. To think that there are people who don't know this is a bit of blindness on your part. To pretend that other's don't know this for the sake of an argument seems dishonest.
Was there something recent that you failed to do with your kids that is making you feel guilty enough to take it out on a stranger?
You can't be everywhere at all times for all your kids.
Mathematics doesn't really deal with lies by omission.
The reason you see a lie is because of your preconceptions of the entire situation, secretary, infidelity, etc. It is a lie because the other person perceives it as such, but may not rise to the fact of mathematical falshood.
You appear to be deriving the "fact" that the other piece of fruit is not a banana, since that is never directly stated.
Such a derivation is inherently suspect, as it was never included in the base data.
Saying "One is..." is a statement of a quantity.
It is really no such thing. The statement does not QUANTIFY the number of bananas in the set, is QUALIFIES the set as having at least one banana.
But in a regular statement about "the number of bananas in a set of fruit" or "the number of people in a family who are boys born on a Tuesday", the fact that the given answer is "One" indicates that the answer is not "Two"...
But we weren't given that. You would be correct if that were the case, but it is not.
We are not given that the set ONLY contains one boy, born on tuesday.
We are given the fact that the set contains one boy that was born on Tuesday.
There is a logical and mathematical difference between these two.
One allows for another boy, born on Tuesday or not.
The other does not.
The base problem here was introduced as a mathematical problem, not a lateral thinking problem.
You are trying to say that a mathematical forumluation of the question MUST follow the first form. I am saying that you are wrong, and that it does not necessarily follow - that one can construct the mathematical argument based on the second form and still be correct.
Please indicate why you believe the superiority of one form over the other.
If the statement is true no matter the makeup of the other item, how can it be deceptive?
You are getting into really interesting territory to say that even knowingly excluding some factual piece of information is deceptive if the statement you make is still irrefutably true.
You are then talking about the deception of truth, which is an internal matter.
In other words, you are simply deceiving yourself by adding more information to the factual statement than it contains and then saying it is deceptive when the truth doesn't match your fantasy.
But there is no clear link between the logic and philosophy of Plato and Pythagoras and the principles of science from Bacon, Descartes, etc.
That is because you fail to see the trees for forest in front of you.
Science is built on numbers. The big shift, which was needed for any scientific advancement was how we thought about, or philosophized, numbers. This was a great secret, and the reason Pythagorean philosophy was hidden. They taught a different way to look at the world, through numeric methods, that was antithetical to the pervailing mindset and religion.
Now, go try to do science without all those precious numbers and moreover, without that philosophy, and see how far you can get.
Fourth, who determines when a parent is "supposed to be out with the children". As a parent, if I want to sit at home and play Warcraft, there's nothing wrong with that and that is no indictment of my parenting skills.
There damn well is if your child happens to be performing in the school play at the time!
You are "supposed to be out with the children" when they have plays, concerts, etc., not at home playing WOW.
You are "supposed to be out with the children" when they have little league, or parent teacher conferences, not at home playing WOW.
Now, there may be no hard and fast rule about when you are "supposed to be out with the children" and it seems that many people today have your attitude. Your rights to go play WOW do not trump your childrens' rights to an adequate developmental environment.
Giving information about one element of an unkonwn group does not necessarily imply any information about any other members of the group.
I have two pieces of fruit. One is a banana.
Does not necessarily say anything about the other item in the grouping, other than it is a piece of fruit.
It certaily doesn't imply that the second piece of fruit IS NOT a bananna. Or if you get that it does, it is only in your mind. That is, it is strictly up to the interpretation of the reader to determine if they believe the second may or may not be a banana.
Even in your substitutions, I see nothing but ambiguity.
1. I have two pieces of fruit. One [of the set] is a banana.
In the first case, it's clear that the subject of the sentence is [the set of fruit], and that the implication is that not both of the set are bananas.
How is it clear that they are not both bananas? If they were both bananas how would this falsify the original statement? Because that's the only way the implication could be valid.
2.I have two pieces of fruit. [This] one is a banana.
In the second case, it's clear that we're now talking specifically about [one of the fruit], with the other item being irrelevant.
Sure, it's irrelevant, unless the follow-on question is something referencing that second item. Which, unfortunately for your argument, is exactly the case we are dealing with in the original.
I must also pint out that you sidestepped the issue of whether the other piece of fruit was a banana in your argument, but that is the question originally asked! Of course it's not irrelevant if the other piece of fruit is a banana.
You can twist this around any way you want, but the information that the other fruit IS NOT a banana is neither implied (as you so try to say) or stated.
Now, since the subject of the first statement is [the set of fruit], and there is no reframing clause in the second statement, the subject of the second statement is still [the set of fruit] and the conclusion is that only one member of [the set of fruit] is a banana
I agree that you have the subjects of the sentences correct. I just don's see how your conclusions are supported, in any fashion other than your own translation into meaning.
Your intolerance, and apolgistic attitute towards that intolerance are pretty funny when seen from this perspective.
Simply your statement that some people are "common trash" is breathtaking, in this light.
Way to go, dude, you rule! You have convinced me that if "common trash" does exist you have a much higher proabaility to be in that group, by your actions and thought patterns, than anyone with $random_appearance - including tattoos.
I'm sorry that your prejudices are so strong that you cnnot even shake them with direct experience.
To think anything specific about someone who choses to decorate their body that way is certainly doing you more of a disservice in your interactions with them than the reverse.
I have to wonder why you are afraid of this type of expression.
Slashdot Mirror
one shouldn't fall into the trap of believing it is OUR taxpayer money paying for it.
How do you suppose those companies manage to pay for the levies the government has put upon them?
The fact is that people just pay for this indirectly instead of directly.
Yes, technically you are correct "our taxpayer money" is not paying for it. However it is absurd to believe that we are not paying for it in the end.
Also, the more money that is collected from business to fund such ridiculous sites, the less that is available to do the actual work the levies were collected for.
So, not only do we end up paying higher prices in the stores, we get less actual benefit for it as the monies are wasted on shiny useless toys instead of providing the real benefits the levies are supposed to provide.
Regards.
I would pit the knowledge, technical skill, and ability to recognize an online scam of the average Linux user against those traits of the average Windows user. Any day.
When this is no longer true, it will be the Year of Linux, on the Desktop.
Regards.
I'm sorry to say but YOUR point of view is the one of the facist overlords, "buddy".
You are merely stating that anyone with enough cash can monopolize the market, and everyone else has to just suck it up.
The heart of the current corporatist ideology, which you seem to have bought into, is that there is value in any and every form of intermediation.
In your example, you are merely being a parasite and leach, provding NEGATIVE value to the entire chain of transactions. Oh yeah, except for you. Of course, that is kind of the definition of "parasite".
Regards.
Unfortunately, both creators and potential audiences are currently being directly harmed by the layers of unnecesary intermediation.
Until these are disposed with, both will continue to be harmed.
The creators will be harmed by people not paying anything for their stuff.
However, this is a logical reaction to the twisted set of current laws.
We as a people have supported these artists through our contract as a society, which they are certainly a part of.
We deserve to have the ability to play with works that have been produced within our own lifetime.
This is our culture, not theirs. I imagine that by now, everything in my youth should be a free for all. 20 years or so. This stuff is part of who we are. You are what you eat, and most of us have eaten quite a lot of ideas produced by other people.
People are not there to satisfy a particular business model. You cannot treat them as cattle to be herded this way and that by spurious laws that only are written to line your own pockets. There it is.
Until the horrible inequities that currently exist in Established Law have been redressed, it is really premature to go about blaming the victims, err, "consumers".
Regards.
yes?
As for all Policy, I would like a specific set of Actions to be taken.
Climate Inquiry
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1706476&cid=32779586
On something that the entire policy of the World hinges upon, I believe the following steps:
All raw data that exists should be put in the Commons, and all people should have access to this data.
All intermediate result sets that exist should be put into the Commons, and all people should have access to that data.
All versions of all extant climate programs, documentation and specifications, any ConOps, user documentation, assumption sets and explanatory documentation should be put into the Commons, along with the input and output sets that were used to produced the Published Research.
Regards.
What do you feel would be "moderate" enough to attract a wide body of support?
I'm not sure I know the answer.
I'm not so much for less government as effective government. I am assuming that in the longer term, this will result in less, and lest costly, government.
I'm not so much for restricting anyone's liberty to do as they will, as long as their right ends before swinging at my nose.
Perhaps the biggest split is the concept of Government as a Power to help Citizens in need. I believe there in fact may be two parties spawned over that.
What else?
Regards.
Sure, switching because of a single bad batch might not be worth it or even very smart. I can certainly understand how a batch of parts from one of your suppliers could go tits up. I can even understand how this slipped through QC. But the company's actions from then on should determine your response, beacuse these things do happen.
If one factors in the quote from the OP and another from (former) Dell tech support:
Thing with Dell is, they seem to go out of their way to blame your use of the product in cases like this.
I worked as Dell telephone tech support, I can honestly say they DO know about the issues. Nice big red screen pops up when you call them that says "Do not read this to the customer" it contains a full description of the issue your having 99% of the time.
It becomes a bit more than just a bad batch, even without deliberately selling defective devices. It becomes a company that is out to screw you.
And to voluntarily accept that is bad business. Not so much for them, but for you.
Regards.
Just recently we ordered about 10 more E6500s, all of which have constant network drop outs. The quality control really has gone to shit.
I'm not trying to rile you, but what was the thought process to go back and purchase more crap, after that first experience?
Corporate policy, or what?
This is a great example of why big corporations get away with doing stuff like this.
Regards.
The more that I think of it, in the original construct the more I believe you are wrong.
"I have two pieces of fruit. One is a banana. How many bananas do I have?"
All the other English statements that you are trying to use as examples do not fully follow this form, and trying to use them as substitutes for the original is probably an issue.
"One is..." is exactly what I have been using as an example. Everything I've explained to you applies to those 3 sentences. Perhaps English isn't your first language.
Oh, if that were only the case.
In English, we have this nifty concept called "context" in the context of those three sentences, it becomes increasingly unlikely that there is one and only one banana.
This is largely due to the question being posed in the third sentence.
Now, if you can come up with a cogent reason why you are correct (and why no other interpretation is correct), using the original full quote, I would be very impressed.
Already done. That you can't or don't want to understand is neither here nor there.
As I thought, you decline. I perfectly understand your point, it's just wrong.
All of your other examples are missing the particular contextual structure of the quote. Trying to "explain" "One is..." all by itself is simply not enough without looking at the context it is being used in.
In this case, since the third sentence is the question that it is, that third sentence throws doubt into any certainty that there is only one banana.
You are incorrect in how you parsed the original quote. You have focused on one part of the quote and made it much more important than it is in context. In fact, the third sentence hints that the other fruit may very well be a banana.
Am I clear yet? I hope so. This grows tiresome.
Perhaps English is not your first language?
Regards.
It's quite funny that you said this:
No, I'm simply pointing out that in real life people don't mean what mathematicians seem to think they mean.
And then go on to say:
My interpretation is the correct one as written.
You interpretation is not the "correct one".
Your interpretation may be A correct one but is certainly not THE correct one.
Should I point out that in real life there are multiple real meanings to any specific English sentence?
Back to the full original quote:
I have two pieces of fruit. One is a banana. How many bananas do I have?
In fact, using standard English interpretations it becomes even less probable that your interpretation is correct with these particular sentence structures.
All the other English statements that you are trying to use as examples do not fully follow this form, and trying to use them as substitutes for the original is probably an issue.
Now, if you can come up with a cogent reason why you are correct (and why no other interpretation is correct), using the original full quote, I would be very impressed.
Don't count on me holding my breath, though, because I don't believe you can.
Regards.
It's too bad you decided not to post under an account.
because as a single parent, there's plenty of other times when you can do the groceries, the laundry, and general housekeeping
Right, because keeping your household running is the same as playing WOW. Get a hierarchy, would you?
That applies to your attitude as well. It's called polarisation, mostly due to us having to cope with ever larger societies. But lack of adequate education certainly contributes to that. And contrary to you, by "adequate education" I do not mean "my mummy should hold my hand wherever I go", but I mean "while I'm growing up, I need to be exposed to as many different people and views as possible, so I don't grow up to be a narrow-minded adult".
Please let me know how my attitude is polarized or causes that reaction. What it the filter, and what do I place on one side as "Us" and the other side as "Them"? What emotionally coloured words or other rhetorical tricks do I use to produce this polarization? Please provide examples. Thanks.
Your mischaracterization of my view of education is not only an adhominem, but actually laughable. I expect my concept of an "adequate education" for human beings would curl your toenails.
Your rights to go play WOW do not trump your childrens' rights to an adequate developmental environment
Jeebs, now I'm thoroughly impressed: a real "think of the children" argument, with the usual false dichotomy at its side. Allow me to counter with another dichotomy:
Good job there. Nice use of labeling an argument so you don't have to actually discuss it.
Do you believe that your right to play WOW does indeed trump a child's right to an adequate developmental environment?
No? Ok. (If "Yes", then we are done here - I have no arguments against that line of reasoning)
Do you believe that part of an adequate developmental environment for children is to participate in some manner in activities that your children are into?
Yes? Ok (Again, I have no avenue of further discussion with a "No" answer)
Do you believe I am tyring to set up some sort of behavioural absolute?
Yes? Ok, that is part of our communication problem. I'm not.
No? Then what is your issue, because it seems, through your post that this is it:
Allow me to counter with another dichotomy: what do you think has a bigger impact on a child's life: his mother not cheering him/her on at his weekly game, or his mother being depressed throughout his/her childhood because she never stopped and allowed time for herself?
You clearly are not a single parent
As in my other posts, let me reiterate. No one can, or should, give 100% of themselves to anyone or anything else. It's just not supported on this hardware/OS configuration. However, I believe that if you have children you *should* (there's that word again!) be involved enough to prioritize your kid's activities well ahead of many other types of things you may rather be doing. It's part of parenthood.
I would also counter that in your example, the mother would likely be depressed in either scenario.
You clearly are not a single parent
You are right. But my mom was, with multiple spawn. Somehow she managed to be able to take me to soccer practice instead of playing bingo.
Regards.
Yes, preachy. Fine and all.
But that was not the thrust of your criticism:
It is inadmissible garbage logic to say a parent who doesn't go to every one of his or her child's school events is an unfit parent.
Your original response was that no one can do those things all the time and you castigated me for telling you that you MUST go to EVERY $X that your children are into, and then went off about that.
It's nice that you choose to cut and paste only the parts of my post that give you a leg to stand on, but hmm, maybe not much of one.
That is what you were railing about, and I have no beef with that. I even plainly stated such in my follow on, just in case you missed it.
Now, you come back again with the same complaint. Sorry but no, you are only painting your own imagination with that brush this time. You cannot truthfully take my original quote, after I have clarified my statements and present it as what I said.
Do you disagree that parents should be involved with their children's activities, to the point that they should go to some of them?
Somehow I doubt it.
I think YOU are missing the point that it's not about staying home and playing WoW... You don't get to decide what I *am supposed* to do. I do. Preachy, see?
Well, what is your point then?
You see, I *do* get to decide. *Everyone* decides what they themselves and other people are supposed to do. To pretend otherwise is foolish. You are correct in that I cannot (and do not want to) force you into doing what I think you are supposed to do, but that's not your point now is it?
If you don't meet my expectations, I have various options. One is to amend my expectations. Another is to call you out about it. Another is to shrug and continue my life.
I took option two.
Call me "preachy" if you want. Oh wait, you already did. That will not lessen my feelings that parents should be involved with their children. In fact, I'll have to thank you for that description. It's a nice change from all the shrugging and modifying I've done over the years.
I think your real point is that you feel bad that someone is dissing your parental skills by proxy. In return, to smooth over your own cognitive dissonance you have slapped me with a nice label so you can file my responses away and not have to actually think about anything I've said.
Regards.
No, I'm simply pointing out that in real life people don't mean what mathematicians seem to think they mean
Now, THAT i can get behind.
Of course, in real life people don't mean what any other person thinks they mean.
Luckily, the original statement had to do with mathematics, specifically probability, so perhaps you can cut some slack for strictly sticking to what was written, rather than what might have been meant by what was written?
Wow, aren't you preachy. Nobody can tell me I'm "supposed to be out with the children" and "not at home doing X".
Well, clearly that's not factual, as I just did. What you choose to do with those statement is your own problem.
I have no legal obligation to go to my kids baseball game or swim meet
True, there is no legal obligation to be a good parent. Hell, even when doing illegal things, such as abusing your child, you CAN do so up 'till you get caught (and sometimes even that doesn't stop abuse). Go figure.
No one is MAKING you a good parent. No one is MAKING you listen to criticism.
But your choices as a parent are not inviolate, either. We others do indeed get to discuss, with you or anyone else, what we feel about your disclosed methods. Even if they are legal.
It is inadmissible garbage logic to say a parent who doesn't go to every one of his or her child's school events is an unfit parent.
Well, it's a good thing I never said anything like that isn't it? Yes, life happens, and we cannot be there for everyone all the time (not even ourselves, it appears.) But really, to stay home and play WOW instead of going to the concert? I guess we might have different definitions of unfit.
I think people who think like YOU are the ones that should "get that or don't have kids".
I think that you are projecting onto my post something that wasn't there. We all know that no one can devote themselves to anyone 24/7/365.24. To think that there are people who don't know this is a bit of blindness on your part. To pretend that other's don't know this for the sake of an argument seems dishonest.
Was there something recent that you failed to do with your kids that is making you feel guilty enough to take it out on a stranger?
You can't be everywhere at all times for all your kids.
And frankly, you shouldn't be.
Regards.
Mathematics doesn't really deal with lies by omission.
The reason you see a lie is because of your preconceptions of the entire situation, secretary, infidelity, etc. It is a lie because the other person perceives it as such, but may not rise to the fact of mathematical falshood.
You appear to be deriving the "fact" that the other piece of fruit is not a banana, since that is never directly stated.
Such a derivation is inherently suspect, as it was never included in the base data.
Saying "One is..." is a statement of a quantity.
It is really no such thing. The statement does not QUANTIFY the number of bananas in the set, is QUALIFIES the set as having at least one banana.
Regards.
But in a regular statement about "the number of bananas in a set of fruit" or "the number of people in a family who are boys born on a Tuesday", the fact that the given answer is "One" indicates that the answer is not "Two"...
But we weren't given that. You would be correct if that were the case, but it is not.
We are not given that the set ONLY contains one boy, born on tuesday.
We are given the fact that the set contains one boy that was born on Tuesday.
There is a logical and mathematical difference between these two.
One allows for another boy, born on Tuesday or not.
The other does not.
The base problem here was introduced as a mathematical problem, not a lateral thinking problem.
You are trying to say that a mathematical forumluation of the question MUST follow the first form. I am saying that you are wrong, and that it does not necessarily follow - that one can construct the mathematical argument based on the second form and still be correct.
Please indicate why you believe the superiority of one form over the other.
Regards.
I simply do not agree that it is deceptive.
If the statement is true no matter the makeup of the other item, how can it be deceptive?
You are getting into really interesting territory to say that even knowingly excluding some factual piece of information is deceptive if the statement you make is still irrefutably true.
You are then talking about the deception of truth, which is an internal matter.
In other words, you are simply deceiving yourself by adding more information to the factual statement than it contains and then saying it is deceptive when the truth doesn't match your fantasy.
Regards.
But there is no clear link between the logic and philosophy of Plato and Pythagoras and the principles of science from Bacon, Descartes, etc.
That is because you fail to see the trees for forest in front of you.
Science is built on numbers. The big shift, which was needed for any scientific advancement was how we thought about, or philosophized, numbers. This was a great secret, and the reason Pythagorean philosophy was hidden. They taught a different way to look at the world, through numeric methods, that was antithetical to the pervailing mindset and religion.
Now, go try to do science without all those precious numbers and moreover, without that philosophy, and see how far you can get.
Regards.
Fourth, who determines when a parent is "supposed to be out with the children". As a parent, if I want to sit at home and play Warcraft, there's nothing wrong with that and that is no indictment of my parenting skills.
There damn well is if your child happens to be performing in the school play at the time!
You are "supposed to be out with the children" when they have plays, concerts, etc., not at home playing WOW.
You are "supposed to be out with the children" when they have little league, or parent teacher conferences, not at home playing WOW.
Now, there may be no hard and fast rule about when you are "supposed to be out with the children" and it seems that many people today have your attitude. Your rights to go play WOW do not trump your childrens' rights to an adequate developmental environment.
Either get that or don't have kids.
Regards.
Sorry, but I feel you are incorrect.
Giving information about one element of an unkonwn group does not necessarily imply any information about any other members of the group.
I have two pieces of fruit. One is a banana.
Does not necessarily say anything about the other item in the grouping, other than it is a piece of fruit.
It certaily doesn't imply that the second piece of fruit IS NOT a bananna. Or if you get that it does, it is only in your mind. That is, it is strictly up to the interpretation of the reader to determine if they believe the second may or may not be a banana.
Even in your substitutions, I see nothing but ambiguity.
1. I have two pieces of fruit. One [of the set] is a banana.
In the first case, it's clear that the subject of the sentence is [the set of fruit], and that the implication is that not both of the set are bananas.
How is it clear that they are not both bananas? If they were both bananas how would this falsify the original statement? Because that's the only way the implication could be valid.
2.I have two pieces of fruit. [This] one is a banana.
In the second case, it's clear that we're now talking specifically about [one of the fruit], with the other item being irrelevant.
Sure, it's irrelevant, unless the follow-on question is something referencing that second item. Which, unfortunately for your argument, is exactly the case we are dealing with in the original.
I must also pint out that you sidestepped the issue of whether the other piece of fruit was a banana in your argument, but that is the question originally asked! Of course it's not irrelevant if the other piece of fruit is a banana.
You can twist this around any way you want, but the information that the other fruit IS NOT a banana is neither implied (as you so try to say) or stated.
Now, since the subject of the first statement is [the set of fruit], and there is no reframing clause in the second statement, the subject of the second statement is still [the set of fruit] and the conclusion is that only one member of [the set of fruit] is a banana
I agree that you have the subjects of the sentences correct. I just don's see how your conclusions are supported, in any fashion other than your own translation into meaning.
Regards.
It's quite sad that you let fashion run your life that way.
It's not like your arguments are anything to do with tattoos themselves.
"I'm doing this because it's cool" is the same as "I'm not doing this because it's cool"
The "fact" that "it looks plain pathetic" has more to do with you and your own life than any one else.
Hopefully one day you'll see that.
Regards.
I'll tell you what really makes you look stupid.
Posts like this.
Your intolerance, and apolgistic attitute towards that intolerance are pretty funny when seen from this perspective.
Simply your statement that some people are "common trash" is breathtaking, in this light.
Way to go, dude, you rule! You have convinced me that if "common trash" does exist you have a much higher proabaility to be in that group, by your actions and thought patterns, than anyone with $random_appearance - including tattoos.
Regards.
I'm sorry that your prejudices are so strong that you cnnot even shake them with direct experience.
To think anything specific about someone who choses to decorate their body that way is certainly doing you more of a disservice in your interactions with them than the reverse.
I have to wonder why you are afraid of this type of expression.
Regards.