• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Elect Trump!

Angra Mainyu said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
That's why I wrote "[a]llegedly," not "definitely" or some other sure thing.
Click to expand...
You mean he "allegedly" was or wasn't a child molester?
In any case, as I said, the other examples remain - and even on the matter of child molestation or similar, he's often accused without warrant.
You wrote "allegedly" for the other traits too, apparently (at least, your post didn't distinguish).
Click to expand...

You wrote P = he's not (A or B or C).

I wrote "allegedly" because you were alleging it (by DeMorgan's Law) he's not A and not B and not C. You're statement P was too extreme since he might be* B. So "allegedly" was a description of P the thing you were claiming or alleging. That is P is only true if ALL OF those related three claims are true. If any of them is false, P is false.

*Don't care about semantics so dont make any distinctions between might, may etc or ask any semantic questions. It's obvious what this means!
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Angra Mainyu said:
You mean he "allegedly" was or wasn't a child molester?
In any case, as I said, the other examples remain - and even on the matter of child molestation or similar, he's often accused without warrant.
You wrote "allegedly" for the other traits too, apparently (at least, your post didn't distinguish).
Click to expand...

You wrote P = he's not (A or B or C).

I wrote "allegedly" because you were alleging it (by DeMorgan's Law) he's not A and not B and not C. You're statement P was too extreme since he might be* B. So "allegedly" was a description of P the thing you were claiming or alleging. That is P is only true if ALL OF those related three claims are true. If any of them is false, P is false.

*Don't care about semantics so dont make any distinctions between might, may etc or ask any semantic questions. It's obvious what this means!
Click to expand...
I might have (okay, okay, may have) missed something, but if I give three examples and one is shot to shreds, I've still given examples.
 
fast said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
You wrote P = he's not (A or B or C).

I wrote "allegedly" because you were alleging it (by DeMorgan's Law) he's not A and not B and not C. You're statement P was too extreme since he might be* B. So "allegedly" was a description of P the thing you were claiming or alleging. That is P is only true if ALL OF those related three claims are true. If any of them is false, P is false.

*Don't care about semantics so dont make any distinctions between might, may etc or ask any semantic questions. It's obvious what this means!
Click to expand...
I might have (okay, okay, may have) missed something, but if I give three examples and one is shot to shreds, I've still given examples.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, you are definitely missing something. In logic there's a thing called DeMorgan's Law. Did you click the link?

If I claim that you are a red, lily-livered curmudgeon* but you are not red, then I'm wrong. It's a false statement.

If I write "fast is red AND fast is lily-livered AND fast is a curmudgeon," but you're not a curmudgeon, then I'm wrong. It's a false statement.

If on the other hand, I write "fast is not red, nor lily-livered, nor a curmudgeon," but you ARE a curmudgeon, then the statement is false.

If I had written "fast is not red, nor lily-livered, nor a curmudgeon," but there is some evidence out there that you might be a curmudgeon, then the statement might be false. If the probability is 0% that you're red, the probability is 0% that you're lily-livered, and 50% that you're a curmudgeon [while the probabilities are independent], then there's a 50% chance the statement is false and a 50% chance it's true.

*whatever the heck that means...
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
fast said:
I might have (okay, okay, may have) missed something, but if I give three examples and one is shot to shreds, I've still given examples.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, you are definitely missing something. In logic there's a thing called DeMorgan's Law. Did you click the link?

If I claim that you are a red, lily-livered curmudgeon* but you are not red, then I'm wrong. It's a false statement.

If I write "fast is red AND fast is lily-livered AND fast is a curmudgeon," but you're not a curmudgeon, then I'm wrong. It's a false statement.

If on the other hand, I write "fast is not red, nor lily-livered, nor a curmudgeon," but you ARE a curmudgeon, then the statement is false.

If I had written "fast is not red, nor lily-livered, nor a curmudgeon," but there is some evidence out there that you might be a curmudgeon, then the statement might be false. If the probability is 0% that you're red, the probability is 0% that you're lily-livered, and 50% that you're a curmudgeon [while the probabilities are independent], then there's a 50% chance the statement is false and a 50% chance it's true.

*whatever the heck that means...
Click to expand...
The presumption (not assumption) is that I'm not a curmudgeon. If I am accused of being a curmudgeon, then although that is sufficient reason to take pause and wonder if the accusation is true, that so far only goes to show that it might possibly be true, but not that it's sufficiently reasonable to think it may in fact probably be true. In fact, it was possibly true before the accusation, but we don't act on things merely because they are possibly true.

There is no assumption of innocence, for if that is assumed from the start, there is no reason to investigate farther. There is the presumption of innocence thereby properly placing the burden of proof on the side of those that would accuse me.

This 50% probablility idea that I am what I'm accused of being makes little sense. There is a notion in law about preponderance of evidence, but imbuing it as having the comparative overlay quality of being over 50% of the evidence is a faulty comparison. There may be loads of evidence introduced that is miserably trounced by little but overwhelming counter evidence.
 
fast said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Oh yes, you are definitely missing something. In logic there's a thing called DeMorgan's Law. Did you click the link?

If I claim that you are a red, lily-livered curmudgeon* but you are not red, then I'm wrong. It's a false statement.

If I write "fast is red AND fast is lily-livered AND fast is a curmudgeon," but you're not a curmudgeon, then I'm wrong. It's a false statement.

If on the other hand, I write "fast is not red, nor lily-livered, nor a curmudgeon," but you ARE a curmudgeon, then the statement is false.

If I had written "fast is not red, nor lily-livered, nor a curmudgeon," but there is some evidence out there that you might be a curmudgeon, then the statement might be false. If the probability is 0% that you're red, the probability is 0% that you're lily-livered, and 50% that you're a curmudgeon [while the probabilities are independent], then there's a 50% chance the statement is false and a 50% chance it's true.

*whatever the heck that means...
Click to expand...
The presumption (not assumption) is that I'm not a curmudgeon. If I am accused of being a curmudgeon, then although that is sufficient reason to take pause and wonder if the accusation is true, that so far only goes to show that it might possibly be true, but not that it's sufficiently reasonable to think it may in fact probably be true. In fact, it was possibly true before the accusation, but we don't act on things merely because they are possibly true.

There is no assumption of innocence, for if that is assumed from the start, there is no reason to investigate farther. There is the presumption of innocence thereby properly placing the burden of proof on the side of those that would accuse me.

This 50% probablility idea that I am what I'm accused of being makes little sense. There is a notion in law about preponderance of evidence, but imbuing it as having the comparative overlay quality of being over 50% of the evidence is a faulty comparison. There may be loads of evidence introduced that is miserably trounced by little but overwhelming counter evidence.
Click to expand...

You are responding to ideas I didn't write.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Angra Mainyu said:
You mean he "allegedly" was or wasn't a child molester?
In any case, as I said, the other examples remain - and even on the matter of child molestation or similar, he's often accused without warrant.
You wrote "allegedly" for the other traits too, apparently (at least, your post didn't distinguish).
Click to expand...

You wrote P = he's not (A or B or C).

I wrote "allegedly" because you were alleging it (by DeMorgan's Law) he's not A and not B and not C. You're statement P was too extreme since he might be* B. So "allegedly" was a description of P the thing you were claiming or alleging. That is P is only true if ALL OF those related three claims are true. If any of them is false, P is false.

*Don't care about semantics so dont make any distinctions between might, may etc or ask any semantic questions. It's obvious what this means!
Click to expand...

I didn't do that. I said he is not A, I also said he is not B, and that he is not C. I was claiming 3 different things he was not. If one of the is not the case (i.e., if he is one of them), then that does not affect the truth of the two others. You might say it affects the truth of the conjunction, but that would not affect the main point, which is that there are negative traits he does not have.

As for the "too extreme" claim, my statement regarding child molestation was not "too extreme" on the basis of the info I had, which came from a number of media outlets. But I didn't read everything on him, of course. The outlets I read didn't report any serious suspicions of child molestation (or any suspicions at all), the vast majority of people aren't child molesters, there was no indication of pedophilia, either (i.e., attraction towards prepubescent individuals), etc., and there were no accusations I knew about from other sources (and in particular, no serious ones), despite the fact that he had been accused by many of his enemies of many things, sometimes with good reasons and sometimes without them.

But let's say that my assessment on that particular point went too far. In any case, the others would remain.
 
Elixir said:
Angra Mainyu said:
I don't know why they haven't asked him. Haven't they? But he was called on that on the media, e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-birther-cnn_us_57dc2301e4b08cb14095847e.
Click to expand...

Didn't see the question in the text and didn't watch the video (new sound card tomorrow!). I did see the question raised between talking heads, but not posed to Trump himself or his acolytes.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, I don't know whether they have asked him at some point, but it's not in the text. On the other hand, they said that he was not making false claims, that he had played them, etc. Not asking but bluntly saying that he's making false claims is not giving him a pass. Maybe in the past, but it seems they got tired of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom