Gay Games

[hpfencing]

I think this topic has been talked to death.... I wonder how many people besides my have been hit with negative rep[utation points on this thread just because we have a different opinion.

[Inquartata]

Don't obsess over the reputation points. We're all way to concerned with what other people think of us to begin with in modern society, IMO. Maybe we should leave the popularity contests to politicians...

[epeemike81]

Yes and no. Logic does deal with a process, however, without the laws on which logic are based (law of non-contradiction, law of exluded middle, can't remember the other one) the process has no practical application. Reason being, you say "if so and so is true than so and so and so", and I reply by saying "yes, it is true, but it is also false". If you reject the laws of logic you reject all possibility of being able to reason.

but nobody rejected the laws of logic, just the idea that any given assumption is inherently true, and especially the idea that you know what that absolute truth is when it by definition pertains to matters outside your comprehension, or at least your personal experience (god, etc.). The issue was with the apparent belief that YOUR faith could be offered up as proof of the existence of God. it can't. sorry, but your faith is no more valid than that of any other person in the world, and a majority of them disagree with you (as a majority disagree wtih ANY given religion). There is no absolute truth. that says nothing of logic, which there is plenty of, at least over here where I am.

-m

[epeemike81]

I think this topic has been talked to death.... I wonder how many people besides my have been hit with negative rep[utation points on this thread just because we have a different opinion.

none by me. I don't use rep points.

-m

[epeemike81]

Don't obsess over the reputation points. We're all way to concerned with what other people think of us to begin with in modern society, IMO. Maybe we should leave the popularity contests to politicians...

seconded, though it would be nice if that wasn't a popularity contest, either. if Americans actually considered the issues more deeply... oh well, that's a discussion for another thread.

-m

[labouche]

but nobody rejected the laws of logic, just the idea that any given assumption is inherently true, and especially the idea that you know what that absolute truth is when it by definition pertains to matters outside your comprehension, or at least your personal experience (god, etc.). The issue was with the apparent belief that YOUR faith could be offered up as proof of the existence of God. it can't. sorry, but your faith is no more valid than that of any other person in the world, and a majority of them disagree with you (as a majority disagree wtih ANY given religion). There is no absolute truth. that says nothing of logic, which there is plenty of, at least over here where I am.

-m

Maybe you didn't reject the laws of logic but other people certainly did. If there is not truth and correctness is based on societal oppinion than that does go against the laws of logic. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time. If societal oppinion=true then a certain issue (such as homosexuality) can be both true and false. This is not logically possible. It seems like people today are continually accepting the eastern way of thinking (both/and) rather than the western way (either/or) and they are arguing using western logic to try to show their point. It's like saying "the truth is, there is not truth"....this statement is clearly nonsense.

elijah

[jeff]

labouche, that's nonsense. Societal prejudice has nothing to do with "truth and correctness" or laws of logic (at one time slavery was considered a social norm, along with women not being able to vote or own property). Logic doesn't come into it in the least, though there are plenty of attempts to justify prejudices via pseudo-logic. And there's no such thing as an Eastern system of logic that is "and" based while Western is "or" based. That's absurd. Now, behave yourself or I'll throw Godel's Incompleteness Theorem at you.

[epeemike81]

Maybe you didn't reject the laws of logic but other people certainly did. If there is not truth and correctness is based on societal oppinion than that does go against the laws of logic. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time. If societal oppinion=true then a certain issue (such as homosexuality) can be both true and false. This is not logically possible. It seems like people today are continually accepting the eastern way of thinking (both/and) rather than the western way (either/or) and they are arguing using western logic to try to show their point. It's like saying "the truth is, there is not truth"....this statement is clearly nonsense.

elijah

still, you miss the point...

By saying that there isn't any absolute truth (regarding social mores), I'm not saying social mores are BOTH true and false, but rather NEITHER true NOR false. it is an opinion! it is your OPINION that homosexuality is wrong. the fact that the opinion is shared by others doesn't make it truth, just an opinion held by many.

-m

[epeemike81]

Now, behave yourself or I'll throw Godel's Incompleteness Theorem at you.

Hehe... Don't forget the umlaut! it's Gödel.

something tells me he wouldn't accept it, or be able to understand the proof.

-m

[jeff]

Yup, I was too lazy to go look up the keyboard trick for sticking an umlaut there. If it ain't on my keyboard, it aint going in!

I don't think he'd get the proof either (or even the statement of the theorem!)

[labouche]

labouche, that's nonsense. Societal prejudice has nothing to do with "truth and correctness" or laws of logic (at one time slavery was considered a social norm, along with women not being able to vote or own property). Logic doesn't come into it in the least, though there are plenty of attempts to justify prejudices via pseudo-logic. And there's no such thing as an Eastern system of logic that is "and" based while Western is "or" based. That's absurd. Now, behave yourself or I'll throw Godel's Incompleteness Theorem at you.

Glad you agree with me. I know societal prejudice had nothing to do with whether something is true of false however many people on this board have been saying that truth all depends on societal oppinion.
Actually, the eastern way of thinking is often based around both/and, whereas the western is and/or. A clear example of this is in the religions of both cultures.

[epeemike81]

Glad you agree with me. I know societal prejudice had nothing to do with whether something is true of false however many people on this board have been saying that truth all depends on societal oppinion.

no, we've been disputing that RIGHT and WRONG are absolute truths.

-m

[labouche]

still, you miss the point...

By saying that there isn't any absolute truth (regarding social mores), I'm not saying social mores are BOTH true and false, but rather NEITHER true NOR false. it is an opinion! it is your OPINION that homosexuality is wrong. the fact that the opinion is shared by others doesn't make it truth, just an opinion held by many.

-m

You just rejected the law of exluded middle, which sates that a statement is either true or false, it cannot lie somewhere in the middle. You are right in saying the statement "homosexuality is wrong" is not necessarily right because other people say it is-in fact, this is a logical fallacy-an appeal to the people. However, the fact is that homosexuality is either right or wrong, this cannot be proven, nor can any other thoughts which men believe today. Therefore, a rational person will take the views in which has the most evidence backing it, and hopefully, coincides with the laws of logic.
-elijah

[jeff]

labouche, you're mistaking what Mike and I have been saying. Please reread them; his post right above this one summarises the point.

I don't think you're making sense with your (stereotypes) of eastern and western thinking either.

[jeff]

Alright, labouche, and don't say I didn't warn you! In any sufficiently powerful system of formal logic there will always be some propositions that can't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms of that system of logic (Godel with an umlaut)

All this is fun but besides the point: you're hoping you can use a facade of logic to bolster your personal belief system and prejudices. Doesn't work.

[epeemike81]

You just rejected the law of exluded middle, which sates that a statement is either true or false, it cannot lie somewhere in the middle. You are right in saying the statement "homosexuality is wrong" is not necessarily right because other people say it is-in fact, this is a logical fallacy-an appeal to the people. However, the fact is that homosexuality is either right or wrong, this cannot be proven, nor can any other thoughts which men believe today. Therefore, a rational person will take the views in which has the most evidence backing it, and hopefully, coincides with the laws of logic.
-elijah

no, I did not reject the law of excluded middle. if h="homosexuality is wrong", it is still true that (h or !h), which is what the law of excluded middle states. however, what makes it an opinion is our inablity to determine which of those is true, or rather our varying beliefs about which is true. until you can, using logic, prove h or disprove !h, don't try to bring logic into it.

-m