Not at all. I have not been rude to you. Your philosophy must defend itself, however. When you say things like, “Whichever way the court rules, the other side must capitulate.” as if that is something to be avoided, it is not rude to expect an explanation. When I called you on it, you dodged my question with hand waving, then made reference to my intelligence (“you fail the class”). If our discussion has devolved, it did not start with me. Physician heal thyself.
Arguing with you is like juggling eels. If your feelings get hurt if I must nail a tail or two to the wall from time to time, perhaps this forum is not for you.
Fine, instead of my personal guarantee I will say this: if any lawyer advised you otherwise it would constitute malpractice. You’re free to disagree, but you would be doing so irrationally and without evidence.
Which argument? If you’re talking about the argument that privacy can be protected without a court, I don’t think it’s invalid, just false.
Why not just say you misspoke? Why try to turn it into an attack? This is why people think you’re a disingenuous debater.
And please stop giving lectures on logic. I’ve already stated for you the definition of validity in modal logic. I’ve said nothing to indicate any ignorance of the rules of logic, so the only purpose of you continuing to lecture is to make it appear as if logic is somehow on your side. Another dishonest tactic.
Well, if there’s a distinction between defending an argument and acknowledging its validity…
…there’s also a distinction between worldviews that are based mostly on armchair reasoning and those that have superior empirical grounding.
We had a gold standard until 1933, when Roosevelt took us off of it. The preceding 50+ years were hardly examples of macroeconomic stability. It is logically plausible that central banks would do their job better if they had their hands tied by the price of a particular commodity. But consider that inflation has been well under 6% for about 20 years IIRC and that gold hit a low of $250 in 1999 and a high of $730 in 2006, an almost 200% increase.
One would think that those looking to anchor the monetary authorities would pick a less volatile commodity, absent some quasi-rational fascination with shiny metals.
In short, logical validity is too low a bar: it permits the acceptance of cranky ideas which should be laughed out of the public policy domain.
Incidentally, there was a Fed governor (Wayne Angell?) who thought that the Fed might try to target the prices of a certain commodity bundle. I consider that argument to be empirically plausible, though still ill-advised in all likelihood. But it is ironic that those who push the gold standard tend to crowd even the more legitimate variations of their idea out of public debate.
Yeah. God knows nobody has ever been railroaded by the justice system.
Then what the fuck are you going on and on about? If you don’t think it’s invalid, then you agree with me.
Says he as he attacks. I can think of nothing more disingenuous than speaking for other people. I do not value the opinion of anyone who projects his own dislike as some flaw in the object of his derision. A man who calls me disingenuous has likely called me names before. Who cares.
Physician, heal yourself.
When the hell did modal logic enter the picture?
I don’t think you’re ignorant. I just think you’re either naive or dishonest. Your statement that “[t]he conventional view of logical validity is that when the premises are true, the conclusion must follow,” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of logical validity. A valid argument’s conclusion follows from the premises whether they are true or not. If you think that, at some point, you can muster the self control to argue unemotionally and without the drama of whining about insults even as you hurl them, get back to me.
That is an excellent point. It even permits them to be instutionalized, which is how, for example, our government became entrenched in the business of wealth redistribution.
