Lockjaw Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I don't think that's a limitation of language, it just demonstrates that people can make contradictory statements. It's more than a simple contradiction, though, isn't it. It's a single statement which can be neither true nor false ... a paradox, if you will, brought about by a limitation of language. Contradiction suggests more than one statement, each of which could be true but which can't both/all be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I don't see what about contradiction suggests multiple statements. This is the most simple case of a contradiction, a statement that contradicts itself. The language isn't at fault, it allows me to express something that is logically impossible, but still conceptually understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Countless logicians and philosophers have argued about "this statement is false" for millennia, and still have not reached a unanimous conclusion. I take the view that any sentence, or group of sentences, which is entirely self-referential is meaningless, so questions of truth or falsehood cannot apply to it. But even if you agree with me, it's still possible to construct sentences (meaningless or not) which appear to be self-contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Factually incorrect? What about the legitimacy of my argument? Wouldn't the presumption that a criminal could be wearing a niqab pose the same degree of risk to security as the presumption that a balaclava wearer could be a criminal? Presumably () it would; but the police would also arrest you for refusing to take off a niqab and show your face after being ordered to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fibutton Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 http://www.philosophycourse.com/?gclid=CLim8arkmqsCFUcMtAodhRurjA Why don't you all go on this course....then you will ALL be right.......... Honestly, I have seen more understanding and tolerance in a kids playground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Factually incorrect? What about the legitimacy of my argument? You can't legitimately argue that it's illegal to wear a balaclava when it isn't. Wouldn't the presumption that a criminal could be wearing a niqab pose the same degree of risk to security as the presumption that a balaclava wearer could be a criminal? How's that related to the balaclava? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 It takes a lot from someone to really get the context of the thread. Everybody displaces their own wants and desires, instead of really reading, listening, and engaging in understanding what the other person is really saying. The right and wrongs are: -morally -factually People do not always read the context before jumping in. There are no rules, but the mods do have ultimate online power. Which makes any decent debates or discussion quite biased in many respect. Out goes fairness really. It takes a really mature and strong-willed person to pull back and assess the context, and or admits their own wrong-doings. Not many admit their own wrongs. Most discussions involve both moral and factual points, but often culminate in opinion (and there are cases where right or wrong is neither a moral nor a factual issue, but simply an opinion. For example I might state that chicken is tastier than turkey, or that snickers are nicer than mars, neither factual in any objective way nor a moral issue. Extending this idea someone might point out that snickers contain nuts, that's a fact, but someone else will probably dispute it, or further clarify that it's only 40%... So we have the side issue now of nuts, a factual issue to clarify before we can get back to the entirely subjective 'better'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Most discussions involve both moral and factual points, but often culminate in opinion (and there are cases where right or wrong is neither a moral nor a factual issue, but simply an opinion. For example I might state that chicken is tastier than turkey, or that snickers are nicer than mars, neither factual in any objective way nor a moral issue. Extending this idea someone might point out that snickers contain nuts, that's a fact, but someone else will probably dispute it, or further clarify that it's only 40%... So we have the side issue now of nuts, a factual issue to clarify before we can get back to the entirely subjective 'better'. And that's without even considering the smart-alec pedant who will wade in to point out that the peanut is technically not a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 And that's without even considering the smart-alec pedant who will wade in to point out that the peanut is technically not a nut. You taking the pea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 Presumably () it would; but the police would also arrest you for refusing to take off a niqab and show your face after being ordered to do so. Then do you acknowledge that security and police procedures are being compromised because it is automatically presumed that every Niqab wearer must be a Muslim woman who statistically speaking, (based on past experience) poses less risk to security than a balaclava or motorcycle helmet wearer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.