RE: no limits period

RE: no limits period (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:43:46 PM)
You're nothing until you give me a gratuitous Hitler reference.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr So you finally managed to find a way to proof I have limits... awesome for you! Pretty cool, eh? Pretty irrelevant... So again... PROOF to me that it's impossible for a human being to not have limits... And explain to me why you believe that mentally disturbed people aren't human beings...

IronBear -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:47:14 PM)
You have been tried, tested and failed. I'm done with you. be off ..... Depart my presence!

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 5:48:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr And explain to me why you believe that mentally disturbed people aren't human beings... If you're going to start deliberately misrepresenting my position, I'm going to make fun of your use of the word "proof" for "prove" and your penchant for using ALL CAPS!

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 6:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr And explain to me why you believe that mentally disturbed people aren't human beings... If you're going to start deliberately misrepresenting my position, I'm going to make fun of your use of the word "proof" for "prove" and your penchant for using ALL CAPS! English is my third language, so my spelling isn't always perfect... good to see you're lowering yourself to cheap potshots... how many languages do you speak? Instead of making yet another empty an unsupported claim, why not explain why exactly you feel that I'm misrepresenting your position. In the mean time, I'll explain why I'm not. You made the claim that it's impossible for a human being to have no limits. You made the claim that it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits. That, my dear, is known as a hypothetical syllogism with an implied conclusion. According to the rules of logic, the only conclusion that can AND must be drawn from those to premisses is that you claim that there are mentally disturbed people who are not human beings. That conclusion logically and necessarily follows from your stated premisses. In fact, it's the ONLY possible logical conclusion that follows from your premisses. Come on sweetie, you can't be THIS ignorant about the absolute idiocy of what you're claiming to believe here... Ishtar

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 6:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr English is my third language, so my spelling isn't always perfect... good to see you're lowering yourself to cheap potshots... how many languages do you speak? Eleventy-two. I mentioned that because you're being so lame as to state that I claimed something like "mentally disturbed people aren't human beings." That's way off the edge, missy. quote: You made the claim that it's impossible for a human being to have no limits. You made the claim that it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits. You have committed (and are erroneously trying to pin on me) one of the most common logical fallacies: All As are Bs, all As are Cs, therefore all Bs are Cs. All human beings have limits. Having no limits means one is mentally disturbed. It does not follow that having no limits means one is not human, which is the conclusion you are trying to tag me with.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:34:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr You made the claim that it's impossible for a human being to have no limits. You made the claim that it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits. You have committed (and are erroneously trying to pin on me) one of the most common logical fallacies: All As are Bs, all As are Cs, therefore all Bs are Cs. All human beings have limits. Having no limits means one is mentally disturbed. It does not follow that having no limits means one is not human, which is the conclusion you are trying to tag me with. Sweetie, make sure that you actually make the CORRECT translations before you accuse me of committing a fallacy of undistributed middle First of all, in the conclusion the predicate term ALWAYS comes second, and the subject term ALWAYS comes second. This means that in your example of a logical fallacy the conclusion should be "all C are B". Not "all B are C" which is absolutely impossible in categorical logic. Further, you mistranslated the statements I said you made. "It's impossible for a human to have no limits" does NOT translate into "All A are B" if you're going to use "A" as the middle term. You are correct that it's the logical equivalent to "all humans have limits" which is translated logically to: "All P are M" or if you want to use A and B to "All B are A" (seeing that you're using "A" as the middle term meaning "no-limits". For the second term, "it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits" does NOT translate into "All A are C". In fact, this statement can't even be translated into an A (all S are P) statement because it implies existence. Instead, it's an I statement, and as such is the logical equivalent of "There are mentally disturbed humans who do not have limits" which is the logically equivalent to "Some mentally disturbed humans are people who do not have limits" (remember, because it implies existence. Therefore, the symbolic translation correctly is: "Some S are M" or "Some C are A" (if you use "A" as the middle term like you did). Thus: You made the claim that it's impossible for a human being to have no limits. You made the claim that it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits. Translates into: All P are M. Some S are M. And then the only logical conclusion is (because this argument is in figure 2): Some S are not P Which means: "Some mentally disturbed people are not human beings. This is an EIO3 argument... look it up... No, as to the argument you just made... All human beings have limits. Having no limits means one is mentally disturbed. It does not follow that having no limits means one is not human, Is logically translated to: All P are M. Some S are not M. ------> Because "Having no limits means one is mentally disturbed." is the logical equivalent of "Some mentally disturbed people are not humans who have limits" AND because you can't have two different middle terms, it's either "have limits" like in your first premiss, or "have no limits" like in your second premiss, in this translation I picked "have limits"... I can do it with the other term as well, if you'd like. Therefore, all M are P. -----> Because "It does not follow that having no limits means one is not human" is the obversion of "All being who have no limits are human beings". So your argument is: All P are M. Some S are not M. Therefore, all M are P. Which is NOT a valid argument, seeing that you CAN'T use the middle term in the conclusion. Logically, that argument is absolute gibberish, and the conclusion does not follow even remotely from the premisses. Now, the correct conclusion for those two premisses would be (seeing that the figure is 2 and you use an A and an O premiss). Some S are not P. Which translates into: "Some mentally disturbed people are not humans." So you can twist your wording around all you want to make it sound like you're saying something... But the fact is that you just made the SAME argument again. You made up a conclusion that doesn't follow your premisses, and the ONLY conclusion that DOES follow your premisses is that you believe mentally disturbed people aren't human beings... Ishtar

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:38:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Sweetie, make sure that you actually make the CORRECT translations before you accuse me of committing a fallacy of undistributed middle Whatever. In any event, I was not committing the fallacy you accused me of. And don't call me sweetie. It makes my nose itch.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:43:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Sweetie, make sure that you actually make the CORRECT translations before you accuse me of committing a fallacy of undistributed middle Whatever. In any event, I was not committing the fallacy you accused me of. And don't call me sweetie. It makes my nose itch. So fine, I'd ignore all rules of logic and just assume you don't actual believe that mentally disturbed people aren't humans... I'll even drop that part of the debate and come back to the single question that unable to provide any evidence for: Demonstrate to me that it's impossible for a human being to not have limits. Ishtar

VaguelyCurious -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:51:13 PM)
Anal-retentive geekery alert: Not that it matters hugely, but: quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr You made the claim that it's impossible for a human being to have no limits. You made the claim that it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits. Translates into: All P are M. Some S are M. You've set this up wrong, Ishtar. Or at least, not wrong, but it's quicker this way. It's impossible for a human being to have no limits --> all humans have limits --> All P are M. It's possible for a mentally ill person not to have limits --> some mentally ill people DO NOT have limits --> Some S are 'M (I'm assuming 'M is the right notation for not-M) If: All P are M and some S are 'M then some S must be 'P. That's the actual implied conclusion - that not all mentally ill people are human. (Actually, no, I've decided you were wrong - you can't set it up as 'Some S are M', because 'it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits' doesn't actually state that it's possible that a mentally disturbed person does have limits.)

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:55:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr So fine, I'd ignore all rules of logic Would you? That's so fucking hot. Hey, I was joking about the sweetie thing. I'll call you "honey lamb" again if it will smooth the way between us. Then we can secretly laugh at all the Philistines here.

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:55:54 PM)
Plenty of non-mentally ill people have no limits. Frankly, anyone choosing to serve in a country's military could qualify (particularly during actual wartime). The underlying suggestion seems to be that a romantic relationship (Romeo & Juliet notwithstanding) isn't a sufficiently credible metaphysical impetus for someone to agree to those lengths.

FukinTroll -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious Not that it matters hugely, but: Jus so ya know VC, death is a hard limit for me. http://www.collarchat.com/m_3547656/tm.htm

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:57:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious Not that it matters hugely, but: quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr You made the claim that it's impossible for a human being to have no limits. You made the claim that it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits. Translates into: All P are M. Some S are M. You've set this up wrong, Ishtar. Or at least, not wrong, but it's quicker this way. It's impossible for a human being to have no limits --> all humans have limits --> All P are M. It's possible for a mentally ill person not to have limits --> some mentally ill people DO NOT have limits --> Some S are 'M (I'm assuming 'M is the right notation for not-M) If: All P are M and some S are 'M then some S must be 'P. That's the actual implied conclusion - that not all mentally ill people are human. The correct notation is "are not" 4 premisses in categorical logic - All S are P. No S are P. Some S are P. Some S are not P. You're using the obverse, which you are right, is faster. I decided to go the other way because I though it would be more clear to somebody without a background in formal logic, but your way may be clearer. Either way, the conclusion from the premisses Chulain gave stays the same: Some mentally ill people are not humans... Ishtar

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 7:59:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Plenty of non-mentally ill people have no limits. Frankly, anyone choosing to serve in a country's military could qualify (particularly during actual wartime). Hello? When did this discussion become about the military? I smell more red herring. quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll Jus so ya know VC, death is a hard limit for me. So much for your reputation for being "out there."

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:01:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Plenty of non-mentally ill people have no limits. Frankly, anyone choosing to serve in a country's military could qualify (particularly during actual wartime). Hello? When did this discussion become about the military? I smell more red herring. Where? Choosing to serve in a military fashion (particularly in certain scenarios) is essentially choosing to enter a no-limits relationship (up to and including death and torture). Apparently the metaphysical virtue of patriotism makes for believable and real "martyrs", but relationships cannot?

PeonForHer -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:02:20 PM)
FR The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas. Karl Marx, The German Ideology (1845) ................. I hope that helps.

Ishtarr -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:04:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Plenty of non-mentally ill people have no limits. Frankly, anyone choosing to serve in a country's military could qualify (particularly during actual wartime). Hello? When did this discussion become about the military? I smell more red herring. Yet, apparently you still don't know what a "red herring" argument actually is, if you're claiming that what NZ says is off topic...

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Where? Choosing to serve in a military fashion (particularly in certain scenarios) is essentially choosing to enter a no-limits relationship (up to and including death and torture). Geez, what military are you envisioning where one of the primary motivators for membership is, for many, sex? quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Yet, apparently you still don't know what a "red herring" argument actually is, if you're claiming that what NZ says is off topic. You didn't call me sweetie.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: no limits period (1/28/2011 8:06:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr The correct notation is "are not" Thanks - I think I just assumed logic would be the same as probability theory. quote: You're using the obverse, which you are right, is faster. I decided to go the other way because I though it would be more clear to somebody without a background in formal logic, but your way may be clearer. I added a post-script, possibly after you saw my post. I decided that your original set of premises (I'm not sure what the name of the route you took is) didn't quite actually follow from the word-premise Chulain gave.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875