but... that's his argument, Sam. Dana
On 7/28/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why do you think in absolutes? > If he said the brilliant NEVER threw stones at the mediocre then just > one brillaint person could make it invalid. > > To assume you're brillaint just because stones are thrown at you is > mediocre thinking. > > On 7/28/05, Kevin Graeme wrote: > > The problem with the quote is that the unstated implication doesn't > > follow logically. > > > > It makes the implication that if stone's are thrown, then you are > > brilliant. But it doesn't say that. It actually says that if you are > > having stones thrown at you that you _may_ be brilliant and the people > > throwing them _may_ be mediocre. > > > > To reach the implied conclusion "you are brilliant and they are > > mediocre", the sentence would have to read "only the brilliant have > > stones thrown at them and only the mediocre throw stones." With his > > quote as stands, it's entirely possible that the brilliant throw > > stones at the mediocre. > > > > This is actually my beef with Rush. He reaches conclusions by using > > logically flawed arguments that the average person doesn't realize are > > flawed. > > > > -Kevin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167091 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
