On 06/10/2016 08:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > That "we" entered into the discussion is arbitrary (Steve started with that, > I think), and further the statement is tautological.
Heh, no, it's not tautological. It relies on the ambiguity of the word (perhaps concept) "we". You're right that it's technically fallacious. But the fallacy isn't that it's tautological. Fallacy can be used to good effect in the same way paradox can. > For example, I'm quite confident I don't need the Trump or ISIS people in my > life at all. I am not a willing symbiant. If there were other ways to > live / other forms to take / other planets or non-terrestrial locations to > inhabit, and life were longer than it is, I would certain consider them. I think we'll be surprised. I'll not only consider them. I'll be in the front of the line ... as long as they let lower middle class morons like me in the line at all. I suspect it'll be packed with Trumps, Musks, Thiels, and Bransons. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
