Scientology to go on trial in France for "organised fra

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Themightytom
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2818
Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
Location: United States

Post by Themightytom »

First you want me saying its invalid, now you want me saying its innacurate. You can pick a definition and decide how a rule with exceptions makes sense.

Accurate: free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.

Valid: Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

Personally I leave room for doubt, I can dispute that a rule is absolutely true without declaring it absolutely false and there is no truth to it at all. The statment altered this is "more accurate."
Scientology is not guilty of a doctrine of Multiply at All Costs, as many major Judeo/Christian/Islamic oranizations do.
OK, now you're just being a pedantic twat. It's normal to make generalized statements about social groups without necessarily meaning "100%". In fact, it is virtually impossible to make any generalized social statement if that's the standard. You're just pretending otherwise because you refuse to admit error.
What error? I started out by saying it was a broad based categorization that was true despite evident contradictions. Its not "virtually" impossible to make a generalized social statement, you just have to avoid sweeping up too many variables.
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod »

Themightytom wrote:First you want me saying its invalid, now you want me saying its innacurate. You can pick a definition and decide how a rule with exceptions makes sense.

Personally I leave room for doubt, I can dispute that a rule is absolutely true without declaring it absolutely false and there is no truth to it at all. The statment altered this is "more accurate."
Most rules leave room for a margin of error, yet are still accurate enough. So why redefine it just because a few exceptions creep in?

Also, get a better dictionary:
Merriam Webster; Valid wrote:1: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>2 a: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b: logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>3: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>4of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Themightytom
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2818
Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
Location: United States

Post by Themightytom »

Whatever Zod we both used the internet. the full definition that I had was irrelevant as we are using "Valid" in the context of an argument, B is essentially the same definition I used, only less precise.
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod »

Themightytom wrote:Whatever Zod we both used the internet. the full definition that I had was irrelevant as we are using "Valid" in the context of an argument, B is essentially the same definition I used, only less precise.
Was there supposed to be some kind of rebuttal in there or should I just assume you're conceding the point?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Post Reply