Gender Apartheid

[ImmortalFlame]

Hey @ImmortalFlame - I believe your questions are loaded.

Demonstrate it.

Remember, asking someone the reasons behind their explicitly stated positions is not "loaded".

I'm done debating this with you, have a fine day.

You never tried debating. You fled from any opportunity to actually present a position or argument for debate. That might be you problem, as usual.

 

[icehorse]

That might be you problem, as usual.

Another reason we're done - you often reduce yourself to slurs like this one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Another reason we're done - you often reduce yourself to slurs like this one.

It's true. You're refusing to hold debate, because you're clearly not interested in actually having one.

Want to prove me wrong? Respond to our questions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, not going to follow your rules. I'll walk thru this a step at a time or not at all - your choice.

@ImmortalFlame

Okay, looking forward to the next premise.

So far:
P1: The UN is responsible for the war crimes in Gaza.
P2: Israel has a right to exist.
C: Therefore Israel is not responsible for the war crimes in Gaza.

Remember valid and sound.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, looking forward to the next premise.

So far:
P1: The UN is responsible for the war crimes in Gaza.
P2: Israel has a right to exist.
C: Therefore Israel is not responsible for the war crimes in Gaza.

Remember valid and sound.

You're jumping the gun a bit here. There are a few more P's before we can arrive at the C

First off, I think I've got more than one conclusion. What you're listing as P1 is - I think - actually a conclusion that we haven't yet agreed to... perhaps.. or are you saying you're willing to grant me P1 ?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're jumping the gun a bit here. There are a few more P's before we can arrive at the C

First off, I think I've got more than one conclusion. What you're listing as P1 is - I think - actually a conclusion that we haven't yet agreed to... perhaps.. or are you saying you're willing to grant me P1 ?

Do you understand sound and valid? We will start with valid. Then when you have made a valid argument, we will cross sound.

And in effect you might need to say make a C1 then then functions as a say P6 in a further deduction. So it is not even a given that the ones I have given as P1 and P2 should be there as P1 and P2.

As for sound, I am not going to give you anything. We check for sound and that is it.

 

[icehorse]

Do you understand sound and valid? We will start with valid. Then when you have made a valid argument, we will cross sound.

And in effect you might need to say make a C1 then then functions as a say P6 in a further deduction. So it is not even a given that the ones I have given as P1 and P2 should be there as P1 and P2.

As for sound, I am not going to give you anything. We check for sound and that is it.

As a process, I agree. But you introduced the Ps and the Cs, so that's what I was responding to.

If we go thru this exercise, I want to take it a step at a time and get agreement along the way, does that sound good?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a process, I agree. But you introduced the Ps and the Cs, so that's what I was responding to.

If we go thru this exercise, I want to take it a step at a time and get agreement along the way, does that sound good?

Okay, I have no doubt that you can make it valid. That is easy. The fun starts as sound.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, I have no doubt that you can make it valid. That is easy. The fun starts as sound.

ok, so how do you think we test for "sound" ?

 

[Godobeyer]

You realize don't you that Hamas, the ruling party of "Palestinians", seeks the total elimination of Israel from the face of the earth right? That will not compromise and never have.

Israel is doing elimination of Palestinians by Western support by idea of chosen pp of God.

Elimination of most racist regime to save humanity, same as Nazi. Later or soon you will wake.

 

[Godobeyer]

Genocide is a very hard thing to admit.

Especially if they pro israel and zionist.
Since the victims are not Jews, it's ok.
I believe the West is racist, Israel just killed 41000 Palestinians no one worry, 6 Israeli killed by Israel bombing, they breaking news, put blame only on Hamas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ok, so how do you think we test for "sound" ?

If we can observe as per objective if it is the case for the premisses and if the deduction is valid.

Here is an example of a valid, yet not sound deduction.

P1: All animals living in the sea are fish.
P2: Whales are animals and live in the sea.
C: Therefore whales are fish.

That was how I was taught it. If you have another version of sound, please explain.

 

[icehorse]

If we can observe as per objective if it is the case for the premisses and if the deduction is valid.

Here is an example of a valid, yet not sound deduction.

P1: All animals living in the sea are fish.
P2: Whales are animals and live in the sea.
C: Therefore whales are fish.

That was how I was taught it. If you have another version of sound, please explain.

I'm still trying to understand your definition. It might be ok, but I don't understand it yet. In your example above, P1 is false..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm still trying to understand your definition. It might be ok, but I don't understand it yet. In your example above, P1 is false..

Yes, it is valid but not sound.
Search the Internet for logic, valid, sound and see if you can understand it.
Here is one example, read from 1.7 and the first section.

Validity and Soundness – A Brief Introduction to Philosophy

pressbooks.openeducationalberta.ca

 

[icehorse]

Yes, it is valid but not sound.
Search the Internet for logic, valid, sound and see if you can understand it.
Here is one example, read from 1.7 and the first section.

Validity and Soundness – A Brief Introduction to Philosophy

pressbooks.openeducationalberta.ca

Let's see if we agree:

A valid argument means the conclusion is valid if we accept the premises. But the premises might not be true.

A sound argument means the conclusion is valid because all of the premises are true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's see if we agree:

A valid argument means the conclusion is valid if we accept the premises. But the premises might not be true.

A sound argument means the conclusion is valid because all of the premises are true.

No, sound means logically valid and that the premises are true, so the conclusion is valid and true.

The example I gave was valid, but not sound.

"A valid argument need not have true premises or a true conclusion. On the other hand, a sound argument DOES need to have true premises and a true conclusion: Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is valid. (2) Its premises are true."

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1440/validity.pdf

The example and explanation given in this text for valid is this:
"
A deductive argument proves its conclusion ONLY if it is both valid and sound.
Validity: An argument is valid when, IF all of it’s premises were true, then the
conclusion would also HAVE to be true.
In other words, a “valid” argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from
the premises. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true.
Here’s an example of a valid argument:
1. All philosophy courses are courses that are super exciting.
2. All logic courses are philosophy courses.
3. Therefore, all logic courses are courses that are super exciting.
Note #1: IF (1) and (2) WERE true, then (3) would also HAVE to be true.
Note #2: Validity says nothing about whether or not any of the premises ARE true. It only
says that IF they are true, then the conclusion must follow. So, validity is more about the
FORM of an argument, rather than the TRUTH of an argument."

 

[icehorse]

I'm ok if we restrict ourselves to only sound arguments, Sound good?

Edit: I'd also propose that we allow unfalsifiable claims that we both agree to. For example, I want to propose that Israel has a right to exist. I think that's probably an unfalsifiable claim, but if you agree to it, then I can use it as part of my larger argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm ok if we restrict ourselves to only sound arguments, Sound good?

Okay, standard correspondence theory of truth through objective as per this?
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com