SC - smoking-OOP-OT
grizly at mindspring.com
grizly at mindspring.com
Mon Nov 27 16:10:11 PST 2000
sca-cooks at ansteorra.org wrote:
> > > This is flat out unreasonable. You are comparing the> > atmospheric contamination caused by SMOKE to that caused by the
> > wearing of _ANY_ perfume.
> Once again, we see that something is "unreasonable"
> when it pertains to a prohibition against something
> the speaker favors, but perfectly reasonable when it
> is against something they dislike...
Yup, I'm in favor of comparing apples to oranges all right, and I dislike people who make illogical comparisons. >>>>>
Thre syllogism actually is parallel, if you look at it. I have followed this and find (in my personal estimation) the change of 'smoke' to 'perfume' within logic parameters. One can and shouldchallenge a logical construct by placing absurd items in place of the syllogistic structure. The more absurd the result, the more illustrative the example. As long as the structures are parallel . . . and sometimes that is hard to amintain.
niccolo difrancesco
(modus ponens is your friend)
More information about the Sca-cooks
mailing list