|
|
|
|
|
|
by gobrewers14
1454 days ago
|
|
|
> Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated You're implying: something is scientifically demonstrated -> government is bound by it What I said was: government has bounded something -> it can be scientifically or logically demonstrated > Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim You're appealing to the populace. How long or who believes something has no bearing on whether or not it is true or whether anyone should care about it. People thought the earth was the center of the universe for a long time too. Also, something cannot be "sacred" universally, only conditionally. |
|
|
> You're implying:
> something is scientifically demonstrated -> government is bound by it
How have you managed to change round such a simple sentence and state it means the opposite? I'm astounded.
1. Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated.
2. Something is scientifically demonstrated.
3. Hence, government is *not* bound by it.
> What I said was:
> government has bounded something -> it can be scientifically or logically demonstrated
You wrote no such thing as the words "bound" and "can" are not to be found in your statement in any form. What you actually wrote was:
> If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true.
Aside from your clearly not understanding what a necessary nor a sufficient condition is, this statement is not true. I shall do some reordering of my own to shine light on this:
We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true… for the government to implement this policy.
That's your implication and it's not based in reality.
I could go round in circles like this forever, much like the constellation of Gemini around the Earth but it would be as much use as reading my horoscope.
> > Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim
> You're appealing to the populace. How long or who believes something has no bearing on whether or not it is true or whether anyone should care about it.
I didn't claim that the length of time it has been around has any relation to its truth, I corrected your use of the word "whims" to mischaracterise those you clearly oppose.
> whim | wɪm | > noun > 1 a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained:
There's nothing sudden about Christian opposition to abortion.
> People thought the earth was the center of the universe for a long time too.
It's Earth. I feel like making that pedantic point because I hope that making you more careful with your writing might lead you to read more carefully too.
> Also, something cannot be "sacred" universally, only conditionally.
What on Earth are you babbling about?