Subject:
|
Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:47:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
449 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
**snip of the points I think we've identified as mutually un-convinceable**
> Mathematically, it's the same thing. It's simply a straw that broke the
> camel's back situation. It's a lot easier to argue
> ((((((((((n+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1) than n + 10 in politics, though!
Definitely. The analogy I was looking for but couldn't recall was the frog in
the pan of boiling water. If you drop him in hot water, he jumps right out; the
trick is to put him in cool water and keep turning up the heat.
Now that I think of it, that's how the Rodney King cops were acquitted. The
lawyer argued that unless the jury could identify the exact blow that caused the
beating to become "excessive," then there is no way to conclude that the beating
was excessive. That's my fallacy of the false dilemma again.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
