I suppose at this point, we're just arguing semantics, but no, you're wrong. "Terrorists kill people." refers to all terrorists UNLESS you put a limit in there, such as 'some', or 'a few' or '67'. The general statement (sans limit) does refer to all. Go look up syntax and boolean algebra. The mathematics of a statement. Good stuff...teraflop122 wrote:No, the statement "All terrorists kill people," could be proven wrong in that way."Terrorists kill people."
Do they all? Have they all in the past? That sentence can be proved wrong by one instance where a terrorist did not kill someone
Hey, I'm not saying hot air is a better alternative to incomplete thoughts. I'm saying any issue with any merit on the wold-wide political theatre needs a close examination and complete analysis. Please, don't put words in my mouth, yours taste pretty foul.teraflop122 wrote:You have forgotten all the instances where a lengthy explanation is not feasible or called for, such as this topic or normal conversation. Hey, I didn't say hot air was a good thing, just being complete and full in an explanation of any major isuue.What would be the point of saying something short, simple wrong? You see, my point, which you've proved, was that one has to be careful and not just sum up to sum up. Best not to sum up at all. Best to view an issue from all points and adress them all?
Not particularily. I've bothered to go this far with you, however blind, misinformed and vague your argument has been. What I said, and you seemed very oblivious to, was that a one sentence explanation of any "ravaging" problem couldn't hope to cover all the bases. To be fair, maybe I should address the world's ADD'd attention span with a little more clarity, considering it is a major problem. That's why I'm trying to address it here.teraflop122 wrote:You are failing to abide by your own statement.
Nope, but it does put a snappy end to your failed argument, unless I'm being to mean to you. In which case, I still don't care. Even more, you're opinion is quite a small factor in this argument. You go figure out why.teraflop122 wrote:Insulting me does not add anything of value to this arguement, nor does it support your claim to be of voting age.Or would that be to big and complex for you?
I'll pretend tht made sense. But really, you failed to mention that earlier. All you said was that summing up in general is good, and I'm warning that it can be dangerous. It can easily lead to a misinterpratation of a situation and on the world scale, that can be a fatal mistake.teraflop122 wrote:Remember, summing something up for the sake of others does not mean your thoughts on the matter lack complexity or depth.
I'm gonna have to be the one to end this, since I've got more to do than bicker wisdom with a kid on the other side of a phone cable. I hope I've been able to impart some experience to you, but if not, I would not be at all suprised.
