Communism vs. Democracy

In other words you equate "convincing" with "proven" and in doing so have commited the fallacy of equivocation.

Not being able to prove anything is the same basis as not being able to know anything. Because we only have our perception to base anything on, and that perception may be flawed.

Said perception can't even be proven to be reality.

Of course, there various levels of validity, but nothing reaches 100%... or 0%. However I agree that something may seem so obvious that it's degree of "proveness" is so extremely large or neglible that it should be taken as proven or known. For example, I am writing on a computer. It would be absurd to say that I am not, unless it were a catch on a matter of termonology, or grammar.

I agree with this statement. For practical purposes whenever certainty is alleged we are really just talking about a degree of perceived probability.

Proof is impossible. It is an absolute. So we operate with degrees of probability with great variance from person to person as to the acceptable level of evidence.

I don't want to argue with iether of you, your to smart for me, but what if something is so incredibly improbable it is referred to as impossible (I have heard that it is impossible that there is not life on other planets for example)

I am not really sure what the debate is supposed to be about, if communism vs. democracy dosent make any sense, the teacher didn't give us any handouts or anything. Ill ask him on Monday i suppose, and clarify it then, though by then the topic will probably have burned itself out.

Sorry it took so long for me to come back to the post,
(internet was down ARGH!!)

and thanks for all of your everyone

Don't apologize Kevin! Even though parts of this discussion may not directly relate to your assignment you created fodder for thought by others. That's never a bad thing IMO.

I'm taking a class on the cold war right now, and I'm reading both the traditionalist and revisionist arguments (Gaddis and LeFaeber.) I am certainly no expert on the subject, but I've had my formal training.

No, most Soviet citizens weren't even aware they were soviets. Russia was filled with peasants with little-to no education and the impact the revolution had was mainly on the cities.

I am pretty sure my teacher said that everyone got the same wages, regardless of training. Is this not true?

The soviets putting a man into space was for war purposes - in the cultural fight to prove superiority in the united states. Later on in the cold war they had to make a variety of pacts with the US in exchange for new technologies (ex: molotov - Ribbentrop pact, which was never carried out). They wouldn't allow technological progress because of the threat freedom of information posed to their totalitarian government.

The only time when there was almost a direct conflict between Russian and the US was the cuban missile crisis. We were competing, but not fighting - this is why it was called the cold war.

not for every worker, but there were forced labor camps - which were basically jail. I'd call that a forceful incentive to work.

Craven - are you an immiterialist? If you refuse to assume constants within the world, do you also deny the existence of self?

We assume constants for practical purposes - they are there. This doesn't mean we can be 100% absolutely positive about anything (because all we know is what our personal world-traversing system (body) can observe) but that view is not one that leads to progress in the discovery of our world. It is also not supported by any fact (and cannot be) so I think it is the best choice to assume our observations are intact/correct and do what we can with our set of truths and falsehoods. Clearly, it works for us - we invent things thart work.

I'm not sure what you are asking but if it is what I suspect the answer is no.



1) I never refused to assume constants. I said they can't be proven.

2) Assuming them is necessary for practical purposes. I do not consider assumption to be proof, even though some do.

The dictionary considers educated assumption to be proof.

Proof:
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

--
immaterialist - we have no outside viewpoint besides ourselves because all we know is our perception. Having no evidence or capability for outside reference of the existence of self, an immaterialist decides that nothing can be assumed. (the opposite of which is a materialist - who believes in real, rationally deductable constancies within their perception - in the existance of things separate from themselves.)

I'm wondering, from where your teacher got these informations.

(A former colleague, for example. was headteacher of a highschool in Siberia. Her salary was about 1/2 higher than that of her husband, who was working as a civil engineer near the Finnish border.)

The impact the revolution had was mainly on the cities? Central to Soviet planning was highly (and poorly) regulated and mechanized agriculture. Now, I can buy that the hinterlands and highlands of some of the more remote regions or republics might have contained folks whose daily lives were (and are) little touched by the central government. But, then, such folks aren't generally what you would call peasants.

Dictionaries recognize definitions forged by useage, and in this case abusage.

Your position in which mere assumption is considered proof is common and the dictionary reflects that.

This is why I accused you of the fallacy of equivocation earlier. You are deliberately using a more inclusive definition. It is a definitions forged from common use.



The dictionary you quote below considers anything that convinces anyone as proof.



This is why your use of the fallacy of equivocation is intellectually dishonest.

According to your dictionary, imagination is "proof". Imagination and lunacy can compel one's mind to believe they are Napoleon. The dictionary definition you quote says an argument that compels the mind to accept somethign as true is "proof".

The reason why these definitions are included in dictionaries is because there are plenty of people who use the word proof to describe something that is not proof at all.

You commit the fallacy of equivocation by using such an inclusive definition.

I suspect you have no idea what the fallacy of equivocation is.

When I said that proof is impossible were you under the impression that I was arguing that convincing someone of something is impossible?

Of course not!

Here's an example of the fallacy of equivocation that both yourself and nimh are guilty of herein:

Mirriam Webster defines "perfect" as:
1) being entirely without fault or defect

This is the logical absolute. But many people use perfect to describe something that is merely adequate. This meaning as well as many others have also made it into the dictionary.

For example "perfect" is also defined as: "satisfying all requirements" or even "sexually mature and fully differentiated".

So imnagine this argument:

Person A: Fred is perfect.
Person B: But he has flaws, he isn't perfect!

At this point it's clear that the operative meaning of perfection in this exchange is the absolute of being without flaw.

Now the argument can go on a bit, and Person B can commit the same intellectual dishonesty you and nimh have by simply using a more inclusive definition of "perfect".

Person B: Fred has flaws, he is not perfect (flawless).
Person A: But Mirriam Webster defines "perfect" as "sexually mature and fully differentiated". Wchich Fred is, he is therefore perfect.

Here there is clear intellectual dishonesty and a fallacy of equivocation.

Person A has changed the very premise of the discussion through a simpleton's wordplay with a dictionary.

This is precisely what you are doing. From te outset I made very clear that I am talking about proof and proving in absolute form. nimh touched on this very lightly, ceding said definition's existence but still moving the stakes to a more inclusive definition that better suited the point he was making.

You are taking it much further. You know full and well that I'm not arguing that people can never be convinced of anything. I have stated a few times that proof does not equal something convincing.

That many people will call something that convinces them proof and that dictionaries will list this use does in no way change the initial premise.

Proof is impossible. This is a statement that clearly alludes to the absolutism of proof. You consistently move the goal posts to use definitions you find in the dictionary that are more inclusive.

This is such a common tactic in debate that it has a name. You are (and remember, I've been telling you this from teh beginning) commiting the fallacy of equivocation by deliberately using different meanings that have no relation to the initial premise.

Here is another example for your edification:

Person A: Helping people is bad.
Person B: No it isn't it is good.
Person A: No it is not good, it is bad.

At this point the use of teh word "bad" is clearly a negative and diametrically oposed to "good".

Now person A can try to seek refuge in a dictionary as well, thinking that merely finding a dictionary definition that allows him to move the goal posts is wickedly clever.

So Person A can take the cowardly route of using the fallacy of equivocation. Person B is clearly arguing that helping is not negative.

Person A can find a definition for "bad" in Mirriam Webster that will define it as "good" or "great". It's the slang.

So now Person A can tout the dictionary.

Person A: But Merriam Webster defines "bad" as "good" or "great".



This is intellectual dishonesty. It's simplistic wordplay and Person A thinks he's being clever to quote from the dictionary.

Person A does not know or care of the intellectual standards for debate and does not care that he has just made a mockery of his argument by simply agreeing with Person B and using wordplay overlaps to try to pretend that he'd been right all along.

Debate isn't about wordplay and ovcerlapping definitions. It's not about definitions that are inclusive due to teh evolution of abusage.

When you debate you must debate against the meaning used. Not any other meaning that happens to share the same word.

That is a bad (negative, not good) way to debate.

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Portal Star and CDK thread.

Get to bed, Kevin. You have a big debate tomorrow...

Here's an example of the fallacy of equivocation in it's lowest form:

Person A: You are wrong.
Person B: I know you are but what am I?

Both use "you" correctly. Person B is moving the goal posts and using wordplay as an argument.

This is intellectual dishonesty.

Now there is a factor I failed to mention above. There can be an earnest misunderstanding. I think you are closer to this than to deliberate and cowardly equivocation. But it still represents a shoddy way of debate because I made very clear which meaning I was using and as soon as you started using more inclusive definitions I alerted you to the definitional incompatibility and to the fallacy of equivocation.

Another example for your edification:

Person A: I am not gay. I am not homosexual.
Person B: You are smiling, of course you are gay.
Person A: You are using the fallacy of equivocation, I am not speaking of mirth.
Person B: Gay gay gay gay! The dictionary says gay means happy. You are gay.
Person A: When i say I am not gay I am saying that I am not homosexual. In my use herein gay != happy.
Person B: Yes you are gay! The dictionary says gay means happy!

This is an intellectually futile exchange with someone who is willing to employ word play and definitional loopholes to argue.

Letty, I know you mean no ill-will but I really don't appreciate that statement.

It's just as much your thread as mine. As evidenced by your ability to post wisecracks on it.

That wasn't a wise crack, Craven. I am not given to wise cracks as you well know. What has happened to that young boy from Brazil? Has he become so jaded that he can no longer show Letti a happy face?

Where is your poetry? You began one and never finished it. I simply don't understand your metamorphosis. I watched a movie tonight with Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix. You know, he looks nothing like his brother River, does he. Please, my young friend, don't let the shadows of the past color your vision of the future.

I simply didn't appreciate the implications of your statement, it's not a matter of being happy or not.