1
   

Non-Contradiction

 
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 02:23 pm
fresco,

Slovenian is a relative of Russian, albeit a distant one (like German and English).
Russian academics were/still are fantastic sources of philosophy, mathematics, and intellectual work in general. Many authors were translated into Slovenian esp. in the past, when former Yugoslavia had links with Eastern block.

While I can speak some Russian, I don't have the patience to read it, because of cyrillic font. I believe if I read Luria, it will be either in Slovenian or English Wink

You seem to be very learned in this area. I became very interested in consciousness in the last 5 years, but still haven't read the basic literature, and my training was lacking on these topics. What in your opinion is a good place to start to read in circles about consciousness? I am shaky in all but logic, math, physics and informatics. Smile
Sad

Rolling Eyes


Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 02:49 pm
Relative,

Many years ago I was a research student in "speech perception". This required extensive reading in psychology, linguistics, physics and mathematics. I rapidly came to the conclusion that perception was active, not passive, and hence "objective reality" was a myth (but as Einstein said "a persistant one").

The writers I tend to cite in support of my position are Piaget (Genetic Epistemology), Whorf (Language and Thought), Kosco (Fuzzy Sets), Swets (Signal Detection Theory) Wittgenstein (Philosophy of Language) Bohm (Order in Physics) Krishnamurti (Thought) Chalmers (Consciousness) and more recently Capra and Von Foerster (op cit).

A good introduction to the philosophical aspects of reality is perhaps David Bohms dialogue with Krishnamurti "The Ending of Time". (easily found via Google) or try the Bohm Website http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/bohm/
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 11:14 pm
joefromchicago

Quote:
You are the one who brought poinsettias and cats into this discussion, not I.

You bring empirically based statements into the discussion and then object when others attempt to counter those statements with empirical observations. Go figure,

Quote:
Given that the evidence which demonstrates the obvious falsity of your statement is so readily available, I'll assume that your error is the result of a simple mis-reading rather than an attempt at a deliberate misrepresentation. I brought up the "poinsettia" example as a way to demonstrate the law of non-contradiction, not to prove it. In contrast, you brought up empirical objections in a futile attempt to disprove the law. That's the difference.


It's not a misrepresentation. I said you brought empirically based statements into this discussion, and that is what you did and just admitted to.

If a "demonstration' of the law of non-contradiction is not an (attempted) proof then it doesn't demonstrate the law of non-contradiction. However if it was only a demonstration which you did not intend to defend then fine.

Quote:
You wrote:

I believe that the "wave-particle debate" is a debate precisely because the notion that light is both wave and not-wave (and particle and not-particle) goes against the law of non-contradiction. As I mentioned before, when we find something that appears to contravene the rule, we either doubt the empirical finding or we doubt the rule. I believe that, at present, physicists are still grappling with that question.

You are putting forward here an empirical objection to the law of non-contradiction. You are your own contradiction joefromchicago.

Quote:
It's not my objection, and so, at least, I cannot be accused of contradicting myself.


You presented it as an empirical example that might be counter to the Law of non-contradiction which is inconsistent with some other of your statements, such as:

Twyvel, if all you want to do is talk about cats, then go ahead. If you want to talk about the validity of non-contradiction, however, your empirical objections are inconsequential.


Quote:
Are you saying that "good" and "bad" are empirical concepts?
Quote:
It's not a question of the logic being flawed. The issue is simply that your Opening post;

A thing cannot simultaneously be both "A" and "not-A."

or the Law of non-contradiction, is not an absolute.

Quote:
Really? How do you know?
Quote:
Quote:
How do you know that?
Quote:
The main point is, if the duration needed for X to effect Y is an unknown then we cannot say what takes place in that unknown duration, i.e. X could effect Y in more then one way.

Quote:
So what?


So it means if that's the case, the law of non-contradiction is vulnerable to be contradicted.

Quote:
Quote:
So what? If everything is an illusion, how can we know that? Indeed, if everything is an illusion, then our idea of "illusion" is also an illusion.


If everything is an illusion that doesn't mean that there isn't anything in the illusion that points to the truth, i.e. that it is an illusion.

Quote:
How do you know that you don't know?
Quote:
Unless one knows the truth they are pretending to some extend.

Quote:
How can you tell the difference?



I don't know, but if one does not know what is true one acts according to appearances, and perhaps remaining suspicious as to its falsity. (there would be no choice).

Quote:
Well, the whole thing may be a dream, in which case I may be wrong. But then if one contends that the whole thing is a dream, there is no possibility of being right.


You can be right in your guess that it is a dream, can you not?

Quote:
Quote:
How do you know that?



I think it is impossible to know this existence is non-illusory, because it is. But in as much as most don't know whether a physical, material world exists, to the extent that they take it to exist they are holding a belief.


Quote:
It's blatantly obvious to some of us that awareness cannot be observed, cannot be objectified, cannot be made an object to itself. When one goes looking for the observer they end up in an infinite regress,.... or a never ending..........

Quote:
At last, twyvel! You've finally answered the question that I have been posing all along. Apparently, the long-awaited answer to "how do you know that?" is "it's blatantly obvious to some of us."

Really, twyvel, I'm rather disappointed. To think that I've been waiting so long for this. The mountain labored mightily and produced a mouse.



A mouse is a mountain to a dust mite, Smile

And I've said it is obvious to some many times.


Quote:
No, I "don't get it" because I have never seen any cause to give credence to your argument. Since you deny concepts such as "subjectivity" and "awareness," there's simply no compelling reason to accept any statement that you might make regarding "subjectivity" or "awareness."
Quote:
Quote:
And you know that because it's "blatantly obvious," right?



Have a serious look.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:51 am
fresco wrote:
Joe and Relative,

The point at issue is that Kosco's demolition of EM appears to be logically equivalent to rejection of NC, based on simple truth table models. Hence by his own criteria Joe's argument against Kosco fails.

I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, fresco, but I'll need to consult some books (including Kosko) that are not at hand in order to answer this question. I'll attempt to do so over the weekend.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 09:17 am
twyvel wrote:
It's not a misrepresentation. I said you brought empirically based statements into this discussion, and that is what you did and just admitted to.

Nice to see that a rejection of dualism doesn't necessarily entail a rejection of disingenuousness.

twyvel wrote:
If a "demonstration' of the law of non-contradiction is not an (attempted) proof then it doesn't demonstrate the law of non-contradiction.

A demonstration is a demonstration, not an attempted proof.

twyvel wrote:
You presented it as an empirical example that might be counter to the Law of non-contradiction which is inconsistent with some other of your statements, such as:

Twyvel, if all you want to do is talk about cats, then go ahead. If you want to talk about the validity of non-contradiction, however, your empirical objections are inconsequential.

I presented it as an empirical paradox that, at present, has not been authoritatively resolved. As such, it does not disprove the law of non-contradiction, since it remains undetermined.

twyvel wrote:

Then you'd agree that all morality is subjective, right?

twyvel wrote:

Then why should I believe you?

twyvel wrote:

Is that because it's "obvious" to you?

twyvel wrote:
So it means if that's the case, the law of non-contradiction is vulnerable to be contradicted.

No doubt. But contradiction isn't an argument.

twyvel wrote:
If everything is an illusion that doesn't mean that there isn't anything in the illusion that points to the truth, i.e. that it is an illusion.

But how do you know that that isn't an illusion?

twyvel wrote:
Quote:
How do you know that you don't know?


Is that like asking an agnostic, If you know you don't know then you are not agnostic about your agnosticism?

I suppose so.

twyvel wrote:

How do you know they're unanswerable?

twyvel wrote:
I don't know, but if one does not know what is true one acts according to appearances, and perhaps remaining suspicious as to its falsity. (there would be no choice).

And you are, no doubt, suspicious as to the falsity of non-dualism, correct?

twyvel wrote:
Quote:
Well, the whole thing may be a dream, in which case I may be wrong. But then if one contends that the whole thing is a dream, there is no possibility of being right.


You can be right in your guess that it is a dream, can you not?

Certainly. But then I'd have no way of knowing if my guess was correct.

twyvel wrote:
I think it is impossible to know this existence is non-illusory, because it is. But in as much as most don't know whether a physical, material world exists, to the extent that they take it to exist they are holding a belief.

A belief it may be, but as beliefs go it is a remarkably robust one.

twyvel wrote:
A mouse is a mountain to a dust mite, Smile

Yes, and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

twyvel wrote:
And I've said it is obvious to some many times.

Perhaps, but never with such forthrightness. Really, twyvel, I must applaud your new-found willingness to reveal the underpinnings of your epistemology. At the same time, though, I find that I am disappointed in learning that there is no "there" there. Truly, I thought you'd turn out to be much more intellectually challenging.


twyvel wrote:
Quote:
No, I "don't get it" because I have never seen any cause to give credence to your argument. Since you deny concepts such as "subjectivity" and "awareness," there's simply no compelling reason to accept any statement that you might make regarding "subjectivity" or "awareness."


Your involvement in these questions appear to contradict the above, unless you're just trolling? And I don't deny concepts as pertaining to what I think is an illusion.

If you interpret my responses to you as "trolling," then I suppose we have nothing more to discuss. If you need to resort to this kind of desperate, unfounded attack to cover your own intellectual shortcomings, then any further attempt at intelligent discussion would be futile.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 02:17 pm
joefromchicago

Quote:
Nice to see that a rejection of dualism doesn't necessarily entail a rejection of disingenuousness.


Pure Bull.


Quote:
You presented it as an empirical example that might be counter to the Law of non-contradiction which is inconsistent with some other of your statements, such as:

Twyvel, if all you want to do is talk about cats, then go ahead. If you want to talk about the validity of non-contradiction, however, your empirical objections are inconsequential.

Quote:
I presented it as an empirical paradox that, at present, has not been authoritatively resolved. As such, it does not disprove the law of non-contradiction, since it remains undetermined.
[quote="joefromchicago"][quote="twyvel"]Re: generalization

Like most or all objects (things), poinsettias and cats are a composite of many elements. Some of what makes up a poinsettia, such as vitamins, might be good for the cats liver etc. and yet other elements may be bad for other organs or parts of the cats body, or the cats psychological well being, etc.

It is like saying, "This >group of hundreds of objects/elements< (the poinsettias) cannot simultaneously be both bad and good for this >group of hundreds of objects/elements< (the cat) Which is false for there is bound to be some objects/substances/elements of the poinsettias that are good and some that are bad (at one and the same time) for the many things/events that constitute a cat. We don't know.[/quote]

These are merely empirical objections.

[quote="twyvel"]Secondly, there are hundreds of varieties of pointsettias and hundreds of varieties of cats, both domestic and wild, of which, depending of the variety some may possess some elements that others do not.

There is also gender and age considerations as well. Point is, the more general your generlization is the less it says.You have to be more specific.[/quote]

As are these.

[quote="twyvel"]And the question may become an issue of 'purity', i.e. is there any such thing?..etc.[/quote]

And so is that.[/quote]


So empirical statements/objections/observations from others are of no consequience regarding the law of non-contradiction.

Then you wrote:

Quote:
I believe that the "wave-particle debate" is a debate precisely because the notion that light is both wave and not-wave (and particle and not-particle) goes against the law of non-contradiction. As I mentioned before, when we find something that appears to contravene the rule, we either doubt the empirical finding or we doubt the rule. I believe that, at present, physicists are still grappling with that question.


But these empirical observations from joefromchicago are of consequence and can result in doubting the law of non-contradiction rule.


Nothing wrong with contradicting one's self but when you deny your contradictions so out right, in which the denial is obviously false it's quite insincere.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 02:21 pm
joefromchicago

Quote:
Perhaps, but never with such forthrightness. Really, twyvel, I must applaud your new-found willingness to reveal the underpinnings of your epistemology. At the same time, though, I find that I am disappointed in learning that there is no "there" there. Truly, I thought you'd turn out to be much more intellectually challenging.
Quote:
No, I "don't get it" because I have never seen any cause to give credence to your argument. Since you deny concepts such as "subjectivity" and "awareness," there's simply no compelling reason to accept any statement that you might make regarding "subjectivity" or "awareness."


Your involvement in these questions appear to contradict the above, unless you're just trolling? And I don't deny concepts as pertaining to what I think is an illusion.

Quote:
If you interpret my responses to you as "trolling," then I suppose we have nothing more to discuss. If you need to resort to this kind of desperate, unfounded attack to cover your own intellectual shortcomings, then any further attempt at intelligent discussion would be futile.


Well if it isn't trolling what is it?

If I 'give no credence to your argument" and have "no compelling reason to accept any statement that you might make regarding "subjectivity" or "awareness." I would not be having a discussion with you.

But you do have discussions with people in which you say to them, "I have never seen any cause to give credence to your argument."


So what are we to make of this Number 2 contradiction of yours?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:25 pm
fresco: As promised, my belated response:

Here is a representative passage from Kosko (p. 27):
    Now suppose some apples are not all red -- some have orange or pink or green streaks. If we ask a grocer to unpack the box of apples into two piles, the red apples and the not-red apples, she might form two piles and a third pile of apples hard to call one way or the other. The apples in the third pile are red to some degree and not-red to some degree. Most grocers will have a third pile of "gray area" apples that they find hard to classify. [i]These break Aristotle's law of either-or.[/i]

(emphasis added). This is a good example of Kosko habit of attacking the law of the excluded middle instead of the law of non-contradiction. It also shows where he goes wrong.

If we define a "red apple" as an apple that has no color other than red, then the task of separating red apples from not-red apples should pose no problem: an apple with orange or pink or green streaks is, by definition, a not-red apple. There are only two piles, and Aristotle's law remains unbroken.

If, on the other hand, we allow for apples to be red "to some degree," then Kosko's grocer is free to place the apples in as many piles as there are degrees of redness. But then if we allow for apples to be red to some degree, rather than simply "red" or "not-red," we've already chosen a multivalent logic in preference to bivalence. Kosko, in effect, begs the question: he chooses multivalence, then proclaims that multivalence disproves bivalence, and then concludes that the only logical alternative is multivalence. That is a classic petitio principii: he assumes that which he attempts to prove.

The law of the excluded middle is true for bivalent logic but false for multivalent logic. What Kosko fails to do, however, is disprove EM on its own terms: i.e. he fails to show that EM is invalid in bivalent terms. In the same fashion, he takes the same flawed approach in his attempt to disprove the law of non-contradiction.

In order to make a convincing case, Kosko needs to demonstrate not that multivalent premises can contradict bivalent laws (that's a given), but that there is a compelling reason why multivalence is right and bivalence is wrong. And it is this that Kosko fails to do.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 12:17 am
Joe,

I understand your argument but my counter argument is that you bring into "the game" extrinsic (cultural)principles of applicability. Bivalent logic, like all mathematical models, stands or falls by virtue of its relationship to what is externally considered to be the "nature of reality". Kosco's rejection of bivalent logic starts from the the Buddhist-type principle of the illusion of fixed set boundaries. (Contrary to "your red apple set". NB in the Middle Ages there were "four colours of the rainbow" to mirror the "Four Gospels" ) This is no different to say Einstein rejecting Euclidian geometry on the basis on the idea that "space is curved".

On straight truth table grounds, Kosco's attack on EM and its equivalence to non NC is valid. Any mechanical computer would concur. What the result "means" is the subject of this negotiation.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:42 am
(Later edit)

BTW Multivalent logic does not "rule out" bivalent logic (as your begging the question remarks imply) since the truth values 1 and 0 are ascribed as limits to the dimension. Compare Einstein's system which delimited Newtonian mechanics in range of applicability.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 10:02 am
fresco wrote:
I understand your argument but my counter argument is that you bring into "the game" extrinsic (cultural)principles of applicability. Bivalent logic, like all mathematical models, stands or falls by virtue of its relationship to what is externally considered to be the "nature of reality". Kosco's rejection of bivalent logic starts from the the Buddhist-type principle of the illusion of fixed set boundaries. (Contrary to "your red apple set". NB in the Middle Ages there were "four colours of the rainbow" to mirror the "Four Gospels" ) This is no different to say Einstein rejecting Euclidian geometry on the basis on the idea that "space is curved".

Einstein rejected euclidean geometry because it fails at the level of general relativity. But Einstein didn't assume the validity of general relativity before rejecting Euclidean geometry. That, on the other hand, is pretty much what Kosko does.

fresco wrote:
On straight truth table grounds, Kosco's attack on EM and its equivalence to non NC is valid. Any mechanical computer would concur. What the result "means" is the subject of this negotiation.

But his attack on EM is premised on a rejection of bivalence, and that's begging the question.

fresco wrote:
BTW Multivalent logic does not "rule out" bivalent logic (as your begging the question remarks imply) since the truth values 1 and 0 are ascribed as limits to the dimension. Compare Einstein's system which delimited Newtonian mechanics in range of applicability.

Multivalent logic does not rule out bivalent results: if we are sorting apples and pears, there are only two piles, regardless of the valency of the logic. But multivalent logic certainly does rule out bivalent logic, even though both stake out 1 and 0 as the outer bounds of truth; otherwise, multivalent logic would accept as valid the rule that "either something is 1 or it is 0."
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 12:42 pm
Joe,

I disagree with your statement:

<<Einstein rejected euclidean geometry because it fails at the level of general relativity. But Einstein didn't assume the validity of general relativity before rejecting Euclidean geometry>>

perhaps you can give a reference ?

Read this for example:
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/historyetc.html
and note the phrase "paved the way".

Of course Kosco rejects bivalence on philosophical grounds. So what ? He points out that what we call an "apple" or "a pear" are subject to agreement between observers. ( Is an avacado "a pear"? Is a pulped pear "a pear", is a plastic pear "a pear" etc...we are talking about functional equilavence for particular purposes) Where there IS agreement, bivalence can follow, but much of the time this is not the case because there is no common purpose. ( One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter"). The manipulation of categories is indeed the modus vivendi of commerce and politics. (Buy this "dead cow" OR buy this "beef" ?....Immigration of Asians is "a problem" OR " a source of enrichment" ?)

It may be that bivalent rhetoric, like those "frictionless" spheres in high school physics, has very little applicability to "the real world" despite its clinical efficiency.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:27 pm
fresco wrote:
Joe,

I disagree with your statement:

<<Einstein rejected euclidean geometry because it fails at the level of general relativity. But Einstein didn't assume the validity of general relativity before rejecting Euclidean geometry>>

perhaps you can give a reference ?


Geometry and Experience: (excerpt)
    The question whether the practical geometry of the universe is Euclidean or not has a clear meaning, and its answer can only be furnished by experience. All linear measurement in physics is practical geometry in this sense, so too is geodetic and astronomical linear measurement, if we call to our help the law of experience that light is propagated in a straight line, and indeed in a straight line in the sense of practical geometry. I attach special importance to the view of geometry which I have just set forth, because [i]without it I should have been unable to formulate the theory of relativity[/i]

--Albert Einstein, 1921 (emphasis added)

In other words, Einstein started with Euclidean geometry and ended with the general theory of relativity. He didn't start with relativity and end with rejecting Euclidean geometry.

fresco wrote:
Of course Kosco rejects bivalence on philosophical grounds. So what ? He points out that what we call an "apple" or "a pear" are subject to agreement between observers.

Does he? I don't have my copy of Kosko with me, but I don't recall him saying anything like that.

fresco wrote:
It may be that bivalent rhetoric, like those "frictionless" spheres in high school physics, has very little applicability to "the real world" despite its clinical efficiency.

Well, even frictionless spheres have a heuristic value.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:40 pm
Joe,

I concede the point on Kosko (1995). He didn't talk about consensus...only that "fact" and "logic" dont meet. (p83 para3). Later Kosko references (1999) involve the utility of Fuzzy Logic in reaching consensus in negotiation.

As for Einstein and "the model" opinions seem to differ as totheir "relationship" but interestingly Kosko utilizes Einsteins own quotation about the relationship between the maths and reality in his rejection of bivalence. (a different point of course).

One point not taken up in this thread is Kosko's point that bivalence leads to paradoxes and therefore its "coherence" is internally limited. I don't propose to comment further on this but I thought that you might. Smile
0 Replies
 
Thalion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:29 pm
Is an electron a particle, yes. Is an electron a wave, yes. Is a particle a wave, no. We have established these opposites, although they are meaningless. All of our opposites are only parts of the same idea. Good and evil are not opposites in the sense that they are different concepts. Evil is simply a lack of good, or less good, or however one might phrase it; they are varying degrees on the scale of morality. But it is one scale. Two things which we have given names to and have established as "different" are in fact the same thing. So the answer is yes.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 12:46 am
Thalion,

Welcome and thanks for reinforcing that simple "truism". The problem here is that some of us get involved with "a game" and forget that it is just that !
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 09:24 am
fresco wrote:
Joe,

I concede the point on Kosko (1995). He didn't talk about consensus...only that "fact" and "logic" dont meet. (p83 para3). Later Kosko references (1999) involve the utility of Fuzzy Logic in reaching consensus in negotiation.

I thought that sounded more like Fresko than Kosko :wink:

fresco wrote:
One point not taken up in this thread is Kosko's point that bivalence leads to paradoxes and therefore its "coherence" is internally limited. I don't propose to comment further on this but I thought that you might. Smile

I think I'll leave that subject for another day.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 09:25 am
Thalion wrote:
So the answer is yes.

What was the question?
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 11:09 am
Hmm, maybe only a word on Einstein and General Relativity:

The manifolds used in General Relativity theory, to obtain Riemannian geometry, are mathematically defined in an Euclidean geometry.
To define a 3-dimensional manifold (used for General Relativity), one needs to define a 3-dimensional surface inside a 4-dimensional Euclidean space.

Relativity does not in any large or small degree 'invalidate' or 'reject' Euclidean geometry, but just augments it with new structure of Riemannian manifolds.

Generally in mathematics one does not 'reject' old theories - unless of course they turn out to be invalid in the first place, but this is extremely rare.
This happens in natural sciences, but even here one relaces an old theory with a better one, which is more precise or extends further in extremes.
One certainly does not reject logic, in any way that holds any meaning understandable to me.

So far we have seen some cases in our physical reality, where a basic yes/no categorisation does not suffice, but a more sophisticated system is to be used.
But his _does not invalidate binary logic in any way_. I fail to see that if a certain principle does not apply well say to the science of growing apple plants, that the very principle in itself is wrong.
One cannot dismiss binary logic simply because one observes there are more than two colors. The error is in assigning a logical true/false value to a color of an object.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 11:09 am
Re: Non-Contradiction
joefromchicago wrote:
A thing cannot simultaneously be both "A" and "not-A."

Discuss.


Some people act like logic is incredibly difficult and inapplicable to life - but this is the basis of logic. It's really not so hard to fathom.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Non-Contradiction
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 06:38:41