This place reminds me of a philosophy department where I used to work...

[RichardRay]

Probably true in other extremely academic and inbred environments.

Any attempt at a non-trivial statement by Person A is subjected to intense semantic and logical analysis to see if there is ANY way it can be construed in a fashion with which Person B disagrees. It doesn't matter how wildly the statement has to be twisted, if the statement does not completely disambiguate itself, and there exists at least one reading that Person B can disagree with, then Person B goes into full fledged attack mode.

Person B uses that reading (no matter how tortured) as the basis for an entire deconstruction of everything Person A has ever said or done and probably as a basis for attacking choices in pets, favorite pizza toppings and whether to wear sandles with a strap across the top of the foot or one between the large and second toe.

I can post everything I have to say in symbolic format that completely avoids that issue, but none of you would want to read it! It would be really hard for either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton to give a speech in that notation, too.

So, how do you think we should approach people's statements about their beliefs and convictions? About their positions and actions?

[goldcanyonaz]

1. Reminds me more of a psycho ward.

[RichardRay]

2. No, I can usually determine the motivations of the people in psycho wards. n/t

[The Traveler]

3. I have long desired a job as a stand-up philsopher

but there seem to be relatively few paying openings. :(

Hmmm ... "symbolic format". Inquiring minds want to know ...

[RichardRay]

4. Does DU support TEX?

TEX

Otherwise I'm not certain exactly how to get it to show up here. Just standard propositional calculus. I think there's a plain ascii syntax, but I never learned it.

[RichardRay]

5. Kick to Raven's point on how people play this game... n/t

[Forkboy]

6. Are you saying you hate flipflops?

:P