So when a politician does wrong...

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is it ok if it's your guy who does it?

Or is a wrong thing wrong regardless who does it?

 

[CaptnKirk]

That depends upon what the meaning of 'Depends' is

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

A is A --Aristotle

 

[CrazyApe]

You must clarify what you mean by 'wrong'. What's wrong to you may not be what's wrong to me.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: CrazyApe
You must clarify what you mean by 'wrong'. What's wrong to you may not be what's wrong to me.

heh that reminds me of the whole Clinton-Monica thing.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: CrazyApe
You must clarify what you mean by 'wrong'. What's wrong to you may not be what's wrong to me.

heh that reminds me of the whole Clinton-Monica thing.

Reminds me of the whole "we're invading Iraq to stop WMD" thing . . .

 

[Moonbeam]

Seems like, thinking about it, that only somebody without self could know what is right and wrong, that is to say really know, as opposed to having an opinion. That would mean that a statement like A = A would ordinarily have no meaning because for almost everybody it would be a logical abstraction and not something most people could apply. A equals A but whether this is an A or that is one is a matter of opinion when you're talking judgments and not math.

 

[dmcowen674]

Wow, apparently the Neocons are avoiding this vote like the Plague, figures.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
A is A --Aristotle

But Aristotelian logic is flawed because it dows not allow for the possibility that A is also B. So, Aristotle says the glass is either half empty or half full. But the reality is that it is both half empty and half full. For whatever that's worth.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

That would mean that a statement like A = A would ordinarily have no meaning because for almost everybody it would be a logical abstraction and not something most people could apply. A equals A but whether this is an A or that is one is a matter of opinion when you're talking judgments and not math.

Not at all, my logical friend. A=A would not a 'logical abstraction', but instead, A=A would be a concrete, regardless of whether or not 'A', in and of itself, has any meaning to the individual observer of 'A'. A book is a book, and book is not, and cannot be, a pencil...a pencil is a pencil...whether a mechanical pencil, a colored pencil, a #2 pencil...a pencil is never a book and vice versa. Whether you know what a pencil is, or whether you know what a book is, you do, however, know that one is not the other--A is A. A book cannot be a book and be a pencil at the same time; A is A....no math required.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
A is A --Aristotle

But Aristotelian logic is flawed because it dows not allow for the possibility that A is also B. So, Aristotle says the glass is either half empty or half full. But the reality is that it is both half empty and half full. For whatever that's worth.

You are now crossing into the realm of cognitive recognition; a rose is a rose is a rose...regardless if you call a rose a flower and recognize a flower as such...using your analogy, it is still a glass, whether you think it is half empty or half full...

 

[torpid]

Don't get it. I think the poll and OP were worded poorly. He probably meant to ask whether we blindly forgive someone we like and blindly condemn someone we don't for the same action. I guess it's true to some degree. I'd rather have someone mess up but still overall be good than someone who is overall bad but never messes up.

 

[raildogg]

depends on what he does wrong

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

That would mean that a statement like A = A would ordinarily have no meaning because for almost everybody it would be a logical abstraction and not something most people could apply. A equals A but whether this is an A or that is one is a matter of opinion when you're talking judgments and not math.

Not at all, my logical friend. A=A would not a 'logical abstraction', but instead, A=A would be a concrete, regardless of whether or not 'A', in and of itself, has any meaning to the individual observer of 'A'. A book is a book, and book is not, and cannot be, a pencil...a pencil is a pencil...whether a mechanical pencil, a colored pencil, a #2 pencil...a pencil is never a book and vice versa. Whether you know what a pencil is, or whether you know what a book is, you do, however, know that one is not the other--A is A. A book cannot be a book and be a pencil at the same time; A is A....no math required.

You are here referring to the mathematical notion of Identity. A thing is itself. But when we state that Moral Position A = Real Morality, that is a judgment call.

Mulla's Nasrudin's bull knocked down the fence between his and his neighbors property and gored the neighbor's cow. The Mulla went to the neighbor and said, "Your bull has knocked down the fence and gored my cow, I demand compensation. The neighbor said,"That is an act of God and is not my responsibility." "Oh, oh, said the Mulla, I got that wrong, it was my bull that gored your cow. "Now that is an entirely different matter!" exclaimed the neighbor.