What's your opinion on the passing of the health care plan?

[Steven Hawkings]

Vercingetorix VII

Steven Hawkings

Every concept or idea that can be expressed relies upon fundamental assumptions that are ultimately arbitrary. Logic doesn't work without premises, Aristotle.

@Charon:

Noted.

That's not everything. You said, "everything". You did not address value-neutral. This is not, "everything".

Your effort to intimidate me with excessive and grotesque stupidity has failed.

What? I want to know if the neutral value is outside the inverse of the natural value.

I don't think I phrased what I said in correct context to what I was thinking, I'm not here to bully others over the internet nor force any falsehood as a .

Though, the uses of technology on the other-hand can be either or. In this case we will use steam turbines as such case. We can get multiple-conclusions from such deduction of rifting through cases of power source of what of the two formal types, efficacy. ect. And either get multiple endings (saying if this is) and seeing if or not this concludes these turbines do either to society. Though, I would like to know if such a case as technology is a neutral, and we proving the premise on statement of judgment as we are that, T or F. Or am I just reading the logical consequence?

[Vercingetorix VII]

Steven Hawkings

Vercingetorix VII

Your effort to intimidate me with excessive and grotesque stupidity has failed.

What? I want to know if the neutrual value is outside the inverse of the natural value.

You have failed to say anything in this post.

[Steven Hawkings]

Vercingetorix VII

Steven Hawkings

Vercingetorix VII

Your effort to intimidate me with excessive and grotesque stupidity has failed.

What? I want to know if the neutrual value is outside the inverse of the natural value.

You have failed to say anything in this post.

Read top.

[Vercingetorix VII]

Even with an issue like scientific study, you're basin your conclusions on the idea that what you observe is most likely to be true. "Reasonableness" depends upon certain presumptions (the aforementioned and the tendency towards survival and/or pleasure and knowledge, as well as the concepts of "good" and "bad" being primary amongst them) in order to have meaning. Language itself breaks down into certain words that cannot be given non-circular meanings; we can only define good relative to bad, for instance. And yet the distinction between good and bad is a fundamental one to understanding anything it is that humans think or do.

[Steven Hawkings]

Vercingetorix VII

Even with an issue like scientific study, you're basin your conclusions on the idea that what you observe is most likely to be true. "Reasonableness" depends upon certain presumptions (the aforementioned and the tendency towards survival and/or pleasure and knowledge, as well as the concepts of "good" and "bad" being primary amongst them) in order to have meaning. Language itself breaks down into certain words that cannot be given non-circular meanings; we can only define good relative to bad, for instance. And yet the distinction between good and bad is a fundamental one to understanding anything it is that humans think or do.

Now I recall it's affirming the consequent.

And I recall of such a study, mainly the goal is overall is to not confirm such, rather to disprove. Not in case as trying to affirm and stating the conclusion is false, and then prove through going up in structure.

Anyway, I think I see the point your mainly speaking of logical conjunctions in the use of logic, and the symbol in place of language, can only mean one thing in the problem, and is universal in all sets. (I think that is your main point, please correct me, also I like to continue this conversation in PM, since this is sorta getting off topic, or more so when I started it.)