From: athenonrex (athenonrex@godisdead.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 16:04:08 MDT
[quote from: Joe on 2003-07-30 at 14:07:27]
People can volunteer, that is, work without pay, only if they draw
survival funds (for little things like food, clothing, shelter, utilities, etc.)
from other sources, such as a real paying job or inherited money.
[...]
You are attempting to sneak in the unlikely conclusion that a
nonmonetary global economy (now, THERE'S an oxymoron for you!)
could possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise, and I am
demonstrating with counterarguments why that unlikely conclusion is
unacceptable as a premise. For conclusions to be true, not only must
logical form be followed, but also the premises have to be true, and that
is what you have not demonstrated, and cannot. If probing the possible
the consequences pursuant to a moneyless economy is just a 'what if'
fantasy exercise, fine, but I do not think that such an exercise can
qualify as an investigation of a feasible future.
no, you are still doing it wrong. i want criticism. this is true, and i have said it multiple times. you, however, are not providing any "criticism", and in fact are using information outside of my prmises, and are going so far as to tell me what my premises are in the first place.
volunteerism was not a literal label. it was merely another attempt to get you into a state of vision so that you could argue contrary to my ideas while viewing it from my vantage point so you could see where i was, perspective wise.
the thing is that there would not be a "nonmonetary global economy" as you put it, because there would be no notion of economy, as economy deals with the value of goods and monies. as there would be no monies, and the value of goods would "tend towards zero" [hermit], there would be no economy.
you're trying to force the notion of an economy into this arguement, because you can't work it either way. of course, i indeed could have been more specific in my initial post in saying that this is theoretical, but alas, i did not. i did however make that point later, when i said that we were not speaking literally, but that we're constructing a composit projection of a potential and probable future IF certain trends were to continue. now, no one has made the affirmative assertion that these trends WILL continue...so i fail to see the exaserbation of this unnecessary conflict.
and how could my "unlikely conclusion...possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise?" conclusions are not premises, i'm sure you know. [reiteration] we are not, nor were we ever, debating the "truth" of an arguement. we were debating whether the premises "forced" the conclusion to be true, provided the premises are taken as true.
i'm sure you may have had to deal with several such arguements* when you had formal training in logic (as say college or poerhaps in an Advance Placement highschool class)...so why is it hard to deal with such an arguement now? [note that i also never included people's reaction, including resistance to this idea, as a premise for it's deveopment. there were two posts involving me and hermit about that, but it was never elaborated.]
*by such arguements i mean where the premises are not evaluated for "truth value", but are taken as true to see if the conclusion coinsides with the premises, such as:
1. the Moon is made of green cheese.
2. Rats live where there is cheese.
==========================
3. therefore, rats live on the moon.
now the two premises are not true (in the sense that the moon is not made of cheese, and that rats do not exclusively live near cheese), but if you provide them provisionary value of "true" then the conclusion does work. we have made, here, in the arguement, no attempt to assertain whether the premises are true, but the arguement is what is called "valid" but not necessarily "sound" ...
for futher examples and "rules" of what a valid arguement is
i refer you to this link:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/tru-val.htm
-bestill the beating of my heart,
and i shall still love thee,
~athenonrex~
---- This message was posted by athenonrex to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 16:06:25 MDT