Newsgroup sci.logic 21903

Directory

Lee J. Finch  wrote in article
<01bc8199$34ad8e20$LocalHost@privatepc>...
> With all of the recent media on Southern Baptists boycotting Disney, this
> issue is a very topical one at the moment.
Actually, this is a non-issue, or at least it should be.  Since homosexual
behaviour does not inherently harm anyone, there is nothing inherently
wrong with it.  I have no yet encountered any argument to the contrary -
although of course everyone is welcome to suggest one.  What the Bible says
is simply of no relevance to the issue.
> I have pondered the issue myself because I know a several gay people.  I
do
> not believe that being gay is a matter of choice (at least not for most
> homosexuals), so the question of its morality becomes one of suppressing
an
> individual's natural inclinations.
Whether or not it is a matter or choice is irrelevant.  It may well be that
being a psychopathic murderer is not a matter of choice - but that would
not make it acceptable behaviour.
What is relevant is whether or not a behaviour harms anyone.   If guy wakes
up one morning and says 'You know, I decided it would be fun to find
another consenting male adult and give each other blowjobs in the privacy
of our own homes - we would have to practice safe sex of course' - and then
acts on his decision - this is not immoral behaviour since it does not harm
anyone.
> From a religious point of view, I find the Catholic church's position to
be
> most justifiable in a logical sense.  I am sure that you are aware that
in
> the Catholic church, it is not a sin to BE gay, but it is a sin to engage
> in homosexual activity.  This derives from the postulate that the purpose
> of sex is purely for reproduction (supporting Kant's argument submitted
by
> Michael Zeleny).  The Catholic church is at least consistent in applying
> this tenet to ALL persons.
You may be confusing internal consistency and justifiability.  It is true,
given premises of the Catholic Church is logically follows that homosexual
activity is a sin, but the premises are eccentric to put it mildly.  
> It views a heterosexual couple using
> contraception as committing the same sin as a homosexual couple engaging
in
> sex.  In this sense, of the denominations that condemn homosexuality, I
> find the Catholic church to be the most equitable.
Fair enough, although its views have no basis in the actual Bible - but
that is a matter for another debate.
> One might then simplify the issue to that of whether sexual relations are
> only morally acceptable if the possibility of reproduction is present.
This is not an issue that can be rationally debated.  The basis for this
belief is "God tells us so".   This belief can not be attacked on rational
basis - it is not falsifiable.   This statement's truth value is the same
as "The Easter Bunny really exists" - and it should be take as seriously.
> specifically), which makes one wonder if the authors of the Old Testament
> would have thought differently had they been modern day Ethiopians, for
I am not aware of the Old Testament making any sort of general commandment
about contraception.  Onan is condemned for his actions, but no general
statement is ever made.
> In regards to biblical references to homosexuality, then, one ultimately
> has to decide if the words present were truly divine messages or subject
to
> poetic license.  In the New Testament, I am not aware that Jesus
> specifically addresses homosexuality in any of his dialogs (I would
greatly
> appreciate a reference if anyone has come across this).
I do not believe he does, although St. Paul does so in his letters. 
Further, Jesus did make statements to the effect that he came to confirm
the Scriptures - and the Jewish scriptures do condemn homosexuality.  
(Specifically, the Torah condems male homosexuality only.   Female
homosexuality is condemned somewhere in the Mishna - but not anywhere in
what is know as the "Old Testament".)
> If homosexuality is indeed a part of nature (which it appears to be for
the
> entire history of man), can it's practice be immoral? 
I do not think we can use nature as a source of moral guidance.   Natural
behaviour of animals is often vicious - and similar behaviour would not be
tolerated in humans in many cases.
What do you mean by 'nature' anyway - how can something not be part of
nature?   Other animals use tools too - does that put them outside of
nature?   
> If there is no Creator, does it go against the laws of humanity?  The
issue
> will surely never be resolved.
The issue has already been resolved.  Homosexual behaviour between
consenting adults does not harm anyone.  Therefore there is nothing wrong
with it.   The only reason further discussion is needed is because too many
people are too stupid - or too wrapped up in bizarre religious doctrine -
to understand this simple argument.  
> I find ancient Greek wisdom appearing on the temple of the Oracle at
Delphi
> particularly applicable to the homosexuality question:  Know Thyself 
(and)
>  Nothing in Excess.
Including moderation.  
> change their situation (Know Thyself).  At the same time, I understand
how
> people can find public displays of homosexual behavior offensive. 
And some small-minded twits find wearing a turban in public offensive.  Who
cares?
That does not mean that I would approve of a homosexual couple
tongue-wrestling in public, but this is equally true of a heterosexual
couple as well.   But if they want to hold hands, I really do not see why
anyone should get their jockeys in a knot over it.
> One has to admit that parades or other public appearances of large
homosexual
> groups often (not always) portray an element of debauchery and could be
> considered of poor taste by a majority of people (Nothing in Excess). 
Yeah, they sort of go against the view that homosexuals are in other
regards no different from anyone else.   I saw a gay pride parade here and
it came across as a freak show.  Can't say I entirely saw the point of the
exercise.
Cheers
--
Michael Voytinsky
michaelv@igs.net
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
---- Question authority!?   Sez who?

Cardinal Benefiel... sounds like a good name for a demon...
Here's a good argument against certain forms of 'homosexuality':
Most sexual acts take place between a clueless one and one who could be 
called a smiling rapist.  These types of sexual acts are a form of warfare.
A large portion of homosexual acts occur NOT between unicorns (those incarnated
into human form but lucky enough to find each other and recalibrate each other)
BUT between conquistador and 'victim'.  
Luckily the 'victims' are doing subtle damage to their conquistadors, but 
mainly here we have a well-designed (and possibly evolved) system taking 
over 'virgin territory'.  Ungood.  For arguments, see Greenpeace or Indians.
All of the above has no place in a nice place like Earth.
: Cari Benefiel  writes:
: >I just started a course on Logic and Reasoning and i have to write a 
: >paper on the moral justification of Homosexuality.  I have no problems 
: >finding valid arguments supporting homosexuality but I can only find 
: >religious arguments against it.  How do i evaluate a religious argument? 
: > Who am i to say one's argument is invalid if based on the Bible?  What 
: >shall I do?
Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: If the class is concerned with logical validity, any appeal to a
: religious doctrine will be disqualified as exemplifying the fallacy
: of argumentum ad verecundiam.
: >Also, any other arguments against homosexuality would be appreciated.
: My favorite argument is Kant's, which develops themes ultimately
: going back to Plato and Aristotle, and comes in two stages.  First
: you argue that the proper function (a term of art, q.v. the Third
: Critique or Larry Wright's modern take on the same subject) of the
: genitals, as determined by their evolutionary origins, is linked to
: the continuation of the species.  Then you argue that if morality
: is a set of universal rules binding equally on all rational agents,
: one ought not to act on any maxim whose adoption by any of one's
: ancestors would have resulted in one's failure to be born, for the
: reasons of its involving "proper dysfunctionality".  For one could
: only do so on pain of willing one's own antecedent non-existence,
: thereby countermanding a condition of all willing.  You will find
: relevant texts in Kant's Groundwork, the Metaphysics of Morals,
: Second and Third Critiques, and Lectures on Ethics.
: >Cari
: Cordially -- Mikhail * God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
: Zeleny@math.ucla.edu *** Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
: itinerant philosopher *** will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
: ptyx, 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068, 213-876-8234/213-874-4745 (fax)
: Come to the Alonzo Church Archive at http://www.alonzo.org *** 310-966-6700
-- 
*****************************************************************************
   6+ Trillion Dollars GNP in the USA alone, and NO DECENT SOFTWARE YET ?!
                Boss don't let me die until I debug this life,
     and don't let me rhincornate until I can't make a mess of next time.
        "A .sig is a tail-feather tacked on to a turd."  -- Tak Eeyawn
*****************************************************************************

Hans Huttel (hans@iesd.auc.dk) wrote:
: John Shonder wrote:
: > 
: > This is semantics. 
:   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: [ another (not particularly profound) contribution to a
:   long discussion of the Sorites paradox deleted ]
: Maybe my limited knowledge of English is showing, but...
: Why is it that the phrase "We're simply arguing about semantics!"
: is used to dismiss statements ? Semantics is the study of meaning,
: and in discussions of paradoxes, the meanings of the concepts
: involved will usually be EXTREMELY important when trying to resolve
: the paradox. 
Hear, hear! Semantics (language) and meaning are of vital importance
(especially when we find ourselves in discussions in hwich various members
(such as me) refuse to accept the definition proposed by another member.
--
	  			  Take Air,
   there are them that could        Snowmit of the Loftie Mountain
   and them that couldn't	     Chief Technician, 
   and them that do	    	     Founder of Cootm
   who often shouldn't		     Truffles Like Him (shouldn't you?)
	"I hate broccoli, but in a way I am broccoli."
				-The Tick
     ___
   {~o_o~}     *****Needless Self-promotion*****
    ( ^ )         	http://is2.dal.ca/~timmaly
   ()~:~() 	  *****High Discordian Weirdness On-a-Stick*****
   (_)-(_)
	Is this sig block too long?  ()yes  ()no ()just right

In article <33B158BD.4F4C@sdrc.com>, jim.batka@sdrc.com says...
>
>Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email WILL be 
>charged a $100 proof-reading fee.  Do NOT send junk email to me - 
>consider this an official notice:
>
>"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
> meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.  By 
Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
> it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such
> equipment.  By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned
> Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or
> $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
an interesting concept:  does this posting make a solicitation for 
e-mail?  I think so.  
Harold
refusal to accept the concequences of ones actions shows ones true age. 
 Daddy fix it.

Cari Benefiel  wrote in article
<33ADA359.27C6@concentric.net>...
> I just started a course on Logic and Reasoning and i have to write a 
> paper on the moral justification of Homosexuality.  I have no problems 
> finding valid arguments supporting homosexuality but I can only find 
> religious arguments against it.  How do i evaluate a religious argument? 
>  Who am i to say one's argument is invalid if based on the Bible?  What 
> shall I do?
An argument based on the Bible may well be valid - but that does not
necessarily make it a good argument.  A valid argument is merely one where
conclusions follow from the premises.  The premises may still be totally
preposterous.   
The "Proof by Assertion" type of argument - favoured heavily by certain
religious types - is valid - but not very good.   The simplest valid
argument you will find in formal logic is 
if A then A.  
Perfectly valid.  And perfectly useless.
Perhaps you should consider the basis for your moral premises.  Do you base
them on the Bible?  Social convention?   The notion that if action does not
cause anyone any harm there is nothing wrong with it?   If you use the
latter, then what the Bible says is just totally irrelevant.  
It sounds like you have no entirely considered your moral premises.
> Also, any other arguments against homosexuality would be appreciated.
Using any sort of reasonable moral system there is not much here - because
there is in actual reality nothing wrong with homosexuality - but here are
some possible lines of thought (I do not necessarily agree with any of
them, but they may be of use in your project)
1) Anal intercourse, common among male homosexuals, is a bad idea from
medical perspective.  This is a controversial view - I have not made a
study of the pros and cons of this, but I suspect that you should be able
to find plenty of material on both sides of the issue.    Of course, not
all gay men use this method, so its not really a statement about
homosexuality in general.
2) Is there a link between homosexuality and psychological childhood
trauma?  Some writers suggest that there is.  This would not really be an
argument agaist homosexuality itself, but it would establish that
homosexuality is 'abnormal'.   With enough work you can obscure the issue
enough to make it look like an argument against homosexuality.  (Again, I
did not explore this line of argument myself.)
3) Going with the Biblical notion of God as the bridegroom of humanity, we
can make an argument that the relationship between a man and a woman is a
preparation for better understanding between humanity and God.  After all,
men and women are very different from each other - and ability to
understand something as alien as the opposite sex will be a good step
towards understanding something even more alien - God.    I know this is
rather a far out line of argument, but I think it can be excellent basis
for loads of high quality bullshit - the usefulness of which should not be
underestimated for philosophy essays.
--
Michael Voytinsky
michaelv@igs.net
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
---- Question authority!?   Sez who?

Bobby Guidry wrote:
> 
> Please help suport my collage education by sending me one dollar.
> And you may make a little money for yourself!!
> 
> Hello my name is Bobby Guidry i am a biology and geology major who plans
> to attend grad school in 2 years. The only problem is i cant afford to
> finnish undergraduate school
> I have a 3.97 grade point average and I am realy looking forward to
> going
> to graduate school.Im begging and pleading you to send me just one
> dollar
> (or more if you feel loving) in the mail.You also have the chance to
> make
> money at the same time!If i cant save enough money to go to school i
> will
> be forced to drop out and work till i have saved enough to return.
> Please
> help support my higher education or i might not graduate!!!!!!!!
> 
> If you dont want to do the money making plan butt still want to send me
> a 
If this is so true then you do it and you will not need to be a beggar 
anymore.
Mitch

Hello there,
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Brian Peterson wrote:
> An exercise in a text that I'm trying to work through asks to show that
> '<' is elementarily definable in (R,+,*,0).
> 
> I wanted to use the sentence 
> 
> 	(Exists z) (a + z = b)
> 
> to define
> 
> 	a < b
> 
> but I'd need to add something specifying that z
> is positive, and I can't figure out how to do this
> in (R,+,*,0).  Could someone give me a nudge in the
> right direction?  Or is this whole approach wrong?
	Your approach is not wrong at all.  Try using the fact that
every strictly positive real is the square of some nonzero real.
	Take care,
	Willie

CALLING ALL LITERARY MINDS!
I am trying to compose a coffee table book on the topic of EXCUSES.  To add an original flavor to my project
I am attempting to derive my research entirely from people I come in contact with on the Net.
If you have, or know of, any interesting, unique, or even bizarre excuses, and would like to participate in this experiment 
in creative literature, please reply to this message with your excuse.  Any excuse that is used in the published version will 
receive full literary credit.  Thank you in advance for helping a fellow netizen.
Long live free speech!
                                                                 
                                                                 Sincerely yours,
                                                                 Jason

In article <5ob9ad$jjm@clarknet.clark.net>,
  marshall@clark.net (Chris and Mina Marshall) wrote:
>
> I am a devotee of "Naive Set Theory" by Halmos.  I just love his
> presentation.  I don't have enough interest in sets to pursue them much
> beyond that book.
>
> What books would you recommend I read to understand how to introduce
> classes into the axioms of set theory, as presented by Halmos, without
> having to embark on an oddessy of sets?
>
> Allow me to tell you more about where I am coming from.
>
> Halmos makes a passing reference to classes, and how they are different
> from sets, but delves into the topic no further.
>
> I was looking at MacLane and Birkhoff's Algebra (third edition) and they
> refer to such objects as the class of all groups, in the course of talking
> about functors and categories.
>
> In an appendix, pg 510, they have a fascinating discussion of what is
> required to allow for concrete discussion of such objects.
>
> One way of introducing classes into set theory is to consider that there
> are objects which can have members but which are not allowed to be the
> member of anything else.  This gets around the zermolo-russel paradox and
> allows for such objects as the "class of all sets".  You could then have
> the class of all groups.
>
> Another way of allowing such objects as the "set of all groups" to exist
> is to add a single axiom to ZFC which asserts the existance of a set U,
> whose members themselves obey the axioms of ZFC and yield other members of
> U.  There would then be sets which are members of U and which are not
> members of U, and you could talk about the set of all groups in U.
>
> I suppose I would want to see the second option fleshed out in a book, if
> I wanted to stay as close as possible to Naive Set Theory.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Chris Marshall
Just another opinion;
Classes are the more primitive, sets are existent classes.
Some classes may not exist e.g. the Russell class,{x|~(x e x)},
{x|~(x=x)} etc., but the corresponding sets do exist and are
the null class. Non existent classes are not members of any
other class, nor do they have any members, nor are they self
identical. The theory of classes is derived from Russell's
theory of descriptions i.e. G{x|Fx}<->EyAx((x e y)<->Fx&.Gy).
The theory of sets is derived from Frege's theory of descriptions.
G{x:Fx}.<->.EyAx((x e y)<->Fx&.Gy)v.~(EyAx((x e y)<->Fx)&G;{null}.
The universal set exists, {x|(x=x)}={x:(x=x)}. the boolean
sets exist, -{x:Fx}={x:~Fx} etc. This theory is much closer to
naive set theory than is ZF or NBG, yet avoids the paradoxes,
and the so called 'proper classes'.
Owen
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet