He was given the choice to stop promoting the use of torture or he would not be asked back. He chose not to stop,adding that this change gave him more time for Tea Party activites.
“If that’s the norm at that school then I feel bad for that school…A school needs diverse ideas to be a good institution and give the students a good education. Change is inevitable”.
I have a friend and retired colleague who taught in the religion and philosophy department at my institution. He looks and dresses like the fictional Columbo played by Peter Falk on the old television series. At any rate, this professor would walk into a large freshmen class and ask “How many of you believe in God?” Almost all hands would go up. He would then ask “why?” No hands would go up. He would then “prove” that a God doesn’t exist. While the class sat there shocked, he would then erase the board, start all over and through a series of deductions “prove” that God does exist. He then would address the class and say “Your job is to think for yourself”.
This professor had the spirit of what an education is really supposed to do for a person–teach the person to think for himself/herself. I’ve served on committees with this person and he was great to work with in this capacity.
You started out saying “Agenda” and every time I point out an Agenda at a “decent University” you put the word “Liberal” in my mouth. Please stop doing that.
“Second…Harvard made NO STANCE what-so-ever on homosexuals in the military…There were some professors and students who did…so what…That does NOT prove that Harvard has an Agenda.”
Umm, a Dean (Elena Kagan) and the University President (Larry Summers). Not "some professors and students.
"Catholic University, Notre Dame, Villanova, Georgetown, United States Military Academy, none of them decent universities in your view?
Of course their decent universities…NEVER EVER SAID THEY WEREN’T. What I said was they DON’T HAVE AN AGENDA…"
You said you had never seen a decent university with an agenda.
Have you read these universities’ mission statements? They all have an Agenda. Try telling the Commandant of the USMA that his school doesn’t have an Agenda. For that matter, try it at the Citadel or VMI. Decent universities all, with Agendas.
[quote]Have you read these universities’ mission statements? They all have an Agenda. Try telling the Commandant of the USMA that his school doesn’t have an Agenda. For that matter, try it at the Citadel or VMI. Decent universities all, with Agendas.
That is NOT what I said…I said they don’t have a TEACHING agenda…where they will ONLY teach you the Conservative or Liberal side…You’re talking about something completely different.
Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that God does not exist? (no valid inference allowed). The problem will be with comming to an agreement that the premises are proven to be true.
What I am getting at is this question and the proofs for or against it are not to going to be proven by either dedutive or inductive logic. If you want to claim a negative is proven you have to drop your standards on what is proof and what is proven( I notice you do use quotes around the word “prove”). It is a gray area on that makes for plenty of discussion. Is there no validity to an inductive argument because it cannot stand the scrutiny of an deductive argument? The “proof” that God does not exist is not at all fair to present in the context that there is only one answer, it all depends on what you consider proven.
A false statment may imply a false statement; a false statement may imply a true statement but a true statement may only imply another true statement. The professor didn’t make any claims about his original statement. The professor in this case is also an ordained minister. I’m certain as the course progressed the students learned some basic logic.
There is an alternative - we could pay realistic taxes for the services we demand.
The right for workers to bargain collectively is not the only thing under attack in GOP held states or in the GOP held House of Representatives. Henry Ford - a fascist if there ever was one - understood the value of paying his workers not just a living wage, but a wage high enough that those workers could afford to buy a Model T themselves. It’s called a bicycle economy, from the Renault model (same idea, with bicycles). Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
Republicans joyfully approved trillions of dollars to bail out financial institutions, but grudgingly approved the bailout for GM and Chrysler, both of which companies rebounded nicely and are paying back their debts. And the rest of the stimulus plan, which would have put many workers back to work but was portrayed by the GOP as a great socialist expenditure, would have rebuilt crumbling roads and bridges, invested in high speed rail and green technologies. None of that funding was approved. These are progressive ideals. By “progressive” at this point, you might want to think of the nation in these terms - what if the world doesn’t end in 2012? What if Jesus does not walk the earth, now at the age of 11, waiting to break open the seven seals?
The term “progressive” has come to mean, in the minds of a small but powerful minority in this country, the same thing as socialist or worse, fascist. It is not. Educating our young, maintaining and improving our national infrastructure, and expanding safe domestic energy programs all create jobs and revenues and grow our economy. Assume that the world is not coming to an end just because of an even number. You might have to live in that world. In fact, you will have to live in that world.
Now, in Wisconsin, collective bargaining is outlawed. The right to free assembly and association is in question.
Since when does capitalism trump democracy?
I would like to see what a deductive argument looks like that proves a negative. I would look to see if it follows all the rules of deductive logic (there really are not so many)Again the key is what level of proof is required of your premesies. If a person likes arguments this certainly is a field to pick up. It is sad that only one semester of logic is required for my major.You hardly scratch the surface in 16 weeks.
I can prove that 2 = 0.
Let a = b. Then 2a = 2b. Subtracting 2b from either side of the equal sign gives us
2a - 2b = 0, which by factoring tells us that 2(a-b) = 0. If you then divide both sides by (a - b), you arrive at the conclusion that 2 = 0.
The conclusion, 2 = 0 is false. You had a false assumption in that you could divide both sides by (a - b). Since a = b, a - b is equal to zero and dividing by zero can not be defined. Since a true statement can not imply a false conclusion, it is therefore not possible to define division by zero.
Did you see what Michigan did? Basically the Governor can appoint emergency financial managers to cities and counties, at an undisclosed salary, with no respect to elected officials in control of anything.
http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/2011/03/11/michigan-governor-plays-fast-and-loose-with-democracy-invokes-radical-new-powers/
Several years ago, I was checking out a retirement community in a warm southwestern state. The real estate agent explained that it was a closed community and not open to families with children. “This way we keep the taxes low so we don’t have to pay for schools”. At that point, I told the agent that I wasn’t interested. I’ve spent my life in education and I would like for future generations to receive a good education. I am willing to pay taxes for this. I’ll keep suffering through winters in the midwest before I’ll live where people don’t want to educate future generations. Besides, I like having kids around. I don’t mind paying higher taxes if it means better schools.
I also feel comfortable having good fire protection. I would hate to see the firehouses taken over by the U-Haul company–if a person has a fire in his house, he has to go rent a fire truck.
I hate this notion that taxes are bad–I see a lot of good come from realistic taxes.
You do not need to divide by a-b to eliminate variables since you know a=b,so a-b=0 and 2(0)=0. You have not proved 2=0,rather you have proved 0=0
The rule is perform all work inside parenthese first.
Almost like a czar,is it not? People clamor for states rights but what makes you think your state won’t rip you off any less than the Fed will?
“You had a false assumption in that you could divide both sides by (a - b).”
No, I didn’t. All you’re saying is if you do something incorrectly you’ll get the wrong result. Newsflash!
“Since a true statement can not imply a false conclusion, it is therefore not possible to define division by zero.”
Your conclusion is, ironically, wrong. It most certainly is possible to define division by zero. This is grade school stuff. In the math that most people use, division by zero is defined as undefined.
“Butterfly in the sky. I can go twice as high. Take a look. It’s in a book. A Reading Rainbow.”
“The real estate agent explained that it was a closed community and not open to families with children. ‘This way we keep the taxes low so we don’t have to pay for schools’.”
Is it possible that the real estate agent was lying to you? EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, I know, but…
When you mention “the rest of the stimulus plan” are you talking about the “shovel-ready projects” that Pres. Obama admitted weren’t “shovel-ready”?
GM will be able to pay everything back when its stock hits $53 per share. It’s currently trading quite a bit lower than that.
“The right to free assembly and association is in question.”
The pictures of the interior of the Wisconsin state Capitol seem to contradict that.
Here is an interesting logic question IMO. It’s an oldie and it was also in a movie so you may have run across it before. If not, it makes an interesting brain exercise-
You are faced with two doors; one on the right, one on the left.
You must choose and go through one of them.
One door is certain death, the other one you live.
Each door has a sentry.
One sentry always tells the truth, the other always lies.
You may ask only one sentry one question.
Then you must choose a door.
Which sentry do you choose, what question do you ask and then which door do you select?
“It most certainly is possible to define division by zero”.
O.K. You define division by zero and make it consistent with arithemetic.
If b is not zero, a/b = c so that b x c = a. For example, 12/4 = 3, since 12 = 4 x 3.
Now if b is zero, then 12/0 = c so that c x 0 = 12. What number can you multiply by 0 to get 12? This is why division by zero is undefined.
Your assignd task was to present a valid deductive argument using true pemesis that proved there is no God(in other words, prove a negative, some claim it can be done). You have diverted from your assignment,you are working on an “F” here.
The technique you have introduce is one that first year logic students are trained to watch out for,you have introduce a “red herring” into the discussion, something that has nothing to do with the original discussion,in other words, diversion.