Poll: A disturbing question about necessary logical identity
- Thread starter Indeterminacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I heard a quote once that was along the lines of "A politician is someone who can say a lot, but mean nothing."
You, sir, should be the emperor of the universe by now.
You, sir, should be the emperor of the universe by now.
Yes, and here is why:
Modern Logic, as it currently stands, does not operate on itself. The speaker must identify, in the end, if a premise is true or not. Therefore, for most of us, we believe that we are in a world wherein your grandparents had to have had sex (or otherwise impregnated) to have your parents, so that you parents could have sex (or otherwise impregnate) to have you as a child so you may exist.
Logic does not interfere here, all is fine. You are trying to use logic as a rule for determining the truth of a statement without deciding on a premise or what the truth of that premise is. I could do the same thing you're doing in that post but with statements such as "grass grows, does it not?" or "the sky is often blue, is it not?".
Also I find it funny that most of the posters in this thread are just going "lol my grandpapa had sex and idk how you think not but ur dumb for disagree! >
)". The OP isn't an idiot, he just is applying logic incorrectly I think.
Modern Logic, as it currently stands, does not operate on itself. The speaker must identify, in the end, if a premise is true or not. Therefore, for most of us, we believe that we are in a world wherein your grandparents had to have had sex (or otherwise impregnated) to have your parents, so that you parents could have sex (or otherwise impregnate) to have you as a child so you may exist.
Logic does not interfere here, all is fine. You are trying to use logic as a rule for determining the truth of a statement without deciding on a premise or what the truth of that premise is. I could do the same thing you're doing in that post but with statements such as "grass grows, does it not?" or "the sky is often blue, is it not?".
Also I find it funny that most of the posters in this thread are just going "lol my grandpapa had sex and idk how you think not but ur dumb for disagree! >
)". The OP isn't an idiot, he just is applying logic incorrectly I think.TOO LONG; DID NOT READ.
Sorry to be rude, but reading that wall of text was like trying to eat a whole loaf of rye with no drink of water.
Did my grandparents have sex? Yes, all of my biological grandparents had sex at least once each in order for me to exist. However my maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother (and vice-versa) didn't have sex (that I know of).
If OP if trying to be clever on any other level, I'm afraid it's wasted on me.
Sorry to be rude, but reading that wall of text was like trying to eat a whole loaf of rye with no drink of water.
Did my grandparents have sex? Yes, all of my biological grandparents had sex at least once each in order for me to exist. However my maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother (and vice-versa) didn't have sex (that I know of).
If OP if trying to be clever on any other level, I'm afraid it's wasted on me.
What the hell is even the point of this topic. No shit my grandparents had sex, or I wouldn't have been born. You seem like you're taking a stab at something heavy here, but it falls apart the second you seem to assume that the average person somehow can't comprehend that one's grandparents conceived children at one point. You used the word "logic" in your post enough times to fill a post on its own, but that mess was one of the least logical things I'd ever read; it was like you were enjoying a self-depreciating joke with the use of the word.
Of course, you could just be trying to jerk people around, but happen to be really bad at it. You wouldn't be the first, on either account, but I suggest you work on your technique if that was your goal.
If not, you're just extremely confused, or perhaps just really terrible at getting a thought across. You started on your tirade at what seems to be pure random, with no apparent grounds whatsoever. Seriously, I thought the original post was actually a reply to another somehow. When random people hurt themselves trying to think of what you really meant because what you're saying on its own is so baffling, you may need to learn a few things about getting your point across.
And if what you somehow meant to ask is "did your grandparents, as of the time you know/knew them, have sex", then the clear answer is "Who the hell cares? That's their business, not yours."
Of course, you could just be trying to jerk people around, but happen to be really bad at it. You wouldn't be the first, on either account, but I suggest you work on your technique if that was your goal.
If not, you're just extremely confused, or perhaps just really terrible at getting a thought across. You started on your tirade at what seems to be pure random, with no apparent grounds whatsoever. Seriously, I thought the original post was actually a reply to another somehow. When random people hurt themselves trying to think of what you really meant because what you're saying on its own is so baffling, you may need to learn a few things about getting your point across.
And if what you somehow meant to ask is "did your grandparents, as of the time you know/knew them, have sex", then the clear answer is "Who the hell cares? That's their business, not yours."
Well, firstly I'd like to consider my own reference frame. It is necessary that my parents had sex for me to be here. Then shift into one of your parents reference frames. Let's assume some frame invariance here, one of the cornerstones of relativity is that certain quantities are invariant, so we should be safe enough to assume that biological processes are. Now since the same biological rules apply, their parents (i.e. your grandparents) had to have sex for them to exist. Not all your grandparents had to have sex with each other mind, but each of them is required to have at least one sexual encounter with another of your grandparents.
Now a more interesting question would be, was it more times than the number of children they had and did it involve a sheet with a hole cut out? The answer to that may disturb you.
Now a more interesting question would be, was it more times than the number of children they had and did it involve a sheet with a hole cut out? The answer to that may disturb you.
My answer to OP:
Yes or No, depending on how I apply semiotic understanding and logical conditions.
If 'my grandparents' refers to my biological parents' parents, then the answer is yes on all occasions that my parents are the people I understand them to be, and that their parents are the people I understand them to be.
If 'my grandparents' refers to anything other than my biological parents' parents, or an occasion where either my parents or 'my grandparents' are other than the people I understand them to be, the answer is no.
My question to YOU is why you feel it necessary to burden questions of logical necessity with HYPOTHETICAL (and therefore illogical because they do NOT exist) situations where my parents/grandparents are different from what they are as objects? Another question is why you feel it necessary to debate the semiotic construction of grandparents?
I would like to conclude with the following:
You are a twat.
While you may feel that your use of a superfluous, and logically flawed argument makes you superior to those who do not understand it, you are still a twat.
Being concise and succinct is far better than being superfluous.
Oh, and go read up on the guidelines of style, you twat.
EDIT: And if anyone decides to report me because I called OP a twat, then for all intents and purposes the word 'twat' means something inoffensive.
If the OP can play with semiotics, so can I.
Yes or No, depending on how I apply semiotic understanding and logical conditions.
If 'my grandparents' refers to my biological parents' parents, then the answer is yes on all occasions that my parents are the people I understand them to be, and that their parents are the people I understand them to be.
If 'my grandparents' refers to anything other than my biological parents' parents, or an occasion where either my parents or 'my grandparents' are other than the people I understand them to be, the answer is no.
My question to YOU is why you feel it necessary to burden questions of logical necessity with HYPOTHETICAL (and therefore illogical because they do NOT exist) situations where my parents/grandparents are different from what they are as objects? Another question is why you feel it necessary to debate the semiotic construction of grandparents?
I would like to conclude with the following:
You are a twat.
While you may feel that your use of a superfluous, and logically flawed argument makes you superior to those who do not understand it, you are still a twat.
Being concise and succinct is far better than being superfluous.
Oh, and go read up on the guidelines of style, you twat.
EDIT: And if anyone decides to report me because I called OP a twat, then for all intents and purposes the word 'twat' means something inoffensive.
If the OP can play with semiotics, so can I.
=P Thanks for making my day!! XDII2 said:
Yep, that'll do me... (for now).Logiclul said:Yes, and here is why:
Modern Logic, as it currently stands, does not operate on itself. The speaker must identify, in the end, if a premise is true or not. Therefore, for most of us, we believe that we are in a world wherein your grandparents had to have had sex (or otherwise impregnated) to have your parents, so that you parents could have sex (or otherwise impregnate) to have you as a child so you may exist.
Logic does not interfere here, all is fine. You are trying to use logic as a rule for determining the truth of a statement without deciding on a premise or what the truth of that premise is. I could do the same thing you're doing in that post but with statements such as "grass grows, does it not?" or "the sky is often blue, is it not?".
Also I find it funny that most of the posters in this thread are just going "lol my grandpapa had sex and idk how you think not but ur dumb for disagree! >
I was about to lay into a massive spiele about language, existential indicators and descriptors etc. but I'm just too fucking knackered...
Excuse me while I go indulge in something less taxing on my meagre intellect... -_-
Oh, and to those wondering, OP is essentially asking you whether it's logically necessary to your grandparents to have had sex, if 'your grandparents' doesn't necessarily mean what you understand it to mean. However, he is doing it in a superfluous (unnecessarily long and wordy) way, to intentionally confuse people.
If you're interested in how 'your grandparents' might not mean what you think it means, I suggest you investigate Northrop Frye, Roland Barthes, and Ferdinand de Saussure, who are, more-or-less, the big guns in semiotics.
If you're interested in how 'your grandparents' might not mean what you think it means, I suggest you investigate Northrop Frye, Roland Barthes, and Ferdinand de Saussure, who are, more-or-less, the big guns in semiotics.
Yes of course your grandparents had to have sex for you to exist, the rest of the post sounds like pointless phycobabble to me.
new favourite euphemism... me too.MianusIzBleeding said:
OT: yes, its physically and logically necessary.
also, your grandparents have to be your grandparents. wtf are you talking about?
and no, i'm not 'logically necessary' yet. for all we know, i might be the only human capable of unifying gravity with the other forces, or the first X-Man.
In layman's terms: No. They could have gotten a baby without actually having intercourse(Turkey baster, anyone?)
In your terms: What do I consider a grand parent?, well I consider my biological grand parents to be my biological grand parents, I consider my figurative grand parents to be my figurative grand parents(Parent, in this case), and so on.
In existential terms: Fuck this. Existentialism is occasionally entertaining, but useless. The second you consider the possibility that what seems to exist doesn't, all arguments are out the window and you might as well just not bother, because you can't ever prove that something is real in those terms, even if you're 99.9% sure, you're still not sure, because it could all be an illusion. The only thing you can prove exists is your mind(Cogito ergo sum), which you still can't prove to anyone else. So all bets are off, nothing can be proven, and you know nothing. Unfortunately, many forget that weather all this exists or not, we still have to live in it. Even if all this shit is possible, it's still highly unlikely, even if it's true, it's still unlikely that we'll be affected by it.
You're never going to know, and if you did it wouldn't change anything.
In your terms: What do I consider a grand parent?, well I consider my biological grand parents to be my biological grand parents, I consider my figurative grand parents to be my figurative grand parents(Parent, in this case), and so on.
In existential terms: Fuck this. Existentialism is occasionally entertaining, but useless. The second you consider the possibility that what seems to exist doesn't, all arguments are out the window and you might as well just not bother, because you can't ever prove that something is real in those terms, even if you're 99.9% sure, you're still not sure, because it could all be an illusion. The only thing you can prove exists is your mind(Cogito ergo sum), which you still can't prove to anyone else. So all bets are off, nothing can be proven, and you know nothing. Unfortunately, many forget that weather all this exists or not, we still have to live in it. Even if all this shit is possible, it's still highly unlikely, even if it's true, it's still unlikely that we'll be affected by it.
You're never going to know, and if you did it wouldn't change anything.