With the near-complete absence of actual news this morning — an
escaping tiger killed someone (and was in turn killed) at the San Francisco zoo! A man who ran onto I-5 in Federal Way attacking cars was hit and killed by a speeding state trooper bullet! Holiday shopping was down this year! Several flakes of snow fell in Seattle on Christmas Day! — newspapers and TV stations in town are turning from the last drops of heartwarming holiday feature stories to year-end reviews in their use of fill material prepared ahead of time while reporters and editors take the week off.
You’ve been warned.
This tiger didn’t belong penned up in the city. The fact that it killed someone, after escaping, is not the fault of the tiger. Couldn’t a tranquilizer gun have been used to subdue it?
Geov …You missed the news:
EGYPT COPYRIGHTS THE PYRAMIDS AND SPHINX. ISRAEL RETALIATES
Given that the tiger in question has a history of mauling – we’re not talking Christmas shopping, here – anything less than a bullet is unhealthy for humanity. To suggest a tranquilizer is akin to recommending probation for Scott Peterson, et al.
Argue about the morality of zoos all you want, but when an animal starts killing people, it’s time to destroy the animal. The human being killed by the tiger did nothing to deserve his fate, yet the tiger should get a pass? I don’t think so.
But if you think the tiger had it bad, go here http://www.justsayhi.com/bb/death to see how wretched you (you know who you are) are; thousands died the day you were born, and any number of prominent, useful, and worthy notables shuffled off this mortal coil on the day you demand swag for having popped out of your mother’s womb…or, in the case of many HA Happy Hooligans, not getting sucked down a sink.
Just think, all those people died to make room for you. How guilty should you feel about that? Shouldn’t there be a government program to compensate their families for the misery your birth caused?
Since guilt and anger are the liberal emotions of choice, look in a mirror and see both a shameful image and the true cause of the world’s misery…
The Piper
Geov ..
You moissed the news from Egypt and Israel:
Egypt copyrights pyramids. Israel retaliates by claiming patent on God.
Don’t you think it’s rather ridiculous to apply standards, reserved for a human, to a tiger? If you’re going to compare the tiger’s deed with that of Scott Peterson, then I’m sure you would agree a trial should have been in order.
The tiger is a predator, only doing what comes naturally. Though being confined in an enclosed area, certainly had a detrimental effect on it’s attitude. This incident is the fault of humans, plain and simple.
Remember the Peter Principle? It has been supplanted by the Conservative Principle. The difference between the two is that the Peter Principle was characterized by level of competence, while the Conservative Principle is characterized by the level of arrogance and greed. Conservatives award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.
Happy Boxing Day everyone.
@ 5
There’s an old attorney’s joke about the difference between negligence and gross negligence. You explain the facts of a case to an expert. If the expert says, “Who the hell did that?” it’s negligence. If the expert says, “Jesus Christ, who the hell did that !?” it’s gross negligence.
I’m reminded of that joke just about every time I deign to read the verbal excrement deposited here by proponents of the right-wing point of view.
I do still hold out hope. Perhaps some of our wingnut regulars will read the feel-good story that Geov linked and find that it inspires them to embark upon their own rehabilitation efforts.
@4…Upton…
Sorry…people first, animals second. Animals that kill people have to be destroyed, pure and simple; it’s not a level moral playing field.
If the standard is “doing what comes naturally,” then we’re all hosed, since, man, by nature, is a mess and naturally capable of all sorts of mischief, hence the necessity for both law and salvation.
Again…argue the morality of zoos if you wish, but when an animal – especially one with a track record of seriously injuring people – is lose already having killed one person, then there is no question as to what’s necessary and appropriate: kill it.
Whoever owns the San Francisco zoo better have a good lawyer, because they’re going to need one.
The Piper
@6…DJ…
Funny you should recommend the story Geov linked since it ordinarily would be anathema to most liberals since (1) it details an individual’s ability to turn his life around without a government program, (2) it shows the value of “tough love” versus enabling to promote personal responsibility and accountability, and (3) it’s faith-based.
Aren’t these all values regularly advocated by those of us on the right and eschewed by those of you on the left?
And it was the perfect Christmas story since it showed the value of hope during the season of hope. We get 364 days per year of ennui and angst, so it’s good, perhaps even vital, that on one day each year we can by buoyed by thoughts of peace on earth, good will toward men.
The Piper
Piper,
First, I recommended rehab. If the story inspires you to do so, that’s gravy, and, frankly, I really don’t care what form of rehab you choose, so long as you choose one that’s effective. At that, I should note there is no a-prior reason to believe that a government-run program would be any less effective than any other form of rehab program. The only real difference would be availability, which leaves us to wonder why Republicans would confine these kinds of efforts to facilities that require a certain financial disposition and/or acceptance of a particular religious ideology (or would you applaud a “faith-based” initiative carried out by Muslims?).
Second, your reasoning, or lack thereof, on the whole tiger issue is ample evidence that rehab is necessary. Your argument, essentially that the tiger should have been killed because it has already killed someone, is about as inane as an argument can possibly get. Subdue the tiger, using whatever means one has available at the time, if there is a strong likelihood that it will kill a human being. Whether or not the animal has already killed a human being is largely irrelevant to the issue.
I should note that your having dropped usage of the word “axiomatic” is some progress, but the underlying behavior–holding to a belief despite any evidence to the contrary–still remains.
@9…DJ…
What’s wrong with “axiomatic?” It’s a perfectly good word, synonomous with “self-evident.” It’s root, axiom, is, itself, defined as:
“A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.”
To say, then, that something is axiomatic is simply to say that it’s an obvious truism that can be accepeted without requiring proof. At law, judges take note of axiomatic principles by using the evidentiary principle of “judicial notice.” That water boils at 32 degrees Farenheit is an example of something axiomatic.
Again, what do you have against the use of a perfectly good English word?
As for the tiger? It was loose and mauling two other zoo patrons after having killed another, all this after the same 365 lbs female seriously injured one of its handlers a year ago.
“Police arrived to find the tiger on top of a victim. The tiger then started moving toward a group of approaching police officers, and they opened fire with handguns, Mannina said” http://news.nationalgeographic.....escap.html
Would you rather the animal be subdued via non-lethal means? Perhaps given a Miranda warning first?
“Don’t taz me, Zoo!”
Sorry, and again, no question that killing the animal was the right thing to do. Even had it been subdued, it would subsequently have to be destroyed given the fact that it killed a human being. There is no moral equivalency between the life of any animal and the life of a person.
As for rehab? Your comment evidences the truth of one of my foundational principles on the difference between liberals and conservatives: you think I’m somehow defective, deficient, or depraved, hence in need of rehabilitation. I simply believe you are wrong; education and life experience is the only cure for you.
Yet, since rehabilitation is part and parcel of redemption, something all of us need since we are by nature a mess, then, on that score, I’m willing to concede the point. Still, no man-made program, government or private, can result in this type of rehabilitaiton, which, per Geov’s linked story, is what we call a “God thing.”
Fairly axiomatic, if you ask me…
The Piper
Sorry…people first, animals second.
Such syllogistic idiocy leads to all sorts of illuminating flaws in one’s hermeneutics:
people first, animals second
religious people first, atheists second;
xTian people first, all other people of different faiths second;
white xTian people first, all people of color second;
white xTian fundamentalist/evangelicals(1) first, all other white xtians second;
rich white xTian(1) people first, all other white people second
rich white xTian(1) people like me first, all other rich white xTian(1) people are animals.
Or perhaps another way to look at such an arbitrary axiom: Utterly dependent as people are on gut bacteria, one might wonder what would happen if, out of pure human chauvinistic arrogance, one were to rid ourselves entirely of those disgusting, dangerous monerans (afterall, they do kill people all the time, especially when they make their way into the upper part of the alimentary canal)? Yes, let’s make sure, for humanity’s sake, that we kill off all the other potentially dangerous species first before they get us.
@11…Spyder…
Your argument holds water as well as a sieve.
People first, animals second makes no distinction between types or groups of people; when the issue comes down to saving a human life by destroying an animal one, no distinction is made as to the unworthiness of the human life versus the worthiness of the animal’s.
Per your reasoning, the life of an animal and the life of a human being are morally equivalent, a principle to which I don’t subscribe. Goats aren’t entitled to the vote.
The Piper
Attention troll whackjobs: The Christmas Truce is OVER and the richly-deserved bashing of you unpatriotic, un-American, sheep-fucking baby rapers will now resume!
@1 Why not just turn it loose in a GOP “dirty tricks” boiler room, where it could do some good?
@2 “Given that the tiger in question has a history of mauling … anything less than a bullet is unhealthy for humanity.”
Given that the GOP has a history of mauling truth and decency, what would you suggest for them?
@2 (continued) “Argue about the morality of zoos all you want, but when an animal starts killing people, it’s time to destroy the animal.”
Why? Why not let the animals win once in a while? Why should humans always win? You humans feel soooo entitled.
Piper,
I have nothing against words, least of all the word “axiomatic”. It’s an absolutely wonderful word when used properly. It’s the fact that you’ve used it improperly that requires some remedial work on your part.
And, by the way, the word “axiomatic” does not mean that the statement is self-evident. It means that the statement is taken for granted, or, more precisely, an axiomatic issue is one that cannot be proved–i.e. it represents a statement of fact that must be assumed to be true.
You have a rather conspicuous habit of assuming certain things to be true when you are the only “self” to whom the “truth” of the statement is in any way “evident”–hence my observation that, when you use the word “axiomatic” it means that you assume something to be true regardless of any contrary evidence anyone else is able to bring to the fore.
As for the tiger business, I’ve taken issue with the line of reasoning you’ve used to reach your conclusion, not the conclusion you’ve reached. Perhaps you’ve forgotten your truth tables for the “implies” operator? Whatever the case, your digression into tazers is entirely irrelevant to the issue, and certainly is not a conclusion that can be reached based on the principle I articulated.
As for “rehab,” one really does have to wonder how “rehab” is, in any conceivable way, any different than the “education and life experience” that you suggest is my cure. Clearly, you think I’m in need of some rehabilitation, based on your steadfast belief that I’m “wrong” in some way. I should, however, point out the real difference between your stance and mine. My stance is based on my observations of your persistent inability to construct a coherent argument based on shared assumptions. Your stance is based on nothing more than the fact that I reach different conclusion from yours, and has absolutely no consideration of the quality of the arguments we are able to must in support of those conclusions.
To articulate the difference in slightly different terms, you care not one whit about how people reach their conclusions so long as their conclusions are “correct” in your estimation. I don’t care all that much about the conclusions people reach, so long as they get there via sound reasoning and argument. For you, it’s all about the destination. For me, it’s all about the journey.
Which brings me to “redemption”–yet another of your digressions into dark intellectual alleys where careful thought and reasoning is nowhere to be found. You begin with the “axiomatic” notion that we are all flawed in some way, which, ironically, stands in stark contradiction to your previous observation about the difference between conservatives and liberals.
You conclude by declaring this a “God thing,” but I notice that you’ve side-stepped my parenthetic question. I’m left to wonder, and am moved to ask again, would you approve of a “faith-based” initiative conducted by Muslims? What about Jews? Or Baha’is? Or is this “God thing” of yours confined to your particular notion of “God” and exclusive of any other conceptions of “Godness”?
@14…RR…
Better yet, unleash it at Green Lake after conditioning it to have a taste for fresh rabbit.
Frankly, in a snatch and scratch between you and the tiger, I’d be hard pressed not to go Swiss.
The Piper
@7 “Sorry…people first, animals second. Animals that kill people have to be destroyed, pure and simple; it’s not a level moral playing field.”
My deer, bear, and whale friends think turnabout is fair play, and people who kill animals should be destroyed, pure and simple — what do you think of that??!
Hm…
“Goats aren’t entitled to the vote.”
But, apparently, sheep are, which is why we’ve been suffering through the second term of the worst president, by far, in our nation’s history.
You humans are soooo arrogant …
@7: I agree again with Piper
People first, animals second – besides, the animal was about to attack again.
If you want to debate about deadly animals being kept at zoos – that is another debate. Deadly animals attacking humans – there is no debate. A tranquilizer is too slow and too inaccurate to save an already mauled perosn from another attack.
@17…DJ…
Your contention that I use “axiomatic” incorrectly is something about which we’ll agree to disagree. As I recall, the debate over my use of the word originated in my use of it to propound a statement of political fact about digging holes. Consider this:
“ax·i·o·mat·ic (ks–mtk) also ax·i·o·mat·i·cal (–kl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident: ‘It’s axiomatic in politics that voters won’t throw out a presidential incumbent unless they think his challenger will clean house’ Peter Grier.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/axiomatic
The quoted example is fairly similar to the one I used, so I’m content with my command of the language.
When I refer to something as being “self-evident” (nee, axiomatic), it’s not belief-system based. Instead, it’s applicable for all people, under all circumstances, for all time.
In re the tiger…two points: (1) it had already killed one person, and (2) it was in the process of killing another when it was shot, both sufficient, in my book, to shoot it dead. It represented both a clear danger to human life as well as having already taken life, both good reasons to take its life.
Your niggling comment, below, renders a critical point irrelevent:
“your reasoning, or lack thereof, on the whole tiger issue is ample evidence that rehab is necessary. Your argument, essentially that the tiger should have been killed because it has already killed someone, is about as inane as an argument can possibly get. Subdue the tiger, using whatever means one has available at the time, if there is a strong likelihood that it will kill a human being. Whether or not the animal has already killed a human being is largely irrelevant to the issue.”
Animals that kill people must be destroyed irrespective of whether the animal appears likely to kill again; certain risks aren’t worth taking. The tiger killed a human being – a very relevent fact – and, accordingly, its destruction is necessary. That it was also in the act of seriously injuring another human being made its destruction an immediate imperative. Any other choice would have been irresponsible.
Again…if you want to argue whether it’s wise or foolish to house such animals in zoos, have at it; that’s not the issue here.
Rehabilitation is defined:
“re·ha·bil·i·tate (rh-bl-tt)
tr.v. re·ha·bil·i·tat·ed, re·ha·bil·i·tat·ing, re·ha·bil·i·tates
1. To restore to good health or useful life, as through therapy and education.
2. To restore to good condition, operation, or capacity.
3. To reinstate the good name of.
4. To restore the former rank, privileges, or rights of.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rehabilitation
You originally contended:
“Perhaps some of our wingnut regulars will read the feel-good story that Geov linked and find that it inspires them to embark upon their own rehabilitation efforts.”
This implies that somehow “wingnut regulars” are in poor health, don’t have useful lives, are in bad condition, etc., which is an opinion, not a fact. This opinion implies that conservatives are somehow defective, hence in need of repair. I, on the other hand, contend merely that you are misguided and that, given sufficient enlightment, you can be brought out of the darkness and into the light.
What’s disturbing about your thinking is your implicit contention that a POV other than your own is not just wrong, but also illegitimate or immoral to the extent that a person who holds it is also illegitimate or immoral.
Goldy’s opinions render him a political putz, in my opinion. But he demonstrates well more than sufficient care and concern about his daughter and his community such that I have no qualms about calling him a good dad and a concerned citizen. Ditto, in a general sense, many other liberals.
I take it as a given that we don’t share many assumptions, hence the near impossibility to find much in the way of common ground. Yet I don’t agree that I’m exclusively results oriented while you worship at the altar of process.
Perfect analysis that results in wrong conclusions is worthless. At least a right answer arrived at via a flawed process is still a right answer. Both process and product are important, and I respect each.
The bottom line remains: killing the tiger was the right and necessary thing to do.
The Piper
Piper,
Fascinating. In justification of your improper use of the word “axiomatic,” you quote a dictionary that justifies its definition by providing a clear example of misuse of the word. How many online dictionaries did you have to try before you settled on that one?
But, again, you miss the point. Generally, one declares a statement to be axiomatic, because there is general agreement amongst the persons participating in the discussion that the statement is true. You use the word “axiomatic” as a form of rhetorical convenience to dismiss a controversial issue, to assert that the truth of the statement is not subject to debate and to avoid having to exert any effort to actually establish the truth of the statement.
The proof of that pudding, as it were, is in the observation that, when you’ve used the word, people here have produced examples that stood as evidence to the contrary.
As for my suggestion that the intellectual light-weights who frequent this space attempting to argue in favor of the right-wing point of view are in need of rehabilitation, I must confess to having assumed that you clowns were actually taught, as I was in high school, how to construct a coherent argument based on shared assumptions. If my assumption is flawed, I’m more than happy to be corrected. Nevertheless, that doesn’t change the observation I’ve made about the obvious inability to construct a coherent argument.
By the way, I have no idea where you get the idea that I’m concerned with people’s points of view. I’ve repeatedly stated that I’m concerned with people’s inability to construct a coherent argument in favor of their point of view. A tad more on this later.
Which brings me to your comments regarding “correct” conclusions reached via flawed reasoning–comments which, I might add, go a long way to proving my point for me. In this vein, there are two points worth making.
1) People who reach a “correct” conclusion via flawed reasoning will likely reach seriously flawed conclusions when they apply that same reasoning to a different set of facts. For example, let’s apply your tiger reasoning to a situation where a rattle snake bites an inattentive hiker out in the desert. If the hiker dies, your reasoning would require us to go out and hunt down the snake in order to kill it (presumably resorting to DNA evidence in order to identify the specific snake). After all, it has now killed a human.
2) When presented with a sound argument that reaches an “incorrect” conclusion, those who are intellectually honest would tend to reassess the correctness of the conclusion. But you. As one to whom the point of view itself is sacrosanct, you would never subject your conclusions to such revision in the light of new evidence or a coherent argument.
Piper, you have, indeed, forgotten your truth tables regarding the “implies” operator. A conclusion reached via perfect process cannot be a flawed conclusion. The statement, T -> F, is false.
Lastly, again, I note that you’ve not answered my questions regarding faith-based works. At this point, we can reasonably conclude that the only faith-based efforts that would meet your approval are those conducted by Christians. I’d ask the next question (regarding particularly approved subsets of “Christians”), but I see no point in asking a question you clearly will not deign to answer.
PuddyPo you still here?
?
This WAS a slow news day until police found six bodies in a rural Carnation home. It appears a whole family was wiped out. Two suspects are in custody.
@24…DJ…
Enjoy playing little sophistry games, do you?
Faith-based works…Each to his own. The article originally linked by Geov dealt with a Christian rehab program, and I’ll freely admit that that’s well within my comfort zone; I’ve worked with Christian, faith-based programs for the homeless for a long time, and I know that they can be effective and make a difference.
As to programs run by other faiths, it’s a free country, and those faiths have the absolute right to exercise their religious tenets in a rehab context.
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (hard copy, not on-line):
“Axiomatic, adj. 1. Of, pertaining to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident: ‘It is axiomatic that the Negro is religious, which is to say that he stands in fear of the God our ancestros gave us’ (James Baldwin). 2. Aphoristic.”
“Axiom, n. 1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; maxim. 2. An established rule, principle, or law…”
From Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary – Unabridged (hard copy, not on-line):
“Axiomatic, a. 1. pertaining to or like an axiom; of obvious truth; self-evident. 2. full of maxims; aphoristic.”
“Axiom, n. 1. a self-evident truth or a \proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight that no process of reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; as, the whole is greater than a part. 2. an established principle in some art or science; a principle received without new proof. 3. a statement universilly accepted as true. Syn. – maxim, aphorism, adage.”
From The American College Dictionary (hard copy, not on-line and a volume I’ve had since 1966):
“axiomatic, adj. 1. pertaining to or of the nature of an axiom; self-evident. 2. aphoristic.
“axiom, n. 1. a recognized truth. 2. an established and universally accepted principle or rule. 3. Logic, Math., etc. a proposition which is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.”
From Black’s Law Dictionary (hard copy, not on-line):
“In logic. A self-evident truth; an indisputable truth.”
Which of these is incorrect?
When I use the term, “axiomatic” I do so in a general sense relative to a well established or self-evident truth. For example, it’s axiomatic in politics that when your opponent is digging himself a hole, don’t interfere. Among those who muck about in such things, that principle is a given.
If you wish to debate whether certain behavior equates to hole-digging, then have at it, but the essential truism of the governing proposition doesn’t change.
Oft times correct answers are reached through flawed processes; your guess is as good as mine. A column of figures added incorrectly can still yield a correct answer either by mistake or happenstance. Also, the “perfect” process can yield an imperfect result; the best laid plans of mice and men…
There are universally applicable truths and then there are personal ones. It’s true for me that cooked cabbage is an abomination. While the same may not be so for you, it has always been that way for me, and there’s no doubt that it always will be that way for me.
The same reasoning applies to certain behaviors in people. Since no two humans are alike, you can take 100 of them, apply the same stimulus to each and get 100 different results. People aren’t mathematical equations, they’re people.
In the case of the tiger, it’s not comparable to an animal in the wild, which isn’t the property of any person or organization. The tiger killed someone, it was in the process of killing another, it had a history of violence toward humans, and, per one animal authority I heard on TV this evening, predatory animals such as this, once they go over the edge, develop a taste for it.
The tiger is a captive animal, not living in the wild. What would you do? Put it back on display? No…for the safety of people, its destruction was necessary for what it had done and for what it might do in the future.
You seek to apply a mathematic precision to the vagueries of the human condition and human experience; we’re not automatons.
Implicit in your thinking is that a non-right-wing POV must always be correct, and we both know that in that regard, you’re the clown, not me.
You subsume your contemptuous and results-oriented political thinking in supercilious technical jargon and haughty rhetoric. And you are completely without wit or charm, which, in some quarters, is ocnsidered the ultimate sin, ergo you become boring in your pomposity.
Have a nice Boxing Day…
The Piper
Score:Piper +10 DJ -10
Piper,
If your aim is to take issue with my statement, “And, by the way, the word “axiomatic” does not mean that the statement is self-evident,” you would be correct in so far as you’ve focused on that statement irrespective of context. My fault, I suppose, for absentmindedly omitting the word “simply” between “does not” and “mean”. Lesson learned: Piper will take a single statement, not consider anything else that’s been said, quote dictionaries at you, and then accuse you of sophistry.
As for how I interpret your usage of the term, I harken back to this comment:
“It’s axiomatic in politics and publicity that every mention of your name is a plus”
(http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3658#comment-704800)
Tell that to Mark Foley, or Larry Craig.
Or to this comment:
“It’s axiomatic to me that anyone who runs for president is to one degree or another ego-centric.”
(http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3432#comment-691651)
So much for your distinction between universal and personal truths, or was your addition of the phrase “to me” simply a typo?
The tiger issue is getting amusing. You said, “Animals that kill people must be destroyed irrespective of whether the animal appears likely to kill again.” Now, you assert, “No…for the safety of people, its destruction was necessary for what it had done and for what it might do in the future.” (emphasis mine)
Little wonder that some of us find your reasoning to be less than coherent, though, as “Me” clearly shows, there are some who are fooled by your attempts to sound like William F Buckley even though your rhetoric fails to even remotely approach the substance.
About me, you aver, “You seek to apply a mathematic precision to the vagueries of the human condition and human experience; we’re not automatons.”
Ah, no. I seek to find people capable of summoning sound logic in their rhetoric, and I wish for that rhetoric to not simply sweep contentious issues under the rug. I seek to find people whose assumptions are open to question in light of new evidence and experience–people who do not cling to flawed processes by rationalizing away the results of those processes behind platitudes like “the best laid plans.”
Consider:
“Implicit in your thinking is that a non-right-wing POV must always be correct, and we both know that in that regard, you’re the clown, not me.”
This is, truly, an amazing assertion for you to make. You, the one who is assiduously defending the notion that it’s OK to reach a “correct” conclusion through flawed reasoning, start by asserting as “implicit” in my thinking that which is diametrically opposed to what I’ve said, and then proceed to suggest that I’m the clown. Is this your notion of wit and charm?
If I consider the assumptions valid and the reasoning sound, then I will accept an argument’s conclusion as valid regardless of what point of view the conclusion represents. You can test this by actually presenting a coherent argument based on assumptions with which I agree. One hopes you’ll give a better effort on this than you have with respect to dangerous animals.
@30…DJ…
Let’s cut to the chase: Yours is a subjective analytical approach that demands acquiescence to assumptions that YOU consider valid with which YOU agree and reasoning that YOU consider sound.
Baloney.
Just because you assume it doesn’t make it so. Your thinking isn’t at the center of anyone’s universe save your own. Consider – you might want to sit down for this – that it could be possible that many, if not most, of your “assumptions” are heavy in the “ass” department and short on anything else.
In other words, yours is flat-earth thinking grounded upon false assumptions not universally true.
Consider also – this might tax you, so again, please be seated – that your judgment as to the validity of assumptions or the soundness of reasoning is neither determinative or of consequence to anyone save you.
You insist on a level of mathematical precision in the imprecise and ambivalent, which tells me that your people skills are probably pretty lousy; yours is an orthodoxy devoutly to be foisted off on others.
Take the tiger: for any number of reasons, employing any number of theories, the tiger’s death was necessary. That I can argue the validity of that in the alternative seems to confuse you, which tells me you’re not good at looking over the fence into other realms of possibility.
The tiger killed a human being, and that alone warrants its destruction. The tiger posed a present and future threat, and that alone warrants its destruction. Either theory works irrespective of the fact that they may appear to a limited mind to be irreconcilable.
Much of life is irreconcilable, so why engage in an exercise in futility? Instead, learn to become comfortable in ambiguity and the mutually exclusive.
And consider also: Yours does indeed stink.
Axioms can be both universal and personal. Jefferson held certain truths to be axiomatic without bothering to prove them. That what he considered self-evident doesn’t seem to be controlling to you (“…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” – I submit the “Creator” part holds no particular place in your personal pantheon of values) doesn’t void the fundamental truth of his statements.
It continues axiomatic for me that cooked cabbage is awful. You are perfectly entitled to consider otherwise.
While I’m flattered that you would compare me to William F. Buckley, I claim no effort to be, think, or write like anyone other than myself; my voice is my own, thank you.
You claim to “seek to find people whose assumptions are open to questions in light of new evidence and experience,” yet you continue to be about as flexible as a cheap pane of glass. You tout your virture while castigating my vice, which by itself is ample evidence of your stuffy-minded hubris.
Thing what you wish and reason as you like; it’s still a free country. But don’t insist that others read from your page since there’s more than one way to skin a tiger.
The Piper
Piper,
Hm… To require assumptions that are grounded in observable reality, to require reasoning that follows generally accepted principles of logic, this is your notion of a subjective analytical approach? And, for this, you go to great lengths to defend an approach that, essentially, dispenses with any reasonable analysis whatsoever?
I have to admit, it’s been fun watching you rationalize away your intellectual laziness. Thank you for playing.