“Not found” is a definitive passive verb, it does not leave room to find what is being mentioned.
both sides arguing about ‘not found’ are being eristic. find a way back to the topic maybe?
No. The connotation is different. The word “observed” is more ‘formal’ than the word “found”. If the length were the only criterion, no one would use “annoy” because they could merely using “vex”. Yet, how often do you see the word “vex”?
A: “Sir have you found all that is discoverable in the universe yet?”
B: “I don’t know. It hasn’t been found.”
C: “What hasn’t been found?”
D: “I don’t know, but I’m not that stupid to think all has been discovered - that would counter science itself!”
404 - Post not found.
We’re sorry, the post you’re looking for cannot be found.
Please check the address in the address bar and try again.
It is hard to judge what would have happened had Socrates lived. Now his death may have inspired a book, but it’s the ideas that had an even greater effect. Obviously, if Socrates’ ideas did not matter, no one would have cared if he died, even if he did stand up for what he believed in. I think it’s silly to suggest Socrates’ martyrdom was the strongest factor in his influence. Martyrdom to me is to me, irrational suicide. Dying for the sake of dying rather than trying to live at any cost in order to spread one’s ideas.
( I mentioned nothing about what is a worthy cost, so I do not mean to suggest that being alive is always the best option. If I had a choice between being a conformist zombie, or death, I’d choose neither. I’d live my life my own way. If someone kills me for that, so be it.)
In regards to writing not being Socrates’ style, that’s just unfortunate for him. That’s one of his flaws I think.
And? I did not say that his assertion is correct. I merely said that your attack is a strawman. If we assume that verb passivity + habitual aspect implies that the statement is true with respect to all individuals (i.e., that the statement claims that no individuals have ever found a black swan), your attack is still a riduculous strawman. He merely claimed that no individual has found (i.e., observed) a black swan and then he retracted his statement. He never said that he could prove that an object does not exist (i.e., “prove a negative”).
Karl Menger was a mathematician, and to my knowledge, established no schools based on “scholarly intellect” (whatever that means). Carl Menger, on the other hand… Nor can Austrian economics be considered an ideology.
I think Lam is spot on here. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast distinction that allows cocercion to be considered wrong but other sorts of behaviour (that may make people worse off) allowable. I can make your life living hell without so much as touching you, on the other hand, I can hit you and the bruise will be gone within days. The general argument goes that I shouldn’t be allowed to limit your choices or impose costs on you, but I can do that without so much as laying a finger on you.
If you’re starving on an island with enough food to feed only one of your children, by not giving you bread that you could otherwise use to feed both your children I’m essentially imposing a cost on you, the life of one of your sons. But I’m not using aggression in the Rothbardian sense.
The application of the words “aggression” and “coercion” differs via your conception of property rights. Thus, aggression and coercion is always “wrong”. The variable is whether you believe that property should be individually owned or collectively owned et cetera.
You neglect what “not found” is elongated into: “not to be found” with the passive infinitive being unnecessary. In LaughingMan’s use of “not found”:
he uses the present tense, and hence it is a definitive statement asserting that black swans do not exist in nature. Had he used a pluperfect: “had not been found” that would have expressed that previous attempts to find a black swan have failed, but it would not say that present attempts to find a black swan will fail as using the present tense does. I’m not strawmanning him, I am simply calling him on a ridiculous statement.
No. The present tense in English usually implies the habitual aspect. Many other languages use the basic present tense to communicate basic present action but English usually does not which is why you can pretend to be speaking broken English if you say “I go to store!” while employing a heavy accent. As an example, if you are currently running and you want to communicate that, you would say “I am running” and not “I run”. The latter implies that you often run or that you habitually run or that you ran so often that running became a characteristic feature of the whole period of time. Thus, the claim that “black swans are not found in nature” implies that “an unspecified agent or set of agents not finding black swans in nature is a characteristic feature of a certain period of time”. If you assume that the unspecified agent or set of agents is the entire human population and if you assume that the certain period of time is the entirety of human history, the claim that “black swans are not found in nature” merely implies that “the failure to observe black swans is a characteristic feature of human history” and not that “black swans do not exist”.
If he had said that “black swans had not been found in nature”, that would imply that an unspecified agent or set of agents failed to find black swans in nature before an unspecified but implied past time. Thus, it would only imply that attempts previous to the implied past time failed and not that attempts previous to the present time failed and would thus not removed the possibility that humans have observed black swans. And, he clearly removed that possibility because he acknowledged his error when I posted the wikipedia.org link.
I think most people would agree that being “asked” to sign a document under threat of death is not voluntary. Voluntary implies there is no threat of harm behind the request. So I would beg to disagree that all actions are voluntary.
I don’t care for excuses when one is ashamed of what one has done to avoid death for we always have the option of voluntarily dying.
No, the engish english grammar of “had not been found” is a problematic statement while “not found” is a definitive statement. It is just the way the english language works.
He was wrong, and there was no way out but admitting he was wrong; admitting his error after the fact does not change a thing about his statement.
So you blame the victim instead of the aggressor? Nice. It must be the rape victims fault she was raped instead of choosing to die right? You are a loser in my book.
Every man must bear the responsibility of their actions; if you execute an innocent person, even though you might have a gun to your head when that action is commited, you still must bear the guilt for the action.
In rape, you don’t get that choice.
I’m fine with that.
I cannot say I disagree with you. I have to say this makes things more difficult, in terms of my stance. If a soldier claims that he was “forced” to kill others because otherwise he would be imprisoned, I cannot say that I think that is a really good defense. His claim is pretty much that he involuntarily was forced to do what he did. What do you have to say to financing the killing of others instead of choosing poverty?
I will grant you that.
Given I understand your position better, I have taken you off the loser list in my book.
unless the rapist doesnt much mind whether he rapes or murders you and gets a special kick from giving you the choice and delivering what you really want (sic)
one must distinguish between the liberty of the will and the concept of political liberty.
we all of us moral agents have a will that is at liberty. we choose to shoot innocents or abstain from that etc etc.
this liberty is inescapable. it is what we are.
politically our liberty is defined by the coercion inflicted on us (or absence thereof), by the force and immediate pressing clear threats of force.
soldiers cant claim that they were forced to kill innocents because of threats of coercion as a moral defence, they can only offer it by way of phsychological explanation.
if a government taxes or does not tax a product i am considering purchasing, they are illegitimately interfering with my political liberty( not the liberty of my will). thus i wil choose to forego the product , or trade for the product even despite the government taking their slice. my freely choosing does not exhonerate the governments coercion . how could it? coercion happens on the political sphere, not of that of the will.
I hope this helps. im sure i will be informed if it does not…
You mean that you would beg for life.