[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?

[Joe Campbell]

Well, I'm happy to do an independent study on alternative logics, if
you'd like. They don't teach that stuff but they should. Turns out
that we use complex variables (imaginary numbers) to determine the
orbits of objects in our solar system!

Personally, I strive to present my arguments in the language of
classical, first-order logic!

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at frontier.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/2013 2:34 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Wilson's argument -- the argument you defend -- is a fallacy. It even has
>> a name: The slippery-slope fallacy. (Though there are conceptual
>> slippery-slope arguments too that are very different.)
>>
>> Even if you put the argument in the form of a conditional -- If it's OK
>> for any two consenting adults of either gender to marry, then it is OK for
>> any three or more consenting adults of any gender to marry -- you still need
>> an argument for the conditional. On the face of it, it seems pretty easy to
>> distinguish the cases: Does he have one wife, or more than one? You say you
>> see "the point" but I don't see the point, or the connection between a gay
>> marriage between two consenting adults and a polygamous relationship.
>>
>> Unless the connection is that the government should stay out of the
>> marriage business, which would be fine, and polygamy would be fine, too, if
>> it weren't for fact that some adults will exploit the circumstances and
>> marry tweens. Fact. That is why government is in the marriage business. We
>> need to protect the young and vulnerable, and thus we need laws against
>> certain types of unions.
>>
>> Here the defense is an appeal to the harm principle: One can make a law to
>> protect citizens from harm (including harms to their interests). If there is
>> no good reason to think that something will lead to a harm, the law should
>> stay out of it. That protects us against pedophiles but allows for gay
>> marriage.
>
>
> Interesting.  Does this conversation presage the availability of courses in
> three-value, trinary, or ternary logic?
>
> I note that the Russians built a ternary electronic computer in 1958, and
> improved it in 1970.
>
>
> Ken