Re: OT: Snit's extremely bizarre and antisocial ideas on truth and proof...

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-133EA1.18263827062007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/27/07 5:26 PM:

In article <C2A819D3.85CB3%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-02ACD9.11264427062007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/27/07 10:26 AM:

The facts remain:

In math and strict logic one can provide proof. In a court
room one cannot provide such proof - so "knowing" someone
did something beyond a reasonable doubt is about the best we
can ask for.

This "knowing" tautology you are feebly using here is called "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt"... and just today I provided quotes showing *you* using that
term... why... here is one of them now:

"Even in a court case (which this is not) absolute proof is not required, only
"proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - Snit

Ready to stop your hypocritical foolishness with tautologies YET? LOL!

Contrary to your obvious delusion, there is nothing special about a
courtroom that renders mathematical proofs unavailable for use inside of
one. But this is irrelevant anyway... which, as we all know, is *why* you
are talking about it:)

Anyone not see the flaw in Steve's reply?

Why not point it out yourself? As I read this post I see you stating that
proof can only be provided in "math and strict logic"... but it "cannot" be
provided in a courtroom. This necessarily means that *you* believe that math
or strict logic are never utilized inside of a courtroom. Here is the
definition of proof as provided by you:

"The definition of proof is: "a formal series of statements showing that if
one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it"." - Snit

According to your statement, if we utilize your definition of the word
"proof", there has never been (and can never be) a situation in a courtroom
where "proof" can be shown for "one thing" to be "true"... (not one single
thing... I suggest you think of how HUGE the implications are there).

So... do you still stand by your statement here? Your definition of the word
proof? Anything you wish to change?

All this pontificating and and semantic side stepping from you, Steve, based
on my telling you such a simple thing:

In math and strict logic one can provide proof. In a court
room one cannot provide such proof - so "knowing" someone
did something beyond a reasonable doubt is about the best we
can ask for.

Nobody, Steve, other than you is so ignorant, hate filled, desperate for
revenge, and outright irrational that you would find that to be
objectionable.


--
? It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
? No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
? Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most

.

Relevant Pages