Re: Need recommendations: bad historical romances

b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx (Brian M. Scott) wrote on 03.01.06 in <142f9xp7vu96b$.1dnwgkq5lcfdf.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>:

> On 03 Jan 2006 09:45:00 +0200, Kai Henningsen
> <kaih=9lA5W8wXw-B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> <news:9lA5W8wXw-B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
> > ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David Friedman) wrote on
> > 02.01.06 in <ddfr-1D32A7.08490502012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > com>:
>
> >> Part of my reason for putting the question is that the "it's the
> >> robber's fault--tough luck if it he is killed" intuition depends on a
> >> fairly strong intuition that you really own your property,
>
> > That seems nonsensical - I certainly share that intuition, but disagree
> > strongly on the conclusion.
>
> Let A be the intuition that you really own your own
> property, and let B be the intuition that it's the robber's
> fault, so tough luck if he's killed. David's claim, at
> least as stated here, is merely that A implies B, not that B
> implies A. Your belief that B doesn't imply A is therefore
> not incompatible with his claim.

I seem to have been unclear. The intuition I share is the one about
property, not the one about tough luck. In other words, that A does not
imply B.

> >> hence taking
> >> it from you by force is a serious violation of your rights.
>
> > Yes, so?
>
> > "Strong violation of (some) rights" does not justify killing.
>
> David didn't say that it does. Again, he's not claiming
> that B implies A; he's saying only that you can't get A
> *without* B, i.e., that A implies B. I quite agree with you
> that in order to get from B to A, you need some additional
> premise, but that's not inconsistent with David's claim.

See above; that's certainly not what I meant.

Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Need recommendations: bad historical romances
    ... > ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David Friedman) wrote on ... > That seems nonsensical - I certainly share that intuition, ... least as stated here, is merely that A implies B, not that B ... > "Strong violation of rights" does not justify killing. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1
    ... > the distributive law would help fix someone's wrong intuition? ... "Intuition" is a vague term: there is a "intuition" which grows ... ONLY alternative for Gina is between -1 and 1 this would explain why ... implies C which ... ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Marketing efforts: First feedback
    ... David Friedman wrote: ... unlikely to be a random event. ... intuition, so I've trained myself to be very careful of such claims. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)