Guns and Intent

In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion.[2][3]

The proof of this principle was first given by 12th-century French philosopher William of Soissons.[4] Due to the principle of explosion, the existence of a contradiction (inconsistency) in a formal axiomatic system is disastrous; since any statement can be proven, it trivializes the concepts of truth and falsity.[5] Around the turn of the 20th century, the discovery of contradictions such as Russell's paradox at the foundations of mathematics thus threatened the entire structure of mathematics. Mathematicians such as Gottlob Frege, Ernst Zermelo, Abraham Fraenkel, and Thoralf Skolem put much effort into revising set theory to eliminate these contradictions, resulting in the modern Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.

As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist", by using the following argument:

1. We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
2. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
3. Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow OR unicorns exist" must also be true, since the first part is true.
4. However, since we know that "Not all lemons are yellow" (as this has been assumed), the first part is false, and hence the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist.

Click to expand...

Unicorns exist because all lemons are yellow!

Change my mind!!!

I would like to assume full responsibility for the International Atheist Association, the organization behind this website as well as the radicalization of youths everywhere, as well as publicly announce my status as CEO of Atheism.

Dragan Glas said:

Greetings,


Hovind isn't much better - when I read that he'd been a science teacher for eleven years in high school...

Kindest regards,

James

Click to expand...

I kinda have a bit of respect for Kent Hovind. He has his own crazy ideas about taxes and seems to not give 2 fucks about going to prison for what he believes in. Federal prison is not as easy. I would probably renounce Christianity in 1 second if it kept me from doing another year or 2 behind bars.

But Kent was also the guy who always talked about this weird idea of the atmosphere being encapsuled in ice and that when the ice broke it cause the global flood or something like that. It always sounded crazy to me. I think Walt Browns ideas about a global flood are better

Sparhafoc said:

Principle of explosion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unicorns exist because all lemons are yellow!

Change my mind!!!

Click to expand...

That's a really quite lovely exposition of explosion for Wiki.

Led Zeppelin said:

I think Walt Browns ideas about a global flood are better

Click to expand...

There are no ideas concerning a global flood in the history of the Earth extending well before humans that are better or worse than any other, because they're all exactly as wrong. It never happened. Demonstrably. No global floods in all the time encapsulated by this diagram:

The bottom of the diagram is 4.5 billion to 4 billion years ago, and no global floods in all that time.

Greetings,

Led Zeppelin said:

I kinda have a bit of respect for Kent Hovind. He has his own crazy ideas about taxes and seems to not give 2 fucks about going to prison for what he believes in. Federal prison is not as easy. I would probably renounce Christianity in 1 second if it kept me from doing another year or 2 behind bars.

Click to expand...

I liked the way the judge dealt with him

When Hovind said he believed the bible, and didn't believe in paying taxes, the judge quoted the bible to him: "Render unto God what is God's, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - in other words, pay your taxes!

Nice one, judge!

Led Zeppelin said:

But Kent was also the guy who always talked about this weird idea of the atmosphere being encapsuled in ice and that when the ice broke it cause the global flood or something like that. It always sounded crazy to me. I think Walt Browns ideas about a global flood are better

Click to expand...

Neither idea is true.

Kindest regards,

James

Dragan Glas said:

A gun is a weapon. It's purpose is to fire a projectile with enough force to destroy its target.

Click to expand...

Semantics aside (I'm not bothered about the weapon/tool distinction, I find tool more befitting for reasons I've already gone into, but whatever) but this is still incorrect, and with respect, just as false as the claim made by the OP on page one.
"Destruction" is one use or function, and when the subject matter is that of humans as per the OP, this is not even the most common usage. But even if it were, no odds, destruction isn't the only function or purpose, as has been demonstrated over and over again in this thread.

To shoot a paper target (for example) is no more "destruction" than when you or I throw a dart at a dart board in a pub, something I'm confident we're both at least somewhat familiar with. The idea is accuracy, for self gratification, sport, competition, or just a friendly "who can outperform the other" kinda thing.

Dragan Glas said:

To call it a "tool" is the same sort of linguistic dancing-round-the-mulberry-bush as the military indulge in when they refer to bombs and missiles as "ordnance", and bombers and launchers as "ordnance delivery systems".

Click to expand...

It's not dancing around. A "gun" is usually a tool in much the same respect as any other "tool" you might care to mention. Can it be misused? Yes. Can it cause harm? Yes. So can a spoon.
No one (I hope) wants to ban spoons because someone could potentially scoop your eyeball out with one.

Dragan Glas said:

Hunters shoot to kill, not injure. And it should be noted that shooting birds on country estates was referred to as "sport".

Click to expand...

Shoot to kill, yes, the second part is a red herring.

Dragan Glas said:

The fact that modern uses include non-lethal ones - IDPA, etc - does not change the original, intended purpose of guns.

Click to expand...

The original "intent" of inventing guns is irrelevant, as already discussed in this thread, but even granting that the original intent was to do nothing other than kill humans, so what?
The original intent of crafting wooden spoons might have been to scoop the innards out of kiwi fruits, it doesn't matter and is another red herring.

Apropos of very little of consequence (I thought I'd already mentioned this earlier in the thread, but apparently not), the first things that could reasonably be called guns were designed as siege weapons, mostly for breaking walls, rather than killing people.

hackenslash said:

Apropos of very little of consequence (I thought I'd already mentioned this earlier in the thread, but apparently not), the first things that could reasonably be called guns were designed as siege weapons, mostly for breaking walls, rather than killing people.

Click to expand...

Not trying to be a pain in the arse, but it's not clear to me who (if either of us) you're agreeing with here, could you expand a bit please?

21st Demon Lord said:

Why would I feel any kinship towards random strangers on the basis of what they believe or do not?

Click to expand...

We are all brothers. I am embarrassed of the way I used fight and troll this forum and will suggest that you do not do the same. Why should I be mad at someone like Hackenslash because of my inability to convince him of the claims I make about Christianity? You seem also unable to convince people of even lesser claims that dont really seem to have a point and then quibble about them instead of admitting a mistake and moving on.

Led Zeppelin said:

We are all brothers. I am embarrassed of the way I used fight and troll this forum and will suggest that you do not do the same. Why should I be mad at someone like Hackenslash because of my inability to convince him of the claims I make about Christianity? You seem also unable to convince people of even lesser claims that dont really seem to have a point and then quibble about them instead of admitting a mistake and moving on.

Click to expand...

I am not mad at the Hack, I just wont stand for being insulted on and on and on again.
I have enough self respect to not let myself be abused by someone that decided he does not like me.

Let me tell you a secret about the internet, it only works if you ignore 99% of the people on it.

21st Demon Lord said:

I am not mad a the Hack, I just wont stand for being insulted on and on and on again.
I have enough self respect to not let myself be abused by someone that decided he does not like me.

Click to expand...

Oh give over already. You aren't being abused in any way, shape or form by anyone. Sometimes discussions here get spicy, it's always been that way and whilst there's breath in my body it always will be. This is not a safe space.

*SD* said:

It's not dancing around. A "gun" is usually a tool in much the same respect as any other "tool" you might care to mention. Can it be misused? Yes. Can it cause harm? Yes. So can a spoon.
No one (I hope) wants to ban spoons because someone could potentially scoop your eyeball out with one.

Click to expand...

A gun is not a tool, but a weapon.
You know .. by definition.

21st Demon Lord said:

A gun is not a tool, but a weapon.
You know .. by definition.

Click to expand...

No, not by definition, unless you want to (excuse the pun, actually don't, it's deliberate) bite the bullet on a plethora of other things also being classed as weapons. This is called a reductio, and shows your position to be absurd.

@Dragan Glas Thank you! Finally someone that gets it.

*SD* said:

Not trying to be a pain in the arse, but it's not clear to me who (if either of us) you're agreeing with here, could you expand a bit please?

Click to expand...

I wasn't agreeing with anyone, really. I was undermining the notion that the primary design purpose of guns was killing people.

*SD* said:

No, not by definition, unless you want to (excuse the pun, actually don't, it's deliberate) bite the bullet on a plethora of other things also being classed as weapons. This is called a reductio, and shows your position to be absurd.

Click to expand...

So we are back at arguing about the dictionary again?
Well, we are in philosophy, so I guess, anything goes.

21st Demon Lord said:

@Dragan Glas Thank you! Finally someone that gets it.

Click to expand...

Stop slurping.

21st Demon Lord said:

So we are back at arguing about the dictionary again?
Well, we are in philosophy, so I guess, anything goes.

Click to expand...

Another assembly of words without really saying anything.

*SD* said:

Stop slurping.

Click to expand...

Dont be jealous.