Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
: Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
: from.
:
: Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".
:
:You repeat the same nonsence.
:

And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
from.

Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".

[Remainder snipped unread as just more boring Eurotrash lunacy.]

Yeah, actually I know perfectly WHEN PROVING A NEGATIVE IS A FALLACY.
As you appear to have forgotten, I´ll tell you.

PROVING A NEGATIVE IS A FALLACY WHEN, AND ONLY WHEN, PROVING THE
NEGATIVE STATEMENT IS IMPOSSBLE. THAT´S WHY PROVING A NEGATIVE IS
SOMETIMES ALSO CALLED PROVING AN IMPOSSIBLE.

Tipical fallacous argument, actually does go in the opposite
direction, meaning a person A argues on the basis that X can´t be
proven not to be or not to exist, that X does exist.

Now, it´s not a fallacy to demand a proof of a negative statement, if
the negative statement in question is not one of the impossible to
prove ones.


Now, I ask you yet over again to back up your earlier statement.


Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : Einar wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : Do you think there's
: : : : : anything wrong with slavery?
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Very simple to answere, would you want to be a slave? If you think
: : : : :slavery is unfair treatment of you, it´s an unfair treatment of others
: : : : :as well.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that mandated my religion,
: : : : either.
: : : :
: : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : :
: : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that told me I wasn't allowed to
: : : : be armed to protect myself (including from the government).
: : : :
: : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : I'd suggest it's not so simple to answer as you think.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :What I´m preaching is toleration.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Toleration of what? Suppose I want to keep slaves and Rand wants to
: : : have sex with 7 year olds. How's your 'toleration' now?
: : :
: : :
: : :Why do you pick such extreme examples?
: : :
: :
: : Because you made a silly statement and I wanted to demonstrate its
: : silliness.
: :
: :
: :But they don´t do that. Just about any human endevour can be treated
: :in like manner if most extreme examples of failure are only chosen.
: :
:
: Then you need to stop making silly statements.
:
: :
: :You need to pick more representative examples. After all, to name an
: :example, no country in the world actually allows slavery. Though there
: :are couple of countries in which slavery is still believed to persist,
: :most of it happening inside Sudan. However, Sudan is an outlyer state,
: racticing many things like genocide that generally are aborred by the
: :world at large. So neither genocide nor slavery is representative.
: :
:
: You need to stop making such general statements then, as if
: "tolerance" is automatically a 'good thing'.
:
:I don´t think I ever said that all things should be tolerated, yet you
:sort of haranged me like I had done just that, and so did Rand.
:

You said "What I am preaching is tolerance" with no conditionals at
all. Now you're telling us you were lying and really only meant "What
I am preaching is tolerance for things I think you should have
tolerance for" or some such.

: :
: :If you read through my posts I´ve never preaced toleration of genocide
: r slavery.
: :
:
: You made a general, unqualified statement to try to proclaim your
: position as 'better'.
:
:No, that was you falling to that conclusion. In other words reading
:something into my statement which wasn´t contained within it.
:

I stupidly assumed you meant what you were saying. Now you tell us
you were actually lying.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

I think it was quite clear enough the whole time, what I did mean. You
and Rand chose to see it othervice.

Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Hop David wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: The fact remains that you apparently think it's sane to demand that
: someone prove a negative.
:
:
: No, you are insisting that it is the truth, completelly without any
: evidence to back it up. Then calling me a fool for doubting it.
:
:
: Pay attention to Fred. Negatives don't need backing up. If I claim
: there's no silicon on the moon, I need no cite.
:
:That is absurd. Then I could claim that the Moon is not made out of
:rock, or that the Sun does not contain Hydrogen, that bones do not
:contain calsium, etc.
:

And you could indeed do so and then be easily be proven incorrect. One
need simply point out that rocks have been brought back, that we have
spectrographs of the Sun showing hydrogen and that bones do indeed
contain calcium.

Most certainly. What he said was absurd, just the way I was showing to
be.

:The correct stance is to view it that all claims need a backing.
:

And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
from.

Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".

Hint: proving a negative is sometimes also called proving an
impossible.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Only impossible to prove statements result in a logical fallacy.

Einar

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 31 Aug, 04:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
: :AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
: :OF IN 1991.
: :
:
: Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.
:
:
:Surely the real issue was whether Hans Blix and the inspection team
:could go where they wanted. As I understand it after a little humming
:and haing over presidential sites they were allowed into Saddam
:Hussein's palaces.
:

That "humming and haing" amounted to "the United States is about to
invade if better access isn't forthcoming". At that point it was
pretty much too late to turn things back.

Even at that they were still getting intermittent barriers to free
inspection right up to just before the actual invasion.

:
:The issue is what the inspectors found when they did their inspection,
:which as I understand it ranged from nothing to trace amounts of
:mustard gas. These came (probably) from old destroyed stocks.
:

The real issue is what the inspectors MISSED, which amounted to
hundreds of rounds of everything from mustard gas to binary VX that we
didn't even know Saddam had.

What was NOT found (and what every intelligence agency in the world
believed would be found) was evidence of a current and ongoing program
to further develop and produce such things. Apparently Saddam's
violations in the present were limited to his missile programs.

However, from the samples that were found in hidden storage, it's
pretty obvious his intent was to reconstitute his programs once he was
out from under the sanctions and inspections.


--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
: :AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
: :OF IN 1991.
: :
:
: Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.
:
:
:...and also less.
:
:Logically speaking, more/less has to be considered equally likelly.
:

True, but from 'less' to 'none' is a pretty damned big stretch and
much less likely. Pretending that there really wasn't any in the
first place is rather like letting go of something and expecting it to
fall UP. The chance is there, but it's really, REALLY small.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
: : Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
: : from.
: :
: : Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".
: :
: :You repeat the same nonsence.
: :
:
: And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
: Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
: from.
:
: Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".
:
: [Remainder snipped unread as just more boring Eurotrash lunacy.]
:
:Yeah, actually I know perfectly WHEN PROVING A NEGATIVE IS A FALLACY.
:As you appear to have forgotten, I´ll tell you.
:
:PROVING A NEGATIVE IS A FALLACY WHEN, AND ONLY WHEN, PROVING THE
:NEGATIVE STATEMENT IS IMPOSSBLE. THAT´S WHY PROVING A NEGATIVE IS
:SOMETIMES ALSO CALLED PROVING AN IMPOSSIBLE.
:
:Tipical fallacous argument, actually does go in the opposite
:direction, meaning a person A argues on the basis that X can´t be
roven not to be or not to exist, that X does exist.
:
:Now, it´s not a fallacy to demand a proof of a negative statement, if
:the negative statement in question is not one of the impossible to
rove ones.
:

All 'negative statements' (unless quite carefully constructed to
actually be positive statements) are impossible to prove.

Prove I can't lift a Buick, Einar.

:
:Now, I ask you yet over again to back up your earlier statement.
:

And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
from.

Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : Einar wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : : Einar wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Do you think there's
: : : : : : anything wrong with slavery?
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Very simple to answere, would you want to be a slave? If you think
: : : : : :slavery is unfair treatment of you, it´s an unfair treatment of others
: : : : : :as well.
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that mandated my religion,
: : : : : either.
: : : : :
: : : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : : :
: : : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that told me I wasn't allowed to
: : : : : be armed to protect myself (including from the government).
: : : : :
: : : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : I'd suggest it's not so simple to answer as you think.
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :What I´m preaching is toleration.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Toleration of what? Suppose I want to keep slaves and Rand wants to
: : : : have sex with 7 year olds. How's your 'toleration' now?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :Why do you pick such extreme examples?
: : : :
: : :
: : : Because you made a silly statement and I wanted to demonstrate its
: : : silliness.
: : :
: : :
: : :But they don´t do that. Just about any human endevour can be treated
: : :in like manner if most extreme examples of failure are only chosen.
: : :
: :
: : Then you need to stop making silly statements.
: :
: : :
: : :You need to pick more representative examples. After all, to name an
: : :example, no country in the world actually allows slavery. Though there
: : :are couple of countries in which slavery is still believed to persist,
: : :most of it happening inside Sudan. However, Sudan is an outlyer state,
: : racticing many things like genocide that generally are aborred by the
: : :world at large. So neither genocide nor slavery is representative.
: : :
: :
: : You need to stop making such general statements then, as if
: : "tolerance" is automatically a 'good thing'.
: :
: :I don´t think I ever said that all things should be tolerated, yet you
: :sort of haranged me like I had done just that, and so did Rand.
: :
:
: You said "What I am preaching is tolerance" with no conditionals at
: all. Now you're telling us you were lying and really only meant "What
: I am preaching is tolerance for things I think you should have
: tolerance for" or some such.
:
: : :
: : :If you read through my posts I´ve never preaced toleration of genocide
: : r slavery.
: : :
: :
: : You made a general, unqualified statement to try to proclaim your
: : position as 'better'.
: :
: :No, that was you falling to that conclusion. In other words reading
: :something into my statement which wasn´t contained within it.
: :
:
: I stupidly assumed you meant what you were saying. Now you tell us
: you were actually lying.
:
:
:I think it was quite clear enough the whole time, what I did mean. You
:and Rand chose to see it othervice.
:

Yes, it WAS "quite clear enough". What you meant to do was imply
"tolerance is good, hence my position is right". We're just showing
you (obviously against your will) that tolerance is not necessarily
good and so your position is not necessarily right and you need to
start using actual facts.

Whether or not "tolerance is good" rather depends on what is being
tolerated. Even you are admitting this, although you want to remain
in denial of the fact that it invalidates your earlier stated
position.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

On Aug 26, 7:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:You own words: "When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of
:a long-time pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance.
:"

And in your case the shoe would appear to be a perfect fit, Einar.

Ah, the McCall and Simberg position; one is stupid or insane until
proven smart or sane. It is a metaphor of the legal postistion of
"guilty until proven innocent".

What a stupid and insane position to have!

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Aug 26, 7:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
: :
: :You own words: "When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of
: :a long-time pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance.
: :"
:
: And in your case the shoe would appear to be a perfect fit, Einar.
:
:
:Ah, the McCall and Simberg position; one is stupid or insane until
roven smart or sane. It is a metaphor of the legal postistion of
:"guilty until proven innocent".
:

Not what it says, Chomko. I'll simply note that "a long-time pattern
of idiocy or nuttiness" isn't anywhere close to "stupid or insane
until proven smart or sane".

You, of course, have years of history proving you are both stupid and
insane.

:
:What a stupid and insane position to have!
:

Yes, it would be. The only thing stupider would be your ongoing
inability to actually read and comprehend basic declarative English
sentences, as we see once again above.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:14:25 -0700, in a place far, far away, Eric
Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Aug 26, 7:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:You own words: "When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of
:a long-time pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance.
:"

And in your case the shoe would appear to be a perfect fit, Einar.

Ah, the McCall and Simberg position; one is stupid or insane until
proven smart or sane. It is a metaphor of the legal postistion of
"guilty until proven innocent".

What a stupid and insane position to have!

It would be, if that were my position. My position is that when
people repeatedly prove themselves stupid and/or insane, they should
be considered stupid and/or insane. Just as (for example) you've
proven yourself to be an idiot many hundreds of times in this forum.