|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 375 of 404:
| 
Dec 2 16:37 UTC 1998 |
(Sorry John...) By implying it all you are doing is conveying a view or
opinion. The inference of truth is a simple error by the inferee.
|
keesan
|
|
response 376 of 404:
|
Dec 2 18:58 UTC 1998 |
I infer that Rane likes to argue fine points of vocabulary.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 377 of 404:
|
Dec 2 22:24 UTC 1998 |
That is a case in point, as the inference is not true. You might infer instead
that I like to argue with pedants. 8^}
|
faile
|
|
response 378 of 404:
|
Dec 2 23:48 UTC 1998 |
<jessi ducks, and asks someone to let her know when this blows over>
|
brighn
|
|
response 379 of 404:
|
Dec 3 01:43 UTC 1998 |
#375> But an inference NEED NOT be false, either. I think we're arguing
objective vs. subjective truth, and it seems that for you a "truth" must be
objectively true...
Let us say, in response to the question, "Did you and Monica ever have sexual
relations." I respond, "Monica and I did not have a sexual relationship. I
never had sex with Monica." I intend to imply that Monica nad I never had
sexual relations, which is a fair inferrence from my response. In order for
me to imply this, the truth value of "Monica and I had sexual relations" is
irrelevant... what is relevant is the truth value I want you to infer for
"Monica and I had sexual relations."
Which is what I said at the outset.
This is different from a presupposition. In saying, "I corrected you," you
pressuppose, "You said something inaccurate." Since I never said anything
inaccurate, you could not have corrected me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 380 of 404:
|
Dec 3 05:11 UTC 1998 |
I only infer from the statement made that you have said that you did not
have sexual relations with Monica (I also infer that you seem to get
around....). I have no idea what you intended to imply - I only know what
you said. This is especially true as the statement is ambiguous, as what
constitutes "having sex" is not self-evident. *I* have sex - I am male. A
man talking to a woman is a sexual relation (among many other things). I
think that what is inferred from that statement reflects more upon the
predilections of the inferee (perhaps, to "believe the worst"?) than in
the content of the message.
|
brighn
|
|
response 381 of 404:
|
Dec 3 06:38 UTC 1998 |
I just forgot... are we arguing?
I think we're just saying the same thing and giving everyone else headaches.
I think we should both stop showing off. =}
|
senna
|
|
response 382 of 404:
|
Dec 3 13:51 UTC 1998 |
My god. It's a logic course.
Can I get credit for reading this?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 383 of 404:
|
Dec 3 16:18 UTC 1998 |
Yes, but you have to pay tuition first. Send tuition to Grex, Office of
Admissions, and we will credit you.
|
brighn
|
|
response 384 of 404:
|
Dec 3 19:07 UTC 1998 |
Actually, it's a rhetorics course.
Make checks payable to Paul Kershaw, Direcotr of Admissions.
Any amount will do.
|
md
|
|
response 385 of 404:
|
Dec 3 20:55 UTC 1998 |
And we wonder why M-Netters find Grex boring.
|
brighn
|
|
response 386 of 404:
|
Dec 3 23:24 UTC 1998 |
No ideas, m'self. I'm having a good time.
Aren't you, Rane?
|
senna
|
|
response 387 of 404:
|
Dec 4 13:53 UTC 1998 |
That is such an insane idea that it might actually work
|
rcurl
|
|
response 388 of 404:
|
Dec 4 18:46 UTC 1998 |
Yes, I find this much more interesting than the mucous membrane of the
urethra.
|
bookworm
|
|
response 389 of 404:
|
Dec 4 22:44 UTC 1998 |
Kenton, don't let it phase you. We're usually a lot nicer than this. We just
have a tendency to be a tad defensive, don't we boys and girls?
|
brighn
|
|
response 390 of 404:
|
Dec 4 23:24 UTC 1998 |
Not me.
|
mary
|
|
response 391 of 404:
|
Dec 5 01:48 UTC 1998 |
Re: 33 I collect quite a following at cocktail parties with
that stuff. Guess you have to be there. ;-)
|
lumen
|
|
response 392 of 404:
|
Dec 5 04:53 UTC 1998 |
re #390: heh. whatever. obnoxious, then
|
void
|
|
response 393 of 404:
|
Dec 9 22:16 UTC 1998 |
re female-to-female transmission of hiv: although it's often claimed
that lesbians have a low-to-almost-nonexistent transmission rate for
hiv, the truth is that no one really knows. as far as i've been able to
determine, there has been *one* study of woman-to-woman hiv transmission
done, in 1991, involving less than 100 women, all of whom were either iv
drug users, bisexual, or both (however, by the criteria used to
establish lesbianism in that study, not even i would qualify). i found
the study by dint of digging around for quite a while at the cdc's web
site. if anyone's really interested, i could try re-finding the
specific url for the study. if anyone knows of any other studies which
have been done since then, i will happily sit corrected and delightedly
go off in search of them.
|
bookworm
|
|
response 394 of 404:
|
Dec 10 04:26 UTC 1998 |
No offense meant to anybody, but this conversation is getting seriously
boring.
|
lumen
|
|
response 395 of 404:
|
Dec 10 04:37 UTC 1998 |
Julie is easily bored
|
maeve
|
|
response 396 of 404:
|
Dec 10 16:38 UTC 1998 |
(I've asked my mother if she knows about any studies like that void,
and any decent general sites with that sort of information..)
|
void
|
|
response 397 of 404:
|
Dec 10 22:13 UTC 1998 |
thanks, maeve. :)
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 398 of 404:
|
Dec 11 21:37 UTC 1998 |
Re #394. The next time you read this item, type "forget" at the prompt.
Solves your boredom forever.
|
jazz
|
|
response 399 of 404:
|
Dec 16 10:58 UTC 1998 |
Nice lesson on language. I'll have to remember that rule, it's a
handy explanation of the difference.
Kenton, don't worry. Most GREXers are small or easily cowed. But your
position, here, invites controversy and tongue-wagging (sic) and I'm sure
you're perfectly aware of it, though I'm unsure of your motives in doing so.
If it genuinely is to express your feelings about homosexuality, popular GREX
opinion be damned, more power to you.
|