Rhetorical Arguments for a trilateral ffm relationship in America

[atlashead]

The predicate that the two females are married but all three are living together.
-Use the baconian method: some people are single, some date monogamously, some date polygamously, some marry monogamously, some marry polygamously against the law.  What is the essence; the determinant of all these phenomenon?
-The government has no right to make you both say "we" and not say "we".  That would be a contradiction.  Contradiction is death.

[pause]
-Technically, [that is to be objective] it is against bigamy, the law.  Trigamy would be the correct term.  Law must be objective, but the law against bigamy is not objective anyways.  [see point 2]
(Whenever there is an irrational = contradiction in law it means either 1.there was an irrational actor in politics as catalyst.  OR 2. the public is irrational.
-
The fact of the matter is that a male cannot be raped, so the government's reasoning that it would prevent abuse is invalid.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 minutes ago, atlashead said:

The predicate that the two females are married but all three are living together.

AH,

This is a lousy set-up.

1. It is not a sentence, but instead a sentence fragment. I can live with that, but...

2. "The two females" = 2.
      "All three" = 3.
      When you say the two females become all three, you are proposing that 2=3. It doesn't.

3. Until that identification issue gets fixed, I don't know how to evaluate the rest. 

Michael

[atlashead]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

AH,

This is a lousy set-up.

1. It is not a sentence, but instead a sentence fragment. I can live with that, but...

2. "The two females" = 2.
      "All three" = 3.
      When you say the two females become all three, you are proposing that 2=3. It doesn't.

3. Until that identification issue gets fixed, I don't know how to evaluate the rest. 

Michael

Noice!
Edit:  Thus the false is any sort of conjugate-predicate where one's opinion of a [set] relationship.  The applied chemistry is that one would just need a statement that the trio is indeed a conjugate?
Edit2:  So in order to integrate this [or any] right one must invoke the proof of free-will:
1.  If you are only matter, the idea of free-will should wipe out your consciousness

2.think, judge, act, feel can be applied in any combination in any number, thus one is both infinite & absolute
3.  the proof from god: if you can imagine a being with superior qualities to yourself, a non-being imagining a non-being is a contradiction
Integrating factor: one is only aware of self & reality, thus if one can hold all three proofs are true, either reality or self should be annihilated.

[Peter]

On 2/20/2022 at 3:27 PM, atlashead said:

The predicate that the two females are married but all three are living together.

At first, I was assuming the third one had to be a male. But now I see it could be three females too, unless we assume married means a legal relationship between a man and a woman . . . but if we assume two women could be married . . . or the three are roommates but have 'outside the household" marriages . . .  the solvers need more truths to er. . . solve it.     

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

AH,

I didn't think it could get worse, but it did.

I could say you are offering a false trichotomy (which, in a sense, you are). But the problem is deeper.

One can observe reality and derive principles from that.
Or one can start with axioms, then deduce reality from those.

But it's not either-or. The human brain does both and needs both.

Now the errors. A person often replaces observation with imagination for deriving principles, and a person often replaces axioms with principles for deducing reality. When those things happen, the resulting epistemology, the game so to speak becomes deuces wild (to use a metaphor Rand liked).

In your case, I see you starting with principles. And how did you arrive at those principles? Only the shadow knows because nobody else does. You presented the principles as self-evident axioms where axioms do not exist. Then you are trying to deduce reality from them. And like most people who do this, you are doing it in a tone of absolute certainty.

Now for the cherry on top.

You pepper this with dreams of being infinite & absolute, or nothing, as you imagine wipe-outs and annihilation...

Are you happy?

 

Michael

[atlashead]

Congratulations Frank

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 minutes ago, atlashead said:

Congratulations Frank

AH,

Who is Frank?

You have to start making sense.

I'm moving this thread to the Garbage Pile where it belongs.

OL is for discussions about philosophy and other matters, not for silly calls for attention.

Michael