Politics and religion.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 06-30-2009, 11:24 PM

Well....can't help what I feel!

I just feelbad karma to paint a whole group as good or bad. Sort of gives permission to say...all people from Illinois are crooked or all lawyers are ambulance chasers or all people who do computer stuff are geeks.

Absolutes are dangerous and limiting in my opinion!

**blue** · 06-30-2009, 11:27 PM

I cant wait to see the list of Conservatives or Republicans that are OK in ES's mind. For that matter what she thinks of those who actualy Believe in the United States of America's Constitution and what it stands for.

**Medusa** · 07-01-2009, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Well....can't help what I feel!

I just feelbad karma to paint a whole group as good or bad. Sort of gives permission to say...all people from Illinois are crooked or all lawyers are ambulance chasers or all people who do computer stuff are geeks.

Absolutes are dangerous and limiting in my opinion!

Wow. We're talking about you again. Interesting how you do that.

I expressed how I feel but not to spark controversy or to invoke sympathy. As for racking up bad karma, we should all try not to focus on the straw in another's eye when there's a beam in our own.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 07-01-2009, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Medusa

. As for racking up bad karma, we should all try not to focus on the straw in another's eye when there's a beam in our own.

Exactly my point!

**Medusa** · 07-01-2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Exactly my point!

That wasn't perceived as your point by me. If you disagree w/my opinion, then perhaps you can say "I disagree and here's why" rather than concern yourself w/my karma. I voiced my opinion about Sanford and politicians in general because the title of this thread is "Politics and religion". If someone disagrees w/your opinion, you attack the messenger rather than the message. If s/he disagrees w/your view of the expanding role of govt., s/he's a "whiner". If s/he disagrees w/your view on race relations, s/he's a "clever little racist". If s/he disagrees w/your view on women and their relationship w/their SO's, s/he has disdain for women. Leave the personal stuff out of it. It muddies the water.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 07-01-2009, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Medusa

Leave the personal stuff out of it. It muddies the water.

I would respectfully suggest you do the same.

**Medusa** · 07-01-2009, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

I would respectfully suggest you do the same.

I make an effort to not get personal and I don't engage in name calling. Let's just leave it at that, shall we, and move on? There's no need for vitriol. Civil and intelligent discussions work for me. In that way there are no hard feelings. We all on PT love our country despite our differing views.

**lizbud** · 07-01-2009, 08:24 PM

Soundness and Validity are both properties of deductive arguments. For an argument to be Valid the conclusion must follow from the premises; that is, if the premises are true your conclusion MUST be true. For example, If all dogs are animals, and all poodles are dogs; all poodles must be animals, is a valid argument. Whereas, If all dogs are animals; all animals must be dogs is invalid. This is because the conclusion is not directly derived from the premises.

For an argument to be Sound there are two criteria: the argument must be Valid, and the premises must be True. For example, all dogs are animals, poodles are dogs; therefore, poodles must be animals, is Valid and True and therefore Sound. Whereas, All dogs are cats, all poodles are dogs; therefore poodles must be cats, is certainly Valid, it is not Sound because the premises are not true.