LakeRat wrote:

Beginning with Protagoras and invoking Charles Sanders Peirce, Margolis shows that the historic struggle to discredit relativism is an attempt to impose an unexamined belief in the world's essentially rigid rule-like nature. Plato and Aristotle merely attacked "relationalism"--the doctrine of true-for l or true for k, and the like, where l and k are different speakers or different worlds, or the something similar (Most philosophers would call this position "relativism"). For Margolis "true" means true; that is, the alethic use of "true" remains untouched. However, in real world contexts, and context is ubiquitous in the real world, we must apply truth values. Here, in epistemic terms, we might retire "true" tout court as an evaluation and keep "false". The rest of our value-judgements could be graded from "extremely plausible" down to "false". Judgements which on a bivalent logic would be incompatible or contradictory are further seen as "incongruent", though one may well have more weight than the other. In short, relativistic logic is not, or need not be, the bugbear it is often presented to be. It may simply be the best type of logic to apply to certain very uncertain spheres of our real experiences in the world (although some sort of logic needs to be applied to make that judgement). Those who swear by bivalent logic might simply be the ultimate keepers of the great fear of the flux.

htownsteve wrote:

LakeRat wrote:

Beginning with Protagoras and invoking Charles Sanders Peirce, Margolis shows that the historic struggle to discredit relativism is an attempt to impose an unexamined belief in the world's essentially rigid rule-like nature. Plato and Aristotle merely attacked "relationalism"--the doctrine of true-for l or true for k, and the like, where l and k are different speakers or different worlds, or the something similar (Most philosophers would call this position "relativism"). For Margolis "true" means true; that is, the alethic use of "true" remains untouched. However, in real world contexts, and context is ubiquitous in the real world, we must apply truth values. Here, in epistemic terms, we might retire "true" tout court as an evaluation and keep "false". The rest of our value-judgements could be graded from "extremely plausible" down to "false". Judgements which on a bivalent logic would be incompatible or contradictory are further seen as "incongruent", though one may well have more weight than the other. In short, relativistic logic is not, or need not be, the bugbear it is often presented to be. It may simply be the best type of logic to apply to certain very uncertain spheres of our real experiences in the world (although some sort of logic needs to be applied to make that judgement). Those who swear by bivalent logic might simply be the ultimate keepers of the great fear of the flux.

You have shrooms? I've been looking everywhere for shrooms.

LakeRat wrote:

Are you SURE that's your clit?

LakeRat wrote:

Fuck my ears, nigger; clean my pipes!

LakeRat wrote:

Yeah, that smells like your Dad just like every other part of your body......Dad, Dad, Dad, Dad. You need to follow my example and throw one your brother's way once in a while, capice?

lasvegasguy wrote:

Little RedBob met his wife at an early age..........('sup, Bob!)

LakeRat wrote:

....And here we see Lakerat, Treesa, and BBMom at the prom with their dates..........('sup, ladies!

htownsteve wrote:

LakeRat wrote:

....And here we see Lakerat, Treesa, and BBMom at the prom with their dates..........('sup, ladies!

LOL! My prom date was a cock.

lasvegasguy wrote:

No caption here (yet).
I can't stop crackin up when I look at this one.

LakeRat wrote:

LOL! My prom date was a cock.

I like your style LakeRat.
Most girls take the entire guy with them.

Im really an ignoramous.
What are those things in the picture with the gals?
Chickens, hens, roosters?

Zvon wrote:

LakeRat wrote:

LOL! My prom date was a cock.

I like your style LakeRat.
Most girls the entire guy with them.

Im really an ignoramous.
What are those things in the picture with the gals?
Chickens, hens, roosters?

They are chickens, and the one on the right with the comb is definitely a rooster (cock), probably a Brahma.
I can't imagine getting all dressed up like they are and holding a chicken. They must be going to a 4-H event. Either that or those chickens are their rival high school team mascots and they've stolen them - lol.