Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 12, 10:25 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:00 am, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 3:46 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 10, 11:34 am, jaygarri..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Jun 10, 9:55 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> > > > >If you had to pick one, which would you pick words of wisdom or
> > > > >agreeableness?
> > > > That's a false and self-serving dichotomy.
> > > He presented it as a hypothetical, not a dichotomy. Since
> > > it's not a dichotomy, it can't be a false dichotomy.
> > Actually it's a standard terminology for considering "black and white"
> > situations. See
> > Gene's question involves a hypothetical dichotomy.
> I read that wiki article, and it did not support your position.
> All the examples it gave were of dichotomies that were
> *not* presented as hypothetical. I understand the term
> "false dichotomy" to refer specifically to a rhetorical
> attempt to narrow the possible choices for discussion
> down to fewer than there are, especially in cases
> where the two presented are not even mutually
> exclusive. Gene's comment did nothing of the sort;
> it merely asked which of two things is more important.
> It implicitly noted that it wasn't an actual choice.
> It is a small point, though.
I find it remarkable that you believe it's important to draw a distinction between hypothetical false dichotomies and actual false dichotomies. Since the latter represent logical fallacies you're whole point is that the logical fallacy was presented as hypothetical and therefore wasn't itself a logical fallacy. Firstly, I already agreed with that. Secondly, so what? It doesn't change the fact that the question is pointless.
> > I interpreted the
> > response as simply saying it's an irrelevant question because the
> > antecedent is generally false. If you see relevance in the question,
> > what is it exactly?
> The relevance is in the question of why does one come
> to this newsgroup? If it is for social interaction, then one
> has mistaken the purpose of the group. If it is for factual
> information, then putting a pretty face on such is of minor
You are merely repeating the (hypothetical) false dichotomy, which I find quite revealing. i.e. implicitly suggesting there are exactly two mutually exclusive reasons for why one comes to the news group. People come here for a variety of overlapping reasons. E.g. to learn, to teach, to be known, to solve a problem, to manipulate, to socialise, to be entertained, to troll, to bully, to be a masochist, to take revenge, to market a product,... Received on Sat Jun 13 2009 - 05:01:56 CEST