Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 13, 12:47 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> 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
> It is also used for setting priorities.
> >Gene's question involves a hypothetical dichotomy. 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?
> >It's like someone wanting to justify euthanasia and asking: "If you
> >had to choose between laws allowing murder and euthanasia, which one
> >would you pick?"
> Bad example.
Yes, might. It might not as well. It's not black and white. In any case the point is that there isn't a dichotomy, which is certainly the case with a subset relationship. I fail to see why you think it's a bad example.
A clever false dichotomy tries to trick people by presenting them with a fictitious choice between a really bad option and the one being pushed. It is one of the well known forms of logical fallacy.
> >You're just playing with words.
> I am asking which is the higher priority. Marshall got the
> point. Some have not.
Duh. Obviously you were asking which is the higher priority. The point you seem to have missed is that one only really needs to prioritise real choices, not your "self-serving" imaginary ones.
Marshall's pathetic argument was that the choice was imaginary (aka "hypothetical"). At least he admitted it was only a small point. Received on Sat Jun 13 2009 - 06:15:58 CEST