Even shorter GOP: “You are free only to do, say, and be what we deem permissible.”
John Moralessays
mathman85, I don’t think so, and I think your phrasing is slanted.
That a list of prohibitions exists implies that whatever is not on that list is not prohibited; clearly, the cardinality of the set of what’s not proscribed greatly exceeds that of its complement.
Pierce R. Butlersays
John Morales @ # 2: That a list of prohibitions exists implies that whatever is not on that list is not prohibited…
Unjustified presumption of strict logicality, contradicted by widely-known facts.
John Moralessays
How so, Pierce? Do elaborate.
mathman85says
Re: John Morales @ 2:
I think your phrasing is slanted.
Of course my phrasing is slanted. I’m mocking the reactionaries.
That a list of prohibitions exists implies that whatever is not on that list is not prohibited […]
If we’re viewing it from a legalistic perspective and as having originated from non-fascists, perhaps. But again, mockery and nonliterality intended.
[…] clearly, the cardinality of the set of what’s not proscribed greatly exceeds that of its complement.
I don’t wish to be nerd-sniped, and my area of mathematics is algebra, not set theory. Nonetheless, its completement relative to what, exactly? Within what universal set might this domain of discourse reside?
Deepak shettysays
@John Morales
So are we prohibited from selecting a Supreme Court judge in a presidential election year or not ?
John Moralessays
mathman85,
Nonetheless, its completement relative to what, exactly?
All elements not in the set.
Within what universal set might this domain of discourse reside?
The set of all the things it is possible to do.
—
To expedite matters, my main point is that the cartoon featured a list of proscriptions, but you wrote about it as if it had been a list of prescriptions.
So: The appropriate summation would have been not “You are free only to do, say, and be what we deem permissible.”, but rather “You are not free to do, say, and be what we deem impermissible.”.
(Surely you can see the difference!)
John Moralessays
[Oblique approach]
A bit like the often-misunderstood “exception that proves the rule” — if a parking space has a sign saying “no parking Sunday 8am-10am”, the implication is that parking is allowed outside those hours.
John Moralessays
Deepak,
@John Morales
So are we prohibited from selecting a Supreme Court judge in a presidential election year or not ?
Well, I am, not being a USAnian citizen, dunno about you.
So, if your “we” includes me, yes. If it doesn’t, then possibly yes, possibly no.
(Not like your average USAnian selects SC judges, is it?)
—
PS did you notice that “you can’t say gay” itself says “gay”, thus contradicting itself?
(heh)
—
Anyway. It’s not like the GOP has an exclusive claim to deprecating some stuff, is it? 🙂
Silentbobsays
@ 9 John Morales
PS did you notice that “you can’t say gay” itself says “gay”, thus contradicting itself?
Republican freedom is the freedom enjoyed by not paying your fair share in taxes and eviscerating workers rights and the environment so you can increase profits for yourself and your buddies.
When you understand the meaning of that word for them, it all makes a whole lot more sense.
Even shorter GOP: “You are free only to do, say, and be what we deem permissible.”
mathman85, I don’t think so, and I think your phrasing is slanted.
That a list of prohibitions exists implies that whatever is not on that list is not prohibited; clearly, the cardinality of the set of what’s not proscribed greatly exceeds that of its complement.
John Morales @ # 2: That a list of prohibitions exists implies that whatever is not on that list is not prohibited…
Unjustified presumption of strict logicality, contradicted by widely-known facts.
How so, Pierce? Do elaborate.
Re: John Morales @ 2:
Of course my phrasing is slanted. I’m mocking the reactionaries.
If we’re viewing it from a legalistic perspective and as having originated from non-fascists, perhaps. But again, mockery and nonliterality intended.
I don’t wish to be nerd-sniped, and my area of mathematics is algebra, not set theory. Nonetheless, its completement relative to what, exactly? Within what universal set might this domain of discourse reside?
@John Morales
So are we prohibited from selecting a Supreme Court judge in a presidential election year or not ?
mathman85,
All elements not in the set.
The set of all the things it is possible to do.
—
To expedite matters, my main point is that the cartoon featured a list of proscriptions, but you wrote about it as if it had been a list of prescriptions.
So: The appropriate summation would have been not “You are free only to do, say, and be what we deem permissible.”, but rather “You are not free to do, say, and be what we deem impermissible.”.
(Surely you can see the difference!)
[Oblique approach]
A bit like the often-misunderstood “exception that proves the rule” — if a parking space has a sign saying “no parking Sunday 8am-10am”, the implication is that parking is allowed outside those hours.
Deepak,
Well, I am, not being a USAnian citizen, dunno about you.
So, if your “we” includes me, yes. If it doesn’t, then possibly yes, possibly no.
(Not like your average USAnian selects SC judges, is it?)
—
PS did you notice that “you can’t say gay” itself says “gay”, thus contradicting itself?
(heh)
—
Anyway. It’s not like the GOP has an exclusive claim to deprecating some stuff, is it? 🙂
@ 9 John Morales
life of brian clip
Republican freedom is the freedom enjoyed by not paying your fair share in taxes and eviscerating workers rights and the environment so you can increase profits for yourself and your buddies.
When you understand the meaning of that word for them, it all makes a whole lot more sense.