Quotations and Literature Forum

It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:39 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 9:20 pm 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:35 pm
Posts: 8
Location: NH, USA
I'd just like to get a word in here for those of us who do happen to be anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment. I would like to politely dissagree with your statements, Mr. Delta. Just because abortions are now conducted by those whom are trained, it is no more justified. There are many people in the world who would love to have children, but are unable to. In an undesireable pregnancy, why not have the child and then put him or her up for adoption. Also, how do we know one of these murdered children would not have grown up to make a significant difference in the world, such as discovering a cure for cancer, or new ways to help the environment.
I would also like to say that just because something is legal does not make it right. Look at previous laws in the United States which were changed because of their absurdity: not long ago slavery was legal, it used to be legal for parents to have their children hung for disobedience, and people in the united states used to be killed, legally, for having others think them to be a witch. If, then, you think that all ridiculous laws such as these have been abolished, you again, would be incorrect. Here are some laws which still exist today in the United States: Children of incestuous couples in Alabama are deemed legitimate; in Arkansas, a man is permitted to beat his wife, but no more than once a month; in Montana, seven or more native americans together are considered a raiding or war party, and it is legal to shoot them; it is illegal to deny the existance of God in Vermont. Just because all those are laws, does that make them right?
I have no proof to back my argument against your pro-Capital punishment views, only ideas. If a person is found guilty of murder, and sentenced to death for it, isn't the government being slightly hypocritical? How can they deem killing to be wrong, and then turn around and do it themselves?
Marcel, your entry was not nearly so provoking. People who are sick and in pain with no chance of recovery do deserve to end their suffering if they so choose to. I believe this it is that person's right to decide, not the doctors. If the person is unconcious, but their doctor or family thinks death would be the best solution, I do not believe they should be allowed to make such a decision. So many miraculous recoveries have happened in this world, and they have no way of detecting whether or not another may occur. I also believe that someone suffering an emotional pain rather than a physical one, who wishes to kill themself should not. No matter how spiritually hurt they are, there is always a way to make it better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 9:42 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 3:01 pm
Posts: 1681
MGM,
is it not possible for you to move this entire thread to the "Fluff forum" where it belongs?
I am mystified as to why you are allowing this to continue on the "Announcements and Feedback" forum. 8O :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 7:08 pm 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:35 pm
Posts: 8
Location: NH, USA
Getting back to paradoxes.............

Here is an excerpt from a book, thats sort of like a paradox, that interested me:
"As she entered the hall, he felt an unfamiliar pang of familiarity"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Let me try
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:41 am 
Offline
Quote Guru
Quote Guru

Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:36 pm
Posts: 3610
Well this subject of discussion seems really interesting to me, let me give it a try:-
"Life is never miserable,it is You who makes One".---Ishrat
Does it qualify as one (paradox)? :?:

_________________
Ishrat Noor Khan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:35 am 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 3:01 pm
Posts: 806
Location: Jackson, Tennessee
Another paradox? The Pope & Young Club recognizes bow hunters who succeed in taking big game animals that are qualified by a scoring system. A white-tailed deer must score a minimum score of 120 to be entered into the P & Y system. None of the whitetailed deer that Pope or Young took with a bow would qualify for the Pope & Young Club. :?

Pope and Young were remarkable as hunters. They learned archery the hard way. They learned to build bows and arrows from natural materials.. They eventually killed big game animals all across North America (including grizzly bears in Alaska). They began hunting small game and then proceeded to hunt white-tailed deer. If Pope or Young succeeding in taking a white-tailed buck that would score 120 then I am just unaware of it. Pope and Young hunted mostly for sport or recreation with a latter emphasis on taking trophy sized animals.

http://www.pope-young.org/

The Boone & Crockett Club recognizes big game animals that are taken by gun hunters. (Boone & Crockett were perhaps never even aquainted as Pope and Young were actually pals). A white-tailed buck must score 170 points to meet the minimum qualifications for the B & C club. Paradox? During the era of Boone & Crockett hunters killed game primarily for meat and not so much for sport or trophy. The B & C system enourages the taking of big game animals that meets their critiera and ignores big game taken for meat.

http://www.boone-crockett.org/

I have been hunting with a bow and arrow since 1974. My largest white-tailed buck taken by a bow & would score less than 118.

I have been hunting with a gun or musket since 1973. My largest white-tailed buck taken with a gun would score just under 130.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:46 pm 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:39 pm
Posts: 3
Here's an interesting logic paradox, a very famous one whose origins I can't recall.

Plato stands guard at one end of the bridge connecting two lands. Socrates approaches the bridge and asks to cross. Plato declines. He says, "If the first statement you utter is true, then I will let you cross and if the first statement you utter is false, I'll throw you in the water." Socrates replies, "You will throw me in the water." The paradox: If Plato throws Socrates into the water, then the statement was true in which case Plato should have allowed him to cross, which would in turn, make the Socrates' statement false.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:52 pm 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:33 am
Posts: 3
Location: Jersey
Mr. Fussbudget wrote:
The barber paradox:

The barber shaves every man in town who doesn't shave himself.

Q: Does the barber have a beard?

A: She has a beard, but not on her chin.

And I told her if she shaves it, we're through.

What about the whole... 'you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway' thing. Is that considered a paradox?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:48 am 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:38 am
Posts: 7
Location: Finland/Cambridge, UK
In addition to the two of Zeno's paradoxes already mentioned, there's a third one that concerns the building blocks of the universe, what Democritos named atoms, the smallest possible things. Today we can answer this paradox with the aid of modern science but it's still a puzzling one to think about.

Assume there are separate obects in front of you in space. We can assume they're made up of small particles, that are objects in their own right. If these smallest possible particles are singularities, infinitely small points in space, they cannot have a dimension. And if they don't have a dimension we can't build up an object with dimensions with them. If these sigularities have no dimension, then adding them together would just give us a new singularity.

So next we assume these smallest possible particles to have a size and a dimension, although infinitely small. Because all objects contain an infinite amount of these smallest possible paricles, that would result in objects with an infinite mass. This is how we come to the conclusion that all objects are either massless or infinite in mass.

As I said, today we can anwer with the argument that although all objects contain seemingly infinite amounts of quarks and electrons, most of their mass is however made up by void. Also, although the amounts may seem infinite, they in reality are not so and we can observe that,

Another set of paradoxes, or antinomies, was created by philosopher Immanuel Kant and you might have heard of them. They go like this:

1st antinomy: Space is at the same time infinite and finite.
Kant deduced that if you go far enough in space it makes sense that there has to be a border somewhere. Therefore space and time must be finite. This is what our reason tells us. But a border is something that can be crossed, there has to be something on the other side. And thus the pursuit of the next border can begin.

Nowadays at least what I've read the explanation of modern scientist to this is that space is endless, but finite. This basically means that the universe is like a four-dimensional sphere: if you go long enough in one and same direction you're bound to get back to your starting point. Therefore there are no borders or limits in this universe, like you can't fall of the Earth either, no matter how long you walk. But, like the earth, the unverse is not infinite.

2nd antinomy: is basically the same problem as the third one of Zeno's paradoxes I explained above.

3rd antinomy: Determinism and indeterminism are co-existent in our world.
In nature we observe the law of cause and effect: everything is caused by something else. Now if we take it a bit further we come to the conclusion that there has to have been a first cause, primus motor (often in philosophy God or a god). But if this kind of a first cause is assumed, nothing else can be inferred except for that everything we humans do is pre-determined, that we have no free will. If, however, no such thing is believed to exist or have existed, only then can we assume the freedom of will. This results in an obvious paradox: we observe the law if cause and effect every day, but still consider ourselves to be free.

4th antinomy just basically states that there is not objective proof of the existance or non-existance of God, both can be argued just as well.

Quote:
What about the whole... 'you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway' thing. Is that considered a paradox?

Naw, I think that's considered just a funny quality of the English language. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: i have got one
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:45 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:58 am
Posts: 11
Location: new delhi
lets deal with real paradox .


how about twin paradox.


we have two twins, one travels to outer space probably to some distance star, while other remains on earth.

after one of the twin returns to earth, he finds out a marked difference inthe age.

each of them claims to younger, who actually is younger or are they still of same age.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:47 am 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:38 am
Posts: 7
Location: Finland/Cambridge, UK
Well, that just proves that time is not absolute. It curves with space and acts differently in different situations. So basically it comes down to subjective time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: hint to paradox
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:38 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:58 am
Posts: 11
Location: new delhi
thats it

the twin paradox can be easily understood on the basis of time dilation and length contraction.


if anybody intersted in relativity can ask for a detailed solution to the paradox.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:47 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:09 pm
Posts: 28
Another true paradox: Silence is often more telling than words.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:52 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:33 am
Posts: 519
What comes first, the chicken or the egg? In this case the architect or the design.

Here is what I mean. An architect draws the design for a structure. The design is determined by his interest, which he follows. His interest is defined by his internal design.

So I ask, what comes first?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group