3 ms·
His claim is that there are legitimate questions, though he does not claim that he is asking them. Legitimate is subject to interpretation, but I'm willing to
by jlgreco 13y ago
His claim is that there are legitimate questions, though he does not claim that he is asking them. Legitimate is subject to interpretation, but I'm willing to be reasonable here. Regardless, I would settle on him saying that he is somebody who has questions, and telling us what those questions are. Alternatively, if he isn't the person with those questions, just a quick link to somebody that does have those questions would be nice.
It should be trivial to prove if it is true (though the claim does not prove itself), which is why I feel comfortable in asking to see that proof. It isn't asking much.
- chris_wot 13y agoHe's talking about trivial proofs. Rephrase it like this: If I dispute that the EFF are "the good guys", then the EFF are not indisputably "the good guys". Or, more formally it is: p →q p is "I dispute that the EFF are good guys" q is "the EFF are not indisputably the good guys" A trivial proof can only be so if can be shown that q is true. As p is also true (he disputes this) then q is also true. Ergo, this is proven true, thus is a trivial proof.
- jlgreco 13y ago> he disputes this See, he doesn't actually say that; he has not actually said that he himself has legitimate questions about the EFF, nor has he identified anybody that does. He implies that he does, but has avoided giving any sort of clarification. If you claim that they are not the good guys, then it is indeed proven that they are not indisputably the good guys. Merely claiming that there are other who dispute them proves nothing of the sort though, unless you can prove that those others exist (Just a name or contact information would do, I could go ask them to confirm their position myself). I could say "It is disputed that sugar is sweet", but that statement would not prove itself (maybe I do not dispute that sugar is sweet, and am unable to find any examples of people that do). Now, if I said "It is disputed that sugar is sweet. I dispute it.", that proves itself. If I say "It is disputed that sugar is sweet. Vladimir Putin disputes it", then (assuming Vladimir Putin confirms this) it is again proven. We need to know who actually disputes/questions this before we can accept it as disputed/questioned. This is why my question to him was "Who's asking those questions?" I expect his answer, were he kind enough to give one, would be "Me.", at which point his statement would be proven and the discussion could continue in a more productive manner.