I agree. Truth and relevance are independent of proof and other forms of validation, despite the clear usefulness of those tools for determining the presence of such qualities. Jokes are usually funny because they make you look at something you hadn't noticed before, giving you new insight, but they are rarely decked out with all the accoutrements of a formal pronouncement. Demanding or receiving backing arguments would kind of kill the humor... Although I could find a kind of straight-man meta humor in someone doing so, kind of like intentionally telling jokes so bad that the listener has to laugh at you for bothering. (I do this on occasion, just to see if anyone gets the meta humor. That's my excuse, anyway.)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM, David Clark <[email protected]>wrote: > >> This “rule” was used to express an opinion and with no backing arguments, >> should be disregarded as irrelevant. >> >> >> > > I wasn't sure that I should get involved, but this argument is > not valid. Just because an opinion is expressed without a backing > argument that does not mean that it should be disregarded or disregarded as > irrelevant. That is not sound reasoning. The statement might be true and > important. > Jim Bromer > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
