Then I offer some modern Laws of Thought:
The law of excluded middle (that anything must be either P or not-P)
The law of non-contradiction (that nothing can be both P and not-P)
The law of identity (that if a thing is P, then it is P)
The law of causality
Memory fails me. Any more?
]]>And yes, I figured
And I would argue that rationality is a far more complex a discussion than is cronyism
Honestly, I really don’t get your distinction (Steven said: “Well, I used the dictionary to look up the meaning of a word (two, actually). That’s within the bounds of proper usage.”)
between what you did in this post and what I did here. But, oh well. . .maybe you’ll have time to explain it to me IN PERSON some day. *gasp* *turns blue* *passes out*
Using it as the basis for a more complex concept is a different issue.
]]>On the other hand, I can see it didn’t work out too well for you either.
I know no more than any member of the general informed public about Miers’ suitability for a seat on the SC and so spend my time until the hearings in informative argumentation with others on your blog.
What I am most satisfied with is The Bush II
administration.