Election : Director of Social Engineering

[GeneralTacticus]

Well I haven't read any of the previous discussion, but I don't see why those statements would be necessarily wrong. At least as long as you add "from a certain perspective to them". For example, to make the Planet example a bit more terran, you could say "Our surroundings most probably determine human civilization" to indicate that the climate, the plant- and animallife have a tremendous influence on the culture & values of the people living in that place. The Egyptian civilization being determined by the Nile and desert for example. The native Americans giving great value to the animals surrounding them. The western view on nature being determined by the great technological power we can use on it. But you could just as well say "Human civilization most probably determines our surroundings or how we see them". Different perspectives but each with some truth in it.

The difference between what we are talking about and what you are talking about is that the example you gave is not actually a contradiction. It is entirely possible for one thing to shape something else and for that thing to shape the other in turn. OTOH, I hope you can can agree that saying the 'A is true' and then 'A is false' in the same statement *IS* a contradiction, regardless of what context you may put it in Note I said context, not qualifiers; if you say 'A is true when B is present', and 'A is false when B is absent', that's not a contradiction).

[Maniac]

Well yes I admit I gave a lousy example.

[Maniac]

I just thought of a better example!
Suppose some libertarian is murdering some Marxist and I am watching doing nothing. You could just as well say:
"I did not murder the Marxist." because it wasn't me personally who strangled him.
"I murdered the Marxist." because I stood by, doing nothing to prevent it.
What do you think? Is it all right?

I still haven't read the thread though, so I don't know if this example has any relevance or similarity to that Planet issue...

[GeneralTacticus]

No, it doesn't really have any relevance; whether or not you were responsible for the death depends upon your point of view. David Floyd, for example, would sya you did not, because you were under no obligation to interfere, especially when this mighr endanger your own life; Azazel or (perhaps) Drogue might argue that you were, because you allowed it to happen.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
depends upon your point of view.

Well that's for a large part the point I was trying to make.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'm saying that, in that instance, which of the two option you pick depends on your point of view; you can't logically hold both views at the same time.

[Maniac]

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you trying to say that I for instance couldn't at the same time hold David Floyd's and Azazel's view??