Author: martin fierz
Date: 08:48:06 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2003 at 10:58:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 19, 2003 at 05:42:46, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On December 19, 2003 at 04:59:19, martin fierz wrote: >>>>No it isn't. This is what Omid tried to turn it into, but it is _not_. >>>>None of the logic stuff applies here. The statement is simply taken at >>>>face value... >>> >>>yes it is. oh, we are down to "no ist isn't" and "yes it is" :-) >>> >>>we are talking about GCPs simple sentence that he disagrees with the reasoning >>>but doesn't find the decision unreasonable. you say this sentence is impossible >>>to understand. >>> >>>that is the context. forget about omid. forget about graz. >>> >>>e.g. say a guy runs over and kills a pedestrian in his car when he's drunk, and >>>during the investigation the police finds out that he evaded taxes in the >>>millions of $$$. in most western countries the guy will go to prison because he >>>evaded taxes, not because he hit someone with his car and that person died. now >>>for me that is completely unreasonable (i think killing someone is worse than >>>evading taxes), but the final result, the guy ends up in prison, is the same as >>>i would have decided. >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >> >>But the question "is it possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons?", >>isn't so easy to answer just by using logic. >> >>There is an aura of ethics and principles surrounding it :) >> >>If we judge a man to go to prison for a murder he didn't do, but in fact >>commited one nobody knows about, do you think the judgement is correct? >> >>-S. > >There is more to it than that. The final decision was _clearly_ wrong if all >that is considered is the written rules. So either other reasons were good >enough to violate a written rule, or the decision to violate the written rules >was simply wrong. > >He didn't agree with any of the reasoning used to violate tournament rules. >Therefore, how could one agree with a decision that directly violates rules >being used? ask GCP... that's exactly what i meant: instead of saying that sentence is impossible to understand, you could ask him what he means by it. because the simple way of understanding his sentence is: "reasoning A was given to come to decision X. i don't like reasoning A, but decision X is not unreasonable because you could have used reasoning B which makes sense". so the sentence is in fact very easy to understand, however, i have absolutely no clue what reasoning B would be :-) cheers martin
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.