Thursday, September 24, 2009
The 120th Skeptics' Circle
You can fine the 120th Skeptics' Circle at Pro-science, with a straight-forward roundup and topic indicator, and a lot of very good reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A discussion of skepticism, logic, math, intelligent design creationism, board games, the Utah Jazz, marriage, having three children on the autism spectrum and two that not on the spectrum, being a DBA, teaching, the St. Louis metro area, my health since being diagnosed with ALS, and anything else that comes to mind.
About Me
- One Brow
- Metro-East St. Louis, Illinois, United States
- I'm a father of five, happily married since June 1989, former student of mathematics, currently full-time software engineer and retired part-time math teacher. You can reach me at one(underscore)brow(at)yahoo(dot)com.
Places I go to learn things
Webcomics
Other fun places
- Ask Greg Weisman - Responses
- The Daily Cartoonist
- Metro East Gamers
- The St. Louis Board Game Meetup Group
- Stonemaier Games
- TalkieToaster's Board Games Blog
- 18xx Concordance
- BoardGameGeek
- Poker Chip Forum
- Living and Dying by the Jazz
- Jazz Basketball blog
- Salt City Hoops
- SLC Dunk
- Jazz section of the Deseret News
- Jazz section of the Salt Lake Tribune
- JazzFanz
- Daily Nous
- The Skeptics' Annotated Bible Discussion Board
- Snopes.com: What's New?
Recent Comments
Get this Recent Comments Widget
Labels
- ADHD (3)
- ALS Status Update (4)
- Board Games (7)
- Chess (1)
- Creationism (5)
- Denialism (13)
- ID and Science (15)
- Local stuff (4)
- Logic (13)
- Math (10)
- pdd-nos (16)
- Philosophy (33)
- Pleasant Surprises (2)
- Politics (10)
- Questionable Interpretations (16)
- Quote of the Week (21)
- Race (5)
- Skepticism (47)
- Skeptics' Circle (30)
- Social Justice (5)
- Teaching Math (6)
- The Last Superstition (13)
- Utah Jazz (4)
- Vanity (4)
Retired Webcomics
Posts
Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together
HRG, on CARM (paraphrased with his approval)
With formal systems, such as mathematics, you can have certainty and demonstrability, but not reality.
With science, such as physics, you can have reality and demonstrability, but not certainty.
With belief systems, such as Christianity, you can have reality and certainty, but not demonstrability.
G. K. Chesterton, in St. Thomas Aquinas
After the great example of St. Thomas, the principle stands, or ought always to have stood established; that we must either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his grounds and not ours. We may do other things instead of arguing, according to our views of what actions are morally permissible; but if we argue we must argue "On the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves."
Bertrand Russell, in The Analysis of Mind
Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk.
47 comments:
Some Jazzfan idiot says: "Ok Mr. Semantics, enjoy the land of makebelieve."
Heh, the hysteria and histrionics displayed by these haters when are corrected is rather amusing, aint it Eric? Of course, no matter how wrong they are, they are right, and you are wrong. Like me, you seem to makin some serious enemies at Jazzfanz, eh?
In real life and on line, I've always inspired feelings of hatred in people. It's never bothered me.
By the way, Troutbum is back. If you are interested in returning as well, you should probably email Jason.
I couldn't help but note the link to the one and only "Maverick Philosopher"--even a stranger bird than Paddy Feser (though both are quasi-Randians, and rightists). Note MavP's recent post on material conditionals, where he says the following:
""If the earth is flat, then I am the Pope
I am not the Pope
Therefore
The earth is not flat.
The reasoning in this argument is perfectly clear and perfectly valid. The argument is sound in addition to being valid: its premises are true.
The MavP errors. The argument FORM, modus tollens, IS merely valid, but the first premise is not true, so the argument is unsound. And that is really what Harris (who MavP quotes) was discussing: a truth functional reading (Philonian) has nothing to do with facts, ie empirical reality. Whimsy logic, ala Lewis Carroll will of course work for validity, but NOT for sound AND valid arguments, which depend on TRUE premises. MavP conflates the validity of the form with the truth question, ie the premises confirmed as true.
Another point MavP overlooks, re material implication involves the following relations: p -> q = -p v q = -(p & -q). Those are logically equivalent (I'll leave the truth table to Doc MavP). IN fact, that shows that the real reading of the conditional is a denied conjunction! And in that case, it can be easily shown that there is a case where the earth is not flat AND he is not pope (the counterargument, being
-(p & q), I believe)--thus showing the argument unsound.
Maybe he should stick to the exegesis of Aynnie Rand.
Actually, I can hear MavP saying something like, confound it, the second premise is true! Then we say he confused matters by using a different form--tollens, rather than Harris' Modus Ponens. The Tollens form suggests the first premise is not true anyway (since consequent is false).
The MP form, to be both valid AND sound, depends on having a true first, major premise: and Harris was suggesting that there's something wrong about using whimsical, untrue conditionals and considering it logic, merely because of validity. Harris may not be a Bertrand Russell, but he is correct insofar that informal arguments in ordinary language usually hinge on truth (ie confirmed, verified) rather than mere validity.
('scuzi rant)
One Brow said: "By the way, Troutbum is back. If you are interested in returning as well, you should probably email Jason."
The whole admin/moderator situation there is an outright joke, eh, Eric? Troutbum, without question the most hateful, insulting, obnoxious, and obscene poster ever to frequent the place is back for the third time, eh?
I realize I'm not totally objective, but I seldom, if ever, personally insulted anyone there (not to say I didn't ridicule their "logic" from time to time, but no personal insults). Likewise, my "off-color" stuff, was always subtle, and never gross (from my persepctive).
That place is sorely lacking in both intelligence and humor, and I think I supplied at least a little of each. I guess they like it barren in those respects.
Any suggestion that you're not a homosexual seems to put you in bad stead there, ya know? Likewise if someone gets the idea that ya aint no touchy-feely left winger.
If Jason wants to announce some general amnesty, I might give it one more try. I have his email, but he's never responsed yet. He also has my email, if he wants to invite me back (I'm sure he doesn't). Some, perhaps even many, members there enjoyed my posts, but not the one's with mod powers, and never those who take the board ultra-seriously, needless to say.
Frivolity is to be condemned there. I understand the mentality, but that mentality seldom has power and control over a whole board, like it does there.
If they don't want me back, then they are disappointing some of their loyal members (of course, some of their favorite members would insist I remain banned, so I guess that balances out). Either way, it's their loss, the way I see it. A bland board without color, diversity, humor, and a little playful instigation is awfully boring---except to the dull, I suppose.
I really have never seen the need (other than to dictate that one's personal tastes be submitted to by all) to ban anyone from a board that has an "ignore" option. The whole mentality of ostracizing those you don't agree with just shouts "weakness" to me.
J,
One of the common disagreements I have with Dr. Vallicella (as well as all the otehr occupents on my blog fodder list) is their frequent confusion of statement of formal truth with statements of real truth. I agree the statement "if the earth is flat, then Dr. Vallicella is not the Pope" is not sound, because in a sound implication it is, or should be, a requirement that there is a connection between the hypothesis and conclusion that justifies the implicaiton.
However, I would think the only counterargument to -(p & -q) would be to demonstrate (p & -q). In particular, both -(p & -q) and -(p & q) are true whenever p is false. Unless, by counterargement you mean Showing the general train of thought unsound.
aintnuthin,
I don't think the administration is a joke. They make a choice to hold teh posters to certain standards, and while that would not be my choice, it's their site.
As for the moderators, there are a couple that would rather have you back instead of Troutbum, and a couple that strongly prefer having Troutbum back. As one mentioned, it does help Troutbum's case that he knows Jason, at least in having attended a few Nite Outs, and is also paying for a Premium membership.
However, I don't think you can say that any place with VINYLONE and Troutbum is lacking humor (not that the humor is being provided by these posters). I also think there is plenty of intelligence to go around, with colton, sirkickyass, catzies, SJF, JohnDeereJerry, the pearl, and several others displaying significant knowledge of the Jazz, basketball generally, and about other subjects as well. That comes across as sour grapes, and beneath you.
If your pride is more important that your participaiton, fine. If not, try to email Jason again (if he does not respond, copy the text to me and I will post it for him). I think the frivolity will be accepted as long as you tone down comments regarding fifty-cents whores, various national and racial epithets, etc. There are a few posters, such as YoungBlood85, who feel you have a valuable basketball perspective which gets overshadowed by other aspects of how you post. Certainly I think you have an interesting pont of view and what you say is often worth reading.
Either way, I hope to at least see you aroung here a lot.
I said: "That place is sorely lacking in both intelligence and humor, and I think I supplied at least a little of each. I guess they like it barren in those respects."
You responded: "I also think there is plenty of intelligence to go around, with colton, sirkickyass, catzies, SJF, JohnDeereJerry, the pearl, and several others displaying significant knowledge of the Jazz, basketball generally, and about other subjects as well. That comes across as sour grapes, and beneath you."
Well, by "sorely lacking" I didn't mean completely absent. I just meant that the overall tone of the board is rather humorless and lacking in intelligent posts.
Members like Pearl, Kicky, Youngblood and Catzies strongly dislike me. I never quite "get along" with pompous, arrogant types like (as I see them) Kicky and Pearl. It doesn't help that, in addition to seemingly vastly over-rating their own arguments, those two take great pleasure in displaying negativity about the team and/or certain players. I just don't relate well to the "know-it-all" syndrome, supported by ridicule of those that question their omniscience.
Guys like Youngblood I can usually relate to quite well, but once someone gets the notion that the only proper reaction to me is to be offended somehow, then there's usually no turnin back. I'm not going to ask for preferential treatment. Like I said, if Jason wants to announce a general amnesty (as he clearly should if he's gunna let Bum back), fine. If not, that's fine too. It's his joint, and he can be as arbitrary as he wants with it.
I certainly don't know them all, but I believe that most posters that have been banned (ignoring the 1 or 2 post wonders who are simply obnoxious) represent a much higher than average degree of intelligence, wit, entertainment, and general overall interest to the board as a whole.
They would be the last one's banned if it were my board. I like to be challenged, entertained, etc. Some, probably most, people don't. Aint nuthin new.
In particular, both -(p & -q) and -(p & q) are true whenever p is false.
Yes, that is my point. Put differently, the conjunction is not true, whether one is the pope or not (ie that's the denied conjunction reading of conditional). In terms of natural language, being a pope or not has no bearing on the falseness of the earth being flat--so there was no "connection" as Harris said about the conditionals.
I tend to agree with Wittgenstein of the Tractatus that formal logic is tautologous: one can prove that certain conclusions follow from certain premises via reductio of whatever type (though some arguments may be undecidable), but logic cannot establish premises themselves. Sort of obvious, but many a philosophaster seems a bit unclear on the concept. It's usually not applicable to empirical problems.
I think Harris is just asking that people use true premises--whether natural science, historical facts, mathematics--and not the whimsical, Carrollian sort that some logic types prefer, and MavP sort of misread it.
Logic, it kinda chews. Know what I'm sayin?
I mean, like, looky here, eh?: The great Robert Johnson once said:
6 and 2 is eight....
8 and 2 is ten....
A Babe try an trick ya one time....
She sho nuff gunna do it again.....
Now, ya could, I spoze, starts in to complainin that 8 and 2 being ten aint gotz nuthin to do with some Babe, but....
Either way, it's all stone cold fact, see? Why would wanna go gittin all kinda analytical bout it, I wonder?
Forgotz the link, eh? Richeea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkftesK2dck
Logic, even of the informal sort, tends to bother zealots, and zealots-on-drugs.
One brow--I think I have an idea who your trolls are (unfortunately, I now moderate for the disruptive sort of comments like the ones seen on this thread. I suggest you do the same. And really I should refrain from the caricatures of MavP. Just call him the Pope)
Heh, fo sum damn reason, Eric, aincho zakly what, er nuthin, but fo sum damn reason, I kinda figured J would go gittin all kinda upset, ya know? I guess I'm physic, er sumthin.
Ya know, J, for all the gratuitous hostility toward "right-wingers" you have parceled out here, I thought you might be some kinda egalitarian, tolerant type who would at least indulge from the peanut gallery, even if contemptibly ignorant. Then again, I spoze those who are always attacking right-wingers, or left wingers, as the case may be, are merely opposite sides of the same zealous coins, eh?
the gratuitous hostility
Not exactly. We were discussing a professor's analysis of the material implication, which I find lacking. You simply feel the need to politicize the matter, or troll. That said, Vallicella posts something interesting once in a while, like his praise of Kerouac. Ti Jean was not exactly GOP par-tay material--.
Politics is a separate matter, Anny. Neither a tea-bagger or tea-bagger-hater be--though the collective IQ of even a meeting of Dinkocrats generally outrates that of the teabagger right.
J,
All of the anonymous comments in this thread, and at least 99% of my anonymous comments generally, are by the same poster, who I call aintnuthin because that is the handle he used on JazzFanz for a few years. Yes, he does occasionally get flippant and trollish, and he has an odd way of writing, but behind it is a reasonable intelligence and an interesting point of view. We have enjoyed long, vigorous, respectful debates on various issues, and I hope he has learned from them as much as I have. He is more than he appears. I hope his presence will not stop you from posting and commenting.
aintnuthin,
I find it interesting that you think J. has some sort of hostility to right-wingers. Were I to guess today, I would put J. at somewhat center-right, but by no means committed to any particular platform unilaterally.
What's interesting is that I find the two of you similar in that you both use some indirect methods to bring out your arguments from time to time and are both reasonably independent thinkers. How about you give each other a chance?
I am centrist in some regards--at least against the neo-liberals and PC types--though I did not vote for BushCo (or McCaint--or BO for that matter). Economically I generally agree with traditional, New Deal Demos, however, OB, and have never been in the GOP. Let's not forget that most republican biblethumpers consider any idea from a Demo prima facie mistaken (including Darwinism of any form).
I may not care for the new sort of urban Dems, but the people with the sign of the fish BS on their car, or marching off to sunday school, and chanting from the Book of Rapture-Revelation are nearly all GOPers, OB. They created this mess.
J said: "Politics is a separate matter, Anny."
Yeah, I agree, that's why I find it curious that you seem to think that's your opponent's politics are somehow relevant to the issue, ya know?:
J said: " the one and only "Maverick Philosopher"--even a stranger bird than Paddy Feser (though both are quasi-Randians, and rightists)....Maybe he should stick to the exegesis of Aynnie Rand."
J said: "And maybe I start quoting some chestnuts from Feser's fave vichy-Thomist, Garrigou-Lagrange, like where he blesses Petain, if not the nazis: the raison d'etre of Feser's return to Deus, I suspect."
J said: "You simply feel the need to politicize the matter." I gitz it now. I'm the one what dunnit, eh?
J said: "Let's not forget that most republican biblethumpers consider any idea from a Demo prima facie mistaken (including Darwinism of any form)."
That is, without question, strictly a one-way street, aint it, J?
J said: "...the collective IQ of even a meeting of Dinkocrats generally outrates that of the teabagger right."
So, then, ya add up the IQ's of a roomfull of democrats and that sum would exceed that of the entire GOP, eh?
J, as far as I'm concerned, you have every right to be as partisan and fanatical in your socio-political-(anti)religious beliefs as you want. My only comment was to the effect that I have found some things to be quite common to extremists of all types, whatever side of the fence they are on, e.g., blatant intolerance and hyperbolic demonization of the "enemy."
Mebbe Bobby Dylan, the erstwhile darling and "spokesman" of the new left, put it best, eh? Why doncha just grow down, he axxed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ4SbYot90M
Grazi!
Not hyperbolic or fanatical whatsoever, Trollski. Satirical--not to say informative. Some of us recall the old Right Reason Ministry of Kultur, not to say Aynnie Rand's greatest hits--actually, I think the Feser/MavP gang even to the right of Miss Rand's nutty sect. Miss Rand was against theocracy at least, dissed Nixon/Kissinger at one point, and also dismissed the so-called Divine right of Kings (lets ask MavP or Feser for their thoughts on that)
As far as the points on the GOP being "more guilty" in regards to theocracy, perhaps Google around for some Dubya chestnuts from like the beginning of IWE, where he claimed he consulted the Book of Revelation for political guidance. Trollski, there's not much left to discuss if you consider the Book of Revelation a reliable guide to politics or reality.
(also check out Jefferson and others' comments on the Book of Rev.: TJ considered "it merely the ravings of a lunatic."" AS mythology, OK, maybe. As a guide to political reality, NYET).
I see, eh? The real issue here is the ever-present threat of a theocracy bein rigidly enforced in the good ole USA, eh?
And here I thought it was about the material implications of logic arguments, the fundamental nature of the ontological argument, etc. Stoopid me, eh?
Non sequitur again, Trollski--you brought up politics, anyway.
The original point on this thread was in regards to material implication (which I suspect you googled real quickly, raht).
Feser and MavP's politics are another topic. ---I'm not sure of his exact politics, but even OB has on occasion voiced objections to the sort of quasi-catholic ideology of Feser and MavP (though I don't sense MavP is quite the Thomistic fundamentalist Feser is). Or do you think your entire salvation and raison d'etre hangs on you taking La Misa with the padres, Trollski? That's what Feser believes.
Dissent is another Jeffersonian virtue, however quaint--that includes the right to dissent from judeo-christian orthodoxy (and you seemed to miss my point on TJ's views contra-biblical inerrancy).
Sum words of wisdom from sum old-ass raghead, eh:?
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent----Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument---About it and about: but evermore---Came out by the same door as in I went.
For "Is" and "Is - Not" though with Rule and Line---And "Up - and - down" by Logic I define----Of all that one should care to fathom---I Was never deep in anything but - Wine.
And much as Wine has play'd the Infidel---And robb'd me of my Robe of Honour, Well----I often wonder what the Vintners buy---One half so precious as the ware they sell."
One mo lil tidbit, eh?:
“Some for the Glories of This World; and some---Sigh for the Prophet's Paradise to come---Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go---Nor heed the music of a distant Drum!”
Yeah! Cash, muthafukka! On the barrelhead.
Whaa? Is that the Rubiyat? Either way, poesy does not an argument make. The Book of Revelation features some poetry as well: like a jezebel on the back of a seven-headed beast. True or False (provide reasons---hint: ~).
As my comments indicated I am not supportive of the mathematical realism of Vallacelli (or dogmatism of Feser), but take more pragmatist views in regards to formal logic--does it work? apply, function? Maybe in some programming contexts--boolean, etc. But not often. Predicate-formal logic is closer to chess in ways, which MavP pretends to have mastered as well.
I have to get back to Arbeiten
J said: "in regards to formal logic--does it work? apply, function? Maybe in some programming contexts--boolean, etc. But not often."
Well, like I done said, then, eh?: Logic, it kinda chews.
J said: "Either way, poesy does not an argument make."
Exactly. Who needs argument when ya gotz a jug of wine, a loaf of bread, and thou, Sweet Thang?
“One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent” (Mencken)
J said: "Non sequitur again, Trollski--you brought up politics, anyway."
No, actually, I didn't. I merely made a passin reference to your political "points," such as:
J said: "And maybe I start quoting some chestnuts from Feser's fave vichy-Thomist, Garrigou-Lagrange, like where he blesses Petain, if not the nazis: the raison d'etre of Feser's return to Deus, I suspect."
But, it don't really matter. I think you and me, we in complete agreement on one thang, at least, to wit:
Any "troll" who is "disruptive" should oughta be "moderated" (with extreme prejudice, if ya catch my drift, eh?).
Don't mistake me for your favorite touchy-feely liberal, Trollski. I 'm sort of apolitical--and happy to mano a mano--legal and proper, in a ring, of course--with biblethumpers, even the cowboy sort.
Logic has its uses--there's a midpoint between the Fregean-formalist type (or wannabe-Frege) of approach of Vallecelli, and the anti-rationalists or postmods, etc.
Mencken?? He's an enemy of churchies, not to say democracy. I have some HL Mencken posts on my blog.
Does that mean you approve of Petain, and the vichy, not to say Padre G-L? Simply quoting things you object to doesn't mean much, Trollski.
J said: "He's an enemy of churchies, not to say democracy."
Why not say democracy, I wonder?:
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." (Mencken, eh?)
Is chess an art, or a science? Accordin to Lasker, it aint neither, its just a good ole-fashioned fight, that's all.
J said: "Does that mean you approve of Petain, and the vichy...?"
Heh, say what!? And you wanna talk about non sequiturs, J?
I have a feelin you haven't really understood the point of virtually every post I've made here. Aint nuthin new, I spoze. Don't nobuddy nevva seem to understand my sorry ass, for sum damn reason.
You think HL Mencken would be allowed at the GOP country club soirees? Nicht, nyet, nein. Biblethumpers and populists control the party at all levels.
The Foxnews clowns and GOP regs would view HL Mencken about like they view Hitchens and his palsies now---rats and crypto-liberals. Not that I really care for Hitchens, but he has some secularist spine at least.
I quote Mencken on a matter totally unrelated to religion or politics, and suddenly we're straight back to this, eh, J?
J said: "You think HL Mencken would be allowed at the GOP country club soirees? Nicht, nyet, nein. Biblethumpers and populists control the party at all levels."
Despite your claims to bein apolitical, etc., you just can't seem to stop bringin up, and bashin, "right-wingers." You have barely responded to any point I've made, simply taken a fragment of my posts and turned it into an occasion for complaining about rightists. Is this not apparent to you?
You haven't made any points, Trollski. I have, which you keep parroting. And the Mencken quotes definitely pertained to religion and politics, and the problems thereof--the point on Mencken not being allowed in the country clubs DOES say something about religion and politics. Glenn Becks rule the party--not Mencken like cynics, or even the older WF Buckley like wags
This isn't going anywhere. Hey maybe troll that hottay Susie Polgar's site....e4, baybe
J said: "This isn't going anywhere."
Ya gotz dat right, sho nuff:
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." (Winston Churchill)
My posts here have been directly or indirectly addressed to logic and its uses, with some additional commentary directed toward your suggestion that I be "moderated," J.
You said logic was like chess, and I commented: "Is chess an art, or a science? Accordin to Lasker, it aint neither, its just a good ole-fashioned fight, that's all."
You may or may not see the connection, but this is relevant to Nietsche's assessment of Socrates (who he had begrudging respect for, despite calling him "decadent"). Nietzsche's claim was that Socrates, with his logic-chopping dialectic, merely created a new form of "contest" for the greeks--one at which Socrates himself excelled.
I'm not the fanatic-- you are, Trollski.
And Winnie Churchill--there you go. Eugenicist, tory, war-bird, pal of the fascists until a few hours before WWII started, then later supported gassing the palestinians. Role model material.
Actually, I would disagree with Lasker. Chess is closer to a science and to formal logic than to Ahht, though it has aesthetic elements.
I'm not one for philo-klassix too much, tho' when taking time away from arbeiten, will read the Republic and dialogues. Socrates was a great sage and rationalist, not merely another strong-arm guy or mystic--or frat boy.
J said: "And Winnie Churchill--there you go. Eugenicist, tory, war-bird, pal of the fascists until a few hours before WWII started, then later supported gassing the palestinians. Role model material."
As is typical of you, your only response to a claim or comment made is a summary of the politics of it's author. Of course, in an indirect way, you have convincingly demonstrated Churchill's point for him, even while tryin to evade it.
Your type is a dime a dozen, J, and I swear you must all have some central website where you collect, and then memorize, your ad hominem responses to virtually any issue you might face.
Mentioning Churchill's support of gas or one-time support of eugenics is not Ad Hominem, whatsoever--nothin' but facts, Trollski the poet. You're the one spewing Ad Homs, and have yet to make any tangible point.
J said: "Mentioning Churchill's support of gas or one-time support of eugenics is not Ad Hominem"
1. What is it, then, and how is it relevant to his quip about the behavior of fanatics?
2. What, pray-tell, are you even trying to insinuate by claiming that Churchill supported "gassing" the palestinians? Ya mean "gassin" like the Nazis done to the jews, or ya mean "gassin" like the cops do on a daily basis when they use tear gas to subdue suspects?
"Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions." (Hume)
I guess the main question here is whether the GOP would have invited Hume to their country club parties, eh?
To answer my own question about Churchill, he said:
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes....gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected....I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas."
Make their eyes water!? We dealin with a genocidal maniac here, sho nuff, eh!?
Post a Comment