Native Indians try to thwart photographer rights

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:21:26 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:10:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:29:14 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:04:38 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:32:53 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:52:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:49:50 -0500, John A.
wrote:

--- this called 'snipping' ---

That is not what I did. As I pointed out, the context implied the
present, based upon the hypothetical. We just read it differently.

Protip: When someone mentions the USSR having done something, it's
highly probable that that something occurred when the USSR was around.
(And it doesn't matter when whatever else is being talked about
happened; it's perfectly valid and acceptable at every level of
discourse to include both current and historical examples, even in the
same sentence.)

Logic tip. When the discussion concerns a hypothetical, it is illogical
to introduce an event which would be precluded by the very existence of
the hypothetical.

Dead wrong. You are severely over-limiting your thinking. See my
previous reply.

In or out of context, logic is not your forte, is it?

Oh it very much is.

Even when discussing a hypothetical situation, one can bring up
example events from any place in any time in history by way of
illustration. You've probably done it yourself.

But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible.

Not at all. For example: If you assume empire A is brought down before
they would have invaded and subjugated small country X, you can
certainly use the fact that they did so in reality to show that X
would be similarly vulnerable to similarly-powerul and -armed empire B
if the absence of A gave B the opportunity. QED

The absence of A does not preclude X being invaded and subjugated by
another power. Your example does not qualify.

And yet A subjugating X in reality can be used as an example showing
X's vulnerability to A-type empires in the hypothetical absence of A.

What we are discussing is:

"But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible."

The fact that A did not invade X does not preclude X being invaded by
another country. i.e. the hypothetical invasion of X by another
country is not precluded by the hypothesis and therefore does not
qualify as a subject of this discussion.

If for example Napoleon had died on Elba no example-event which would
have an effect on Napoleon's tactics at the Battle of Waterloo would
be tenable.

But that does not preclude the battle from being used as example for
exploring other scenarios, the most obvious being that whoever else
leads France goes ahead and does enough of the same things Napoleon
did to get to a similar situation.

True, but the tactic's would not have been Napoleon's. They merely
would have been much the same as Napoleon's.

If HMS Hood was in dock from 1 May 1941 to 12 June 1941 she could not
have been sunk by the Bismark on 24th May 1941. Hence the outcome of
the discussions about the changes to be made to the ammunition hoists
during her construction in 1924 could have no effect on a particular
encounter with the Bismark which did not occur.

But the outcome of the encounter that hypothetically did not occur
would be appropriate to bring up if discussing the possible outcome if
it encountered the Bismarck on a later date, or if a different ship
had on the same date, etc., etc.

True, but that is not the same as an encounter involving the Hood.

I think the problem is that you are looking at the specific
restrictions of a hypothetical situation, and somehow warping that
into much broader restrictions. You're taking "let's say this event
didn't occur" and reading it as "let's say this event and anything
like it can't occur, and let's also ignore everything else said event
tells us about the people places and things involved and people,
places, and things like them."

All I am doing is requiring that words and statements mean exactly
what they say.

In short, the people talking *about* hypothetical situation X are not
*in* hypothetical situation X, and can draw on experience, examples,
and lessons from events outside of hypothetical situation X. This is
frequently useful, even if the hypothetical situation does preclude
anything like a particular outside event, because invariably there is
more to an event than just the fact that it happened; there are other
lessons, facts, and principles to be learned from it that can still be
applied.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:14:32 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:49:40 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:21:26 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:10:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:29:14 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:04:38 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:32:53 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:52:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:49:50 -0500, John A.
wrote:

--- this called 'snipping' ---

That is not what I did. As I pointed out, the context implied the
present, based upon the hypothetical. We just read it differently.

Protip: When someone mentions the USSR having done something, it's
highly probable that that something occurred when the USSR was around.
(And it doesn't matter when whatever else is being talked about
happened; it's perfectly valid and acceptable at every level of
discourse to include both current and historical examples, even in the
same sentence.)

Logic tip. When the discussion concerns a hypothetical, it is illogical
to introduce an event which would be precluded by the very existence of
the hypothetical.

Dead wrong. You are severely over-limiting your thinking. See my
previous reply.

In or out of context, logic is not your forte, is it?

Oh it very much is.

Even when discussing a hypothetical situation, one can bring up
example events from any place in any time in history by way of
illustration. You've probably done it yourself.

But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible.

Not at all. For example: If you assume empire A is brought down before
they would have invaded and subjugated small country X, you can
certainly use the fact that they did so in reality to show that X
would be similarly vulnerable to similarly-powerul and -armed empire B
if the absence of A gave B the opportunity. QED

The absence of A does not preclude X being invaded and subjugated by
another power. Your example does not qualify.

And yet A subjugating X in reality can be used as an example showing
X's vulnerability to A-type empires in the hypothetical absence of A.

What we are discussing is:

"But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible."

The fact that A did not invade X does not preclude X being invaded by
another country. i.e. the hypothetical invasion of X by another
country is not precluded by the hypothesis and therefore does not
qualify as a subject of this discussion.

I believe I have located the problem: we're having a "tree falling in
the forest" argument.

It seems that you are defining "example-event" as "an example of an
event that could specifically happen in the hypothetical world", while
I'm defining it as "any event, in or out of the hypothetical world,
from which we can learn something that will inform our thinking on
what could happen in the hypothetical world." (That's why I used the
term "example event" rather than "hypothetical event".)

The "X subjugated by B rather than A" scenario is a prime example: the
fact that A did subjugate X in reality is an example event that shows
that, in the absence of A, X could still be subjugated by the
similar-to-A B, so it would not necessarily go on to become an empire
itself in the absence of A. Without that example we would be less sure
of that vulnerability, and it would take a more involved analysis to
determine what we could conclude. With that example, the definitive
experiment has been done and the results are known.

I believe my definition is more real-world and useful in respect to
discussion of hypothetical situations, in that it does not create
artificial restrictions on what knowledge & data can be applied to
analyzing what might happen in the hypothetical situation in question.

OK. You insist on discussing example-evenst which are not precluded
by the hypothesis. No wonder you end up at cross purposes with those
trying to discuss example-evenst which are precluded by the
hypothesis.

--- snip ---

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:55:27 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:45:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:14:32 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:49:40 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:21:26 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:10:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:29:14 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:04:38 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:32:53 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:52:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:49:50 -0500, John A.
wrote:

--- this called 'snipping' ---

That is not what I did. As I pointed out, the context implied the
present, based upon the hypothetical. We just read it differently.

Protip: When someone mentions the USSR having done something, it's
highly probable that that something occurred when the USSR was around.
(And it doesn't matter when whatever else is being talked about
happened; it's perfectly valid and acceptable at every level of
discourse to include both current and historical examples, even in the
same sentence.)

Logic tip. When the discussion concerns a hypothetical, it is illogical
to introduce an event which would be precluded by the very existence of
the hypothetical.

Dead wrong. You are severely over-limiting your thinking. See my
previous reply.

In or out of context, logic is not your forte, is it?

Oh it very much is.

Even when discussing a hypothetical situation, one can bring up
example events from any place in any time in history by way of
illustration. You've probably done it yourself.

But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible.

Not at all. For example: If you assume empire A is brought down before
they would have invaded and subjugated small country X, you can
certainly use the fact that they did so in reality to show that X
would be similarly vulnerable to similarly-powerul and -armed empire B
if the absence of A gave B the opportunity. QED

The absence of A does not preclude X being invaded and subjugated by
another power. Your example does not qualify.

And yet A subjugating X in reality can be used as an example showing
X's vulnerability to A-type empires in the hypothetical absence of A.

What we are discussing is:

"But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible."

The fact that A did not invade X does not preclude X being invaded by
another country. i.e. the hypothetical invasion of X by another
country is not precluded by the hypothesis and therefore does not
qualify as a subject of this discussion.

I believe I have located the problem: we're having a "tree falling in
the forest" argument.

It seems that you are defining "example-event" as "an example of an
event that could specifically happen in the hypothetical world", while
I'm defining it as "any event, in or out of the hypothetical world,
from which we can learn something that will inform our thinking on
what could happen in the hypothetical world." (That's why I used the
term "example event" rather than "hypothetical event".)

The "X subjugated by B rather than A" scenario is a prime example: the
fact that A did subjugate X in reality is an example event that shows
that, in the absence of A, X could still be subjugated by the
similar-to-A B, so it would not necessarily go on to become an empire
itself in the absence of A. Without that example we would be less sure
of that vulnerability, and it would take a more involved analysis to
determine what we could conclude. With that example, the definitive
experiment has been done and the results are known.

I believe my definition is more real-world and useful in respect to
discussion of hypothetical situations, in that it does not create
artificial restrictions on what knowledge & data can be applied to
analyzing what might happen in the hypothetical situation in question.

OK. You insist on discussing example-evenst which are not precluded
by the hypothesis. No wonder you end up at cross purposes with those
trying to discuss example-evenst which are precluded by the
hypothesis.

You have that reversed as far as who is insisting what, but wrong in
any case. My point is that it's counter-productive and artificially
limiting to exclude such examples.

You may well be right but it is not the particular subject of _this_
discussion. That's why I keep quoting "But an example-event which is
precluded by the hypothesis is not permissible." I don't know why you
keep ignoring it.


It's fine to ask the question "what
if X never happened" and exclude X from the possible outcomes *in that
hypothetical situation*, but to exclude *from the analysis* knowledge
gained from X happening in the real world is simply foolish.

Now, if you are trying to model the thinking of people *inside* the
hypothetical world, then you can certainly assume that *they* don't
have the knowledge they would have learned from X, but *you* still
have that knowledge and can apply it. *You* still have X as an example
from which you can learn. Think of the way crash tests on cars tell us
about the characteristics of cars that have never crashed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:30:24 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:55:35 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:55:27 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:45:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:14:32 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:49:40 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:21:26 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:10:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:29:14 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:04:38 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:32:53 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:52:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:49:50 -0500, John A.
wrote:

--- this called 'snipping' ---

That is not what I did. As I pointed out, the context implied the
present, based upon the hypothetical. We just read it differently.

Protip: When someone mentions the USSR having done something, it's
highly probable that that something occurred when the USSR was around.
(And it doesn't matter when whatever else is being talked about
happened; it's perfectly valid and acceptable at every level of
discourse to include both current and historical examples, even in the
same sentence.)

Logic tip. When the discussion concerns a hypothetical, it is illogical
to introduce an event which would be precluded by the very existence of
the hypothetical.

Dead wrong. You are severely over-limiting your thinking. See my
previous reply.

In or out of context, logic is not your forte, is it?

Oh it very much is.

Even when discussing a hypothetical situation, one can bring up
example events from any place in any time in history by way of
illustration. You've probably done it yourself.

But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible.

Not at all. For example: If you assume empire A is brought down before
they would have invaded and subjugated small country X, you can
certainly use the fact that they did so in reality to show that X
would be similarly vulnerable to similarly-powerul and -armed empire B
if the absence of A gave B the opportunity. QED

The absence of A does not preclude X being invaded and subjugated by
another power. Your example does not qualify.

And yet A subjugating X in reality can be used as an example showing
X's vulnerability to A-type empires in the hypothetical absence of A.

What we are discussing is:

"But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible."

The fact that A did not invade X does not preclude X being invaded by
another country. i.e. the hypothetical invasion of X by another
country is not precluded by the hypothesis and therefore does not
qualify as a subject of this discussion.

I believe I have located the problem: we're having a "tree falling in
the forest" argument.

It seems that you are defining "example-event" as "an example of an
event that could specifically happen in the hypothetical world", while
I'm defining it as "any event, in or out of the hypothetical world,
from which we can learn something that will inform our thinking on
what could happen in the hypothetical world." (That's why I used the
term "example event" rather than "hypothetical event".)

The "X subjugated by B rather than A" scenario is a prime example: the
fact that A did subjugate X in reality is an example event that shows
that, in the absence of A, X could still be subjugated by the
similar-to-A B, so it would not necessarily go on to become an empire
itself in the absence of A. Without that example we would be less sure
of that vulnerability, and it would take a more involved analysis to
determine what we could conclude. With that example, the definitive
experiment has been done and the results are known.

I believe my definition is more real-world and useful in respect to
discussion of hypothetical situations, in that it does not create
artificial restrictions on what knowledge & data can be applied to
analyzing what might happen in the hypothetical situation in question.

OK. You insist on discussing example-evenst which are not precluded
by the hypothesis. No wonder you end up at cross purposes with those
trying to discuss example-evenst which are precluded by the
hypothesis.

You have that reversed as far as who is insisting what, but wrong in
any case. My point is that it's counter-productive and artificially
limiting to exclude such examples.

You may well be right but it is not the particular subject of _this_
discussion. That's why I keep quoting "But an example-event which is
precluded by the hypothesis is not permissible." I don't know why you
keep ignoring it.

Wait... so you're claiming that when Peter said "Uhm! There is no more
USSR. Or, did you forget." he was referring to the hypothetical world
where the Germans won WWII?

No, I'm staying out of that argument. I came in when you started
arguing about "But an example-event which is precluded by the
hypothesis is not permissible." You can have the rest.

Huh, well maybe he was, in which case I originally cited the wrong
reason for him being wrong. But It's pretty clear Rich was not
referring to that hypothetical world but rather the real one in the
post Peter was replying to, so Peter was wrong both in that way and
for the reasons we've most recently discussed regarding hypothetical
discussions. My mistake was in assuming Peter understood what world
Rich was talking about and was being foolish in an entirely different
way.

This is the problem with thinking you can rely on what you think is
context when you parse someone's (confused) writing for meaning. You
can easily get it wrong.

Of course the other possibility was that he was joking around,
deliberately conflating the real and hypothetical worlds, but his
later attempt to defend his statement seems to indicate otherwise.

It's fine to ask the question "what
if X never happened" and exclude X from the possible outcomes *in that
hypothetical situation*, but to exclude *from the analysis* knowledge
gained from X happening in the real world is simply foolish.

Now, if you are trying to model the thinking of people *inside* the
hypothetical world, then you can certainly assume that *they* don't
have the knowledge they would have learned from X, but *you* still
have that knowledge and can apply it. *You* still have X as an example
from which you can learn. Think of the way crash tests on cars tell us
about the characteristics of cars that have never crashed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/10/2011 11:30 PM, John A. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:55:35 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:55:27 -0500, John
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:45:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:14:32 -0500, John
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:49:40 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:21:26 -0500, John
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:10:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:29:14 -0500, John
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:04:38 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:32:53 -0500, John
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:52:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:49:50 -0500, John
wrote:

--- this called 'snipping' ---

That is not what I did. As I pointed out, the context implied the
present, based upon the hypothetical. We just read it differently.

Protip: When someone mentions the USSR having done something, it's
highly probable that that something occurred when the USSR was around.
(And it doesn't matter when whatever else is being talked about
happened; it's perfectly valid and acceptable at every level of
discourse to include both current and historical examples, even in the
same sentence.)

Logic tip. When the discussion concerns a hypothetical, it is illogical
to introduce an event which would be precluded by the very existence of
the hypothetical.

Dead wrong. You are severely over-limiting your thinking. See my
previous reply.

In or out of context, logic is not your forte, is it?

Oh it very much is.

Even when discussing a hypothetical situation, one can bring up
example events from any place in any time in history by way of
illustration. You've probably done it yourself.

But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible.

Not at all. For example: If you assume empire A is brought down before
they would have invaded and subjugated small country X, you can
certainly use the fact that they did so in reality to show that X
would be similarly vulnerable to similarly-powerul and -armed empire B
if the absence of A gave B the opportunity. QED

The absence of A does not preclude X being invaded and subjugated by
another power. Your example does not qualify.

And yet A subjugating X in reality can be used as an example showing
X's vulnerability to A-type empires in the hypothetical absence of A.

What we are discussing is:

"But an example-event which is precluded by the hypothesis is not
permissible."

The fact that A did not invade X does not preclude X being invaded by
another country. i.e. the hypothetical invasion of X by another
country is not precluded by the hypothesis and therefore does not
qualify as a subject of this discussion.

I believe I have located the problem: we're having a "tree falling in
the forest" argument.

It seems that you are defining "example-event" as "an example of an
event that could specifically happen in the hypothetical world", while
I'm defining it as "any event, in or out of the hypothetical world,
from which we can learn something that will inform our thinking on
what could happen in the hypothetical world." (That's why I used the
term "example event" rather than "hypothetical event".)

The "X subjugated by B rather than A" scenario is a prime example: the
fact that A did subjugate X in reality is an example event that shows
that, in the absence of A, X could still be subjugated by the
similar-to-A B, so it would not necessarily go on to become an empire
itself in the absence of A. Without that example we would be less sure
of that vulnerability, and it would take a more involved analysis to
determine what we could conclude. With that example, the definitive
experiment has been done and the results are known.

I believe my definition is more real-world and useful in respect to
discussion of hypothetical situations, in that it does not create
artificial restrictions on what knowledge& data can be applied to
analyzing what might happen in the hypothetical situation in question.

OK. You insist on discussing example-evenst which are not precluded
by the hypothesis. No wonder you end up at cross purposes with those
trying to discuss example-evenst which are precluded by the
hypothesis.

You have that reversed as far as who is insisting what, but wrong in
any case. My point is that it's counter-productive and artificially
limiting to exclude such examples.

You may well be right but it is not the particular subject of _this_
discussion. That's why I keep quoting "But an example-event which is
precluded by the hypothesis is not permissible." I don't know why you
keep ignoring it.

Wait... so you're claiming that when Peter said "Uhm! There is no more
USSR. Or, did you forget." he was referring to the hypothetical world
where the Germans won WWII?

Huh, well maybe he was, in which case I originally cited the wrong
reason for him being wrong. But It's pretty clear Rich was not
referring to that hypothetical world but rather the real one in the
post Peter was replying to, so Peter was wrong both in that way and
for the reasons we've most recently discussed regarding hypothetical
discussions. My mistake was in assuming Peter understood what world
Rich was talking about and was being foolish in an entirely different
way.

Of course the other possibility was that he was joking around,
deliberately conflating the real and hypothetical worlds, but his
later attempt to defend his statement seems to indicate otherwise.

It's fine to ask the question "what
if X never happened" and exclude X from the possible outcomes *in that
hypothetical situation*, but to exclude *from the analysis* knowledge
gained from X happening in the real world is simply foolish.

Now, if you are trying to model the thinking of people *inside* the
hypothetical world, then you can certainly assume that *they* don't
have the knowledge they would have learned from X, but *you* still
have that knowledge and can apply it. *You* still have X as an example
from which you can learn. Think of the way crash tests on cars tell us
about the characteristics of cars that have never crashed.


I made it clear what I was referring to.

--
Peter