10 ms·

You’re deliberately bringing up irrelevant minimal counter examples in bad faith.

• sophrosyne42 21d ago
  Then you should be able to say where the political statement in omarchy resides, and what it is
  • c-hendricks 21d ago
    It's right there, it's the guy who started it and can't help but share his politics unprompted
• torstenvl 21d ago
  A minimal counterexample is a valid proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_counterexample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_counterexample Please don't make personal attacks on other posters.
  • andybak 21d ago
    "Proofs" in this sense of the word are things that apply to mathematics and formal systems. Language is squishy. A minimal counterexample is potentially squishy enough to be meaningless.
    • torstenvl 21d ago
      Incorrect. "all software is political" is a proposition; it can be true or false. If any minimal counterexample exists, then "all software is political" must necessarily be false.
      • andybak 21d ago
        It can also be "mostly true but exaggerated for polemic effect". Or your definition of political might be different to the speakers. Or it could be intended to highlight a way of perceiving the world and thus not be subject to truth claims. Etc. This list can be extended indefinitely. Language is not a game of symbol manipulation.
        • torstenvl 21d ago
          An absolute statement cannot be "mostly true." The definition of political is irrelevant. The result is supertrue. "If even one example of software is not political, then 'all software is political' is false" is true under all admissible values of "political." This is simple logic. All assertoric claims about the world are either true or false. If they are false they should be rejected. If they are true they should be spoken. Treating factual claims about the world as a partisan psychological litmus test is, in my judgment, morally repugnant. There are four lights.
          • andybak 21d ago
            Older Wittgenstein meet younger Wittgenstein.