From jcowan@reutershealth.com Thu Apr 03 09:46:26 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 3 Apr 2003 17:46:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 25002 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 17:46:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2003 17:46:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 17:46:21 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1918n7-0003Vc-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:46:21 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1918my-0003VJ-00; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:46:12 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:46:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [65.200.144.21] (helo=skunk.reutershealth.com) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1918mr-0003V3-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:46:05 -0800 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by skunk.reutershealth.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6082E46E37; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:46:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:46:59 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Cc: duchamp@stl.quik.com Subject: [lojban] Re: [duchamp@stl.quik.com: use of "agree/disagree" referring to non-existant objects] Message-ID: <20030403174659.GL29250@skunk.reutershealth.com> References: <20030403172640.GO15380@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030403172640.GO15380@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 4716 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: John Cowan Reply-To: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan Janell Tessaro scripsit: > This is a long shot. I am hoping that you will take the time to > settle an argument in our office about a survey on bicycles: Such arguments, like the one about whether the third millennium begins in 2000 or 2001, are not really subject to "settling" by third parties, since they depend on incompatible shared assumptions. However, I will take a shot. > The automatic response to date from all respondents who do not own a > bike has been: "not applicable" > > The author of the survey says that "disagree" should be the obvious > response since any individual that does not have a bicycle could not > benefit from any additional accommodations on busses for bikes. This argument seems to me unjustified. Desiring the right to bring one's own bicycle on the bus is equivalent to desiring everyone to have the right to bring their bicycles on the bus, since this right is going to be granted to everybody or else nobody. I, for example, own no bicycle, but I would favor the granting of this right, since it would encourage the use of bicycles, which I hold to be a Good Thing for environmental reasons. > I say that the "disagree"response (+ all other choices currently > available) presumes ownership of a bicycle which does not exist, and > therefore there needs to be a N/A choice. I think you are quite right. If the statement were "I like to drive my car very fast", it would be absurd for me to agree or disagree, since I don't own a car, and this is not a case where "my car" is just a proxy for "anyone's car", since the question is about what I like, not what others like. > Who is right? A hard question. -- We call nothing profound jcowan@reutershealth.com that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan --Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com