20 Years ago...

[Aramike]

Let's say there are two mothers, both with five children. One mother loses one child. The other mother loses all five.

How can you justify stating that both instances are equally tragic?

The good news is that the vast, vast majority of people wouldn't even try. In fact, even the US War Department saw it differently, as indicated by the Sole Survivor policy instated after the Sullivan brothers tragedy.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Let's say there are two mothers, both with five children. One mother loses one child. The other mother loses all five.

How can you justify stating that both instances are equally tragic?

No. In this case they are not equally bad because premise 2 does not stand in this case.

2. There is no one (dead or alive) for whom a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.

in this case there is someone for whom the events are more or less bad for; the mothers and surviving children.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your premises and conclusions, as you call them, are too queer. You expect reason in reply to what shows a lack of reason.

If I lack reason, then use better reason to show me where I lack reason.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

No. In this case they are not equally bad because premise 2 does not stand in this case.

in this case there is someone for whom the events are more or less bad for; the mothers and surviving children.

You're WAY overcomplicating it if you need to put subsections and conditions in place.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You're WAY overcomplicating it if you need to put subsections and conditions in place.

If it is complicated then either A) I am wrong, in which case it should be simple
to show me which of my premises is wrong or why the argument is logically
invalid. Or B) It reflects a complex reality.

[Skybird]

Or c.) it simply is complete nonsense, in which case neither logic nor reason can achieve anything to illustrate that. Only a fool not knowing what humour is tries to explain his joke - and then wonders that despite his explanation still nobody is laughing.

[Letum]

There is no nonsense that can not be shown to be nonsense by systematic
and rigorous rationalism. The more nonsense it is, the easier it is to do.

[Skybird]

Okay, Letum, it's not you, it's us.

And still we others do compare two tragic events, and eventually find the one to be more severe a tragedy than the other, no matter wether in past nor present, no matter whether being personally influenced and affected, or not.

As a wise man once said: if he wants to go there at all cost, let him go. Bon voyage, then.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

If it is complicated then either A) I am wrong, in which case it should be simple
to show me which of my premises is wrong or why the argument is logically
invalid. Or B) It reflects a complex reality.

I've already showed you.

You just did what you always do - reject any logic that contradicts a flawed point you made at an earlier point.

Again:

Loss of human life = Tragedy.

Greater = higher number.

Therefore, "Greater tragedy" means higher number of human lives lost.

Seriously, you are so far off base that it is surprising that someone of your intellectual fortitude won't grasp this concept, although this seems to be a recurring theme. Frankly, I think you are simply refusing to acknowledge that you may have been mistaken in the original post you made regarding this subject. You are asking all of us to show you how your arguments are wrong, while neglecting to show us how the opposite is true.

Stubborness only goes so far, and is the trademark of a weak mind.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Again:

Loss of human life = Tragedy.

Greater = higher number.

Therefore, "Greater tragedy" means higher number of human lives lost.

That's not a refutation of what I'm saying. It doesn't show where or why I am
wrong, if you think I am. All you have done is provide your two definitions of
concepts. You can't prove any idea right or wrong using a dictionary.
I could not prove Einstein wrong by saying:

Light = Instant
Speed = Not instant
Therefore light does not have any speed.

Or that the world is flat by saying:

Sky = Up
Up = One direction
Therefore the sky must always be up in the same direction and the world must be flat.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

That's not a refutation of what I'm saying. It doesn't show where or why I am
wrong, if you think I am. All you have done is provide your two definitions of
concepts. You can't prove any idea right or wrong using a dictionary.
I could not prove Einstein wrong by saying:

Light = Instant
Speed = Not instant
Therefore light does not have any speed.

Or that the world is flat by saying:

Sky = Up
Up = One direction
Therefore the sky must always be up in the same direction and the world must be flat.

Umm, I'm not bothering to try to refute what you're saying. What you're doing is attempting to refute what others are saying. You're not completely wrong, but neither are those who believe a tragedy of greater numbers can be communicated as a greater tragedy.

And yes, a dictionary CAN prove an idea right or wrong, if that idea is communication.

I think you've taken this to the point where I don't think myself or anyone else can take you seriously and further on it. Sorry, dude - but when someone says "greater tragedy", almost all of us understand the concept. And that's the point.