Resolved: Tell others that the water will be shut off.

And now, as length of rhetoric is not necessarily commensurate with reasoning, let's focus. Here is Con's argument laid out. (1) Amy is ten. (2) Nobody believes a ten year old. (3) Therefore Amy shouldn't even try to warn them. (4) Since she shouldn't even try, she should take advantage of the situation. I cannot help but pause express a bit of disappointment. I am not disappointed in my worthy adversary; certainly not. Rather, we've shunted onto a track of 'Amy shouldn't try to convince others'. I lament that this forgoes a much anticipated opportunity to explore why Amy might be motivated to cash in on the water shut-off secret. On what principled basis might Amy act by her own fiat. I say the opportunity is lost because, even if the task is taken up by Con in his final remarks, it affords the two of us no further chance to examine that motivation. Instead, if Con is correct, Amy's fate rests in the age-discriminating attitude of others. It is as though we are saying to her: whatever your internal struggle of values Amy, my dear, it doesn't matter since others won't believe you. Sigh. On now to what was, in fact, presented rather than linger longer in lamentation for lost opportunity. In Logical-Master's argument, there are two premises and two conclusions. The first premise [Amy is 10] is given as a fact, but the second premise [Nobody will believe a ten year old] cannot be established. It is either false or not provable and so the argument is unsound. Logical-Master accepts the burden of showing that nobody -- not one person -- will listen. Because if they do, even one, then Amy should try to warn others. That is a huge burden, and by the measure of a reasonable person, essentially an impossible task. So why does Logical-Master find Amy so incredible, so beyond possible belief by absolutely anybody? It has nothing to do with her personally. Rather, apparently, all ten-year-olds are victims of age discrimination. And what does Logical-Master allege of ten-year-olds: why, they believe in Santa Claus; they are frightened by the bogey man [er, person -- bogey being sans gender]; they are given to acting out the fantasy of Saturday morning cartoons [shudder that Amy should find Robot Chicken]. Logical-Master, please be reminded that Amy is 10, not 2. Whatever Logical-Master's attitude toward ten-year-olds, his argument breaks the rule of universal generalization. One can validly generalize, as an example, as follows: any arbitrarily chosen person has DNA, therefore Amy has DNA. That's because it follow from being a person that one has DNA. . .. Here comes the dramatic build-up. . .. Let me borrow your equals sign effect. . .. It was kind of ASCI-retro dramatic. =========================================== Logical-Master needs show [as to the subject] -- that any person 10 years of age, any arbitrarily chosen 5th grader, is beyond the realm of credibility [as to the context] -- and not just incredible, but that nobody -- not a single person -- will believe him or her [as to the content] -- a fortiori, that none will believe the younger exactly and for no other reason than for the property of being 1 decade of age =========================================== Nope, Logical-Master, your presumed premise is impossible to prove. Frankly, I think it is false, but whether false or impossible to prove, your argument is unsound. It both breaks universal generalization and presumes to prove an absolute that simply escapes the reasonable person rule. Apart from poor Amy, as a practice "they won't listen, so don't even try" is a slippery slope and, fortunately not one always heeded historically. So, to close, having visited the house of Con to clashed on his turf, I reaffirm the rationale established at the outset, based on the principles of Mill and Kant, that guide Amy as she sets about warning others about the pending water shortage. -- Noel Leon