I know you think that I shouldn't still love you, or tell you that.
But if I didn't say it, well I'd still have felt it where's the sense in that?
Love L'amour it turns from red/passionate to black, and it bleeds but it is still there, hiding somewhere. I know that when i value someone, it goes beyond borders.Married or not. Genderless. It is the human spirit. It is who that person stand for. What makes that person unique.
I know I left too much mess and destruction to come back again
And I caused nothing but trouble I understand if you can't talk to me again
And if you live by the rules of "it's over" then I'm sure that that makes sense
Someone told me to own up to my mistakes. My mistake for loving that person. For listening. For wanting that person to feel.
My other mistake was staying around. Helping my other ex. Then having to clean up her mess. There is no such thing as returning with your ex, when its over, its over for a reason. When you were with her you were miserable. She knew it too. She couldnt be trusted from the beginning. She was lost.
And when we meet, which I'm sure we will, all that was there, will be there still.
I'll let it pass and hold my tongue and you will think That I've moved on.
Love, is love, it never really goes away. It can be beautified. It can be cheapened. And when it does, you should leave. You have that right. You dont want to feel used. You dont beg for a love that is no longer worth it. You must walk away, head held up high. You gave it your best shot. It was not meant to be.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Logic thinking
I met someone last year who made an impact on my life...sometimes not in the best way. But she made me stop and think about my reasoning process and how well it stood up. It was like I was taking a college logical thinking philosophy class all over again.
So it popped into my mind about circular logic...the concept that one uses a conclusion as a premise to support the conclusion. For example, God exists because the bible states it. The bible is a reliable source because it is the word of God.
Other logical fallacies preside, and must be made aware of and avoided. Only then can one be a better communicator and win over an argument.
One such types are discontinuity...if one premise occurs, then another premise will take place.
1. Parallel incidents: when I do this, this happens. This does not mean, one is the cause of the other event. It all could be incidental.
2. Slippery slope: if one event occurs, all other events are likely to occur: if Vietnam becomes communist govt, surrounding countries will soon become communistic.
3. Two wrongs make a right: if a few folks violate, then it must be ok. For instance, if a bunch of cars speed on the freeway (breaking a moving law), then its okay for everyone to drive that speed to keep up.
4. Wrong analogy: using the wrong analogy to get comparison needed for logic but actually, the analogy does not work well.
5. Affirming the obvious: Two if and then statements. However, it may not be connected but a leap of conclusion. If one is 16, then one can drive in Wisconsin. I saw you drive in Wisconsin, then you must be at least 16.
6. Denial of the antecedent: Also using two if and then statements with negation of the "if" part, to negate the "then" result. If the ozone layer is destroyed, then many will get cancer. If the ozone layer is not destroyed, then people will not get cancer.
So it popped into my mind about circular logic...the concept that one uses a conclusion as a premise to support the conclusion. For example, God exists because the bible states it. The bible is a reliable source because it is the word of God.
Other logical fallacies preside, and must be made aware of and avoided. Only then can one be a better communicator and win over an argument.
One such types are discontinuity...if one premise occurs, then another premise will take place.
1. Parallel incidents: when I do this, this happens. This does not mean, one is the cause of the other event. It all could be incidental.
2. Slippery slope: if one event occurs, all other events are likely to occur: if Vietnam becomes communist govt, surrounding countries will soon become communistic.
3. Two wrongs make a right: if a few folks violate, then it must be ok. For instance, if a bunch of cars speed on the freeway (breaking a moving law), then its okay for everyone to drive that speed to keep up.
4. Wrong analogy: using the wrong analogy to get comparison needed for logic but actually, the analogy does not work well.
5. Affirming the obvious: Two if and then statements. However, it may not be connected but a leap of conclusion. If one is 16, then one can drive in Wisconsin. I saw you drive in Wisconsin, then you must be at least 16.
6. Denial of the antecedent: Also using two if and then statements with negation of the "if" part, to negate the "then" result. If the ozone layer is destroyed, then many will get cancer. If the ozone layer is not destroyed, then people will not get cancer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)