posted
I decided to make this post after expressing my position on objective morality in the thread "We the People." It's not a very popular position and I think it's best to try and detail my views in full since some of my condensed comments may come across the wrong way. Specifically, I realized that some may think that I am ridiculing objective morality when I describe the concept as nonsensical. This is totally not the case and I hope that I can show why "nonsensical" is both an appropriate term and is not used in an offensive manner. Anyways, I realize that nobody has actually taken issue with my claims on objective morality in the other thread as of yet (maybe I come across as a person not worth debating with) but I have been meaning to make a thread like this for a while so here it is.
First off, I'll admit that I often make a mistake when discussing this topic with others by declaring something along the lines of "there is no objective morality." The problem with this statement is that it implies that it is possible for there to be objective morality. In other words, it could be rephrased as "I can conceive of there being objective morality but I don't believe that it exists." This isn't my position. My position is that the concept of objective morality is nonsensical. In other words, objective morality cannot exist even in principle, and therefore the concept itself does not make sense. I think this can best be illustrated with an analogy (I'm stealing the analogy from somewhere but I can't remember where). If I asked you "Is the number five a bachelor?", how would you respond? Let's say that you respond "No." Then I would say, "Well then surely the number five must be married!" It can't be both married and not-married at the same time so if it is not a bachelor then it must be married. The problem here is that the question is a loaded question (like "Are you done beating your wife yet?"). The question is predicated on an assumption that may not be true, namely that it is possible for a number to be a bachelor. Answering either "yes" or "no" to the question implicitly affirms this assumption. The question is nonsensical because the concept of a number being a bachelor is nonsensical. A number cannot have the property of "bachelor", even in theory. I believe it is a similar case with objective morality. If I ask, "Is there a set of objective morals?" then I am implying that such a set could exist in the first place.
This leads to the foundation of my beliefs regarding this manner. I do not believe that it is possible for there to be objective morality. Unfortunately, the reasoning behind this belief is anti-climatic. Basically I became a relativist when I thought about questions like "In what sense can a moral be objectively good?", "How do you show that a specific moral is objectively good?", and "How do you show that murder is objective bad?" I've honestly tried to answer these questions but have failed. The fact that I can't even imagine how a moral could be absolute has made me doubt that it is even a logically consistent idea. Furthermore, it seems that morals are not falsifiable (how do you prove a moral wrong?). This means that it is impossible to establish any set of morals as absolute. For any set of supposed absolute morals that you provide I can always append an arbitrary moral of my choosing that you cannot show to be non-absolute. This is a problem even if absolute morality were a sensible concept.
So what does this leave us with? An important aspect of the above point is that it only addresses the concept of objective morality existing in the absolute sense. In other words, it addresses the idea that objective moral statements can be made without being qualified. This is an important distinction. While a claim like "Murder is bad [in the absolute sense]" may be nonsensical, a claim like "In the interest of maintaining a productive society, murder and robbery are bad" is perfectly sensible. In fact, "no murder" and "no robbery" are objective morals given the goal of maintaining a productive society. If we are interested in maintaining a productive society then murder and robbery are demonstrably bad in an objective sense because they go against that goal. So we can establish a set of objective morals provided goals that need to be satisfied but we can not establish a set of objective morals in an absolute sense. Hopefully this makes it clear how moral relativism can still lead to the establishment of common morals in a non-arbitrary manner.
I can see how one could make the case that I am being excessively picky here. There are common values that most people share so it is unreasonable to expect people to qualify all of their moral statements with a [possibly lengthy] description of the goals/qualifiers that they used to make those moral statements. While I agree with this sentiment in general, it leads to problems in threads like "We the People." By treating certain morals as absolute, people get a little careless with their points. Declarations that something is morally wrong are treated as points in and of themselves that don't require further explanation. This is problematic even if you believe in objective morality. Merely declaring that some is "wrong" or "evil" explains nothing. For example, a kid gains nothing if he is told that murder is evil. He needs to be told why murder is evil if he is to truly understand the statement.
I've probably made mistakes in this post but I guess that's life.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: If I ask, "Is there a set of objective morals?" then I am implying that such a set could exist in the first place.
While I agree with you on the whole, I think your phrasing was a bit awkward and emphasized the above point too much. I also find the point questionable. I can see that some people would look past your question and assume that you are hiding your belief in said morals, but I would take your question at face value as truly wondering whether such a set exists. Why is it that a question must necessarily have a supposition behind it, couldn't it just as easily be a real unbiased question?
I agree completely, however, that you can't make a holistic statement about morals without a whole lot of caveats. This is where I have issues with laws... small issues, but issues. Why should I stop at a stop sign when I can see hundreds of feet in every direction and it is clear that no traffic will be passing through the intersection while I'm there? The root behind all things like this is simply security, I'd say. You can't say "well, you can stop at stop signs when it seems appropriate" because then one time somebody will say eh, this will probably work, and run over some kid crossing the street and defend himself saying that he thought nobody was coming. The same bending/abusing the law applies for drinking ages, smoking ages(though smoking is so unhealthy I don't understand its legality--health insurance liability and such burdening people who choose to not smoke, etc), etc. I just think on a person to person basis, on a case-by-case basis, laws don't usually make sense, but on average, for society as a whole it makes sense to set some rigid morals, some objective laws based on objective morals (basically) that will keep the world functioning so long as everyone abides by them. Or at least that's the idea, I'd think.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I asked you "Is the number five a bachelor?", how would you respond? Let's say that you respond "No." Then I would say, "Well then surely the number five must be married!" It can't be both married and not-married at the same time so if it is not a bachelor then it must be married. The problem here is that the question is a loaded question (like "Are you done beating your wife yet?"). The question is predicated on an assumption that may not be true, namely that it is possible for a number to be a bachelor. Answering either "yes" or "no" to the question implicitly affirms this assumption. The question is nonsensical because the concept of a number being a bachelor is nonsensical. A number cannot have the property of "bachelor", even in theory. I believe it is a similar case with objective morality. If I ask, "Is there a set of objective morals?" then I am implying that such a set could exist in the first place.
The problem with that analogy is that whereas it is pretty obvious to everyone that saying "the number five is a bachelor" makes no sense, most people seem to have an understanding of what it means to have an objective morality. Objective morality has been accepted by countless independent cultures throughout history - so it is pretty tough to assert that objective morality obviously makes no sense in the way "five is a bachelor" does.
So you are in essence saying that the leading thinkers, along with the masses, of all of these cultures literally did not know what they were talking about when they spoke about right and wrong. If you are going to make that claim, I think you need a pretty convincing logical argument that "morality" and "objective" are inherently contradictory.
This seems to be your main argument:
quote:This leads to the foundation of my beliefs regarding this manner. I do not believe that it is possible for there to be objective morality. Unfortunately, the reasoning behind this belief is anti-climatic. Basically I became a relativist when I thought about questions like "In what sense can a moral be objectively good?", "How do you show that a specific moral is objectively good?", and "How do you show that murder is objective bad?" I've honestly tried to answer these questions but have failed.
But I can offer an alternative explanation that answers "How do you show that murder is objectively bad?" without requiring us to make the extreme assertion that countless people have been talking about a concept that means nothing. My alternative is this:
There is no need to PROVE murder is objectively bad, in order for it to be objectively bad.
In other words, you seem to be assuming that in order for objectively morality to exist, there must be some way of proving or showing what is or is not objectively right. I see no reason to make such an assumption. After all, there are many things out there that we can't prove, yet that we believe are true nonetheless.
I would argue that our job as people is to do the best we can, using our judgement, to try and figure out what is right and what is wrong. I don't know if we can ever prove any given action is right or wrong, or justify our judgements through pure reasoning, but I do think we can make educated guesses which are better than simply acting randomly without concern for good or bad.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious, Threads. Have you ever read the essay "The Objectivist Ethics"? In it, Rand starts from scratch and demonstrates that there is an objective morality.
If you haven't read it, I recommend that you do. It can be found in the poorly named book The Virtue of Selfishness.
If you have read it, I'm curious to know what you think is wrong with the case she makes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, the major flaw in the OP is that you rest your argument in part upon the fact that you cannot imagine any way for a moral to be absolute. Failing to be able to explain something doesn't mean it cannot exist.
I think I do agree with you for the most part. I think all morals are based on some set of values which at some level are arbitrary. But I think if I were to "prove" that I'd have to go through a rigorous decronstruction of various morals and what they are based on...meh.
Lisa, I haven't read Rand's essay, but I'm interested in it now. I don't see how you can prove objective morality without taking for granted that certain things like life, happiness, or locally reversed entropy are good. Would you say that she does this, or does she rely on some definition of good that is subjective?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Tresopax So you are in essence saying that the leading thinkers, along with the masses, of all of these cultures literally did not know what they were talking about when they spoke about right and wrong. If you are going to make that claim, I think you need a pretty convincing logical argument that "morality" and "objective" are inherently contradictory.
The problem with this is that objectivity is not a democracy. I hate to use a cliche', but remember the time when most of the world's population thought the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around us.
The truth of the matter is: every subject (save POSSIBLY mathematics) is subjective (hence the term "subject") if you zoom in, or out far enough. Maybe if we can find, and put together the pieces to make the Unified Theory of Everything (sometimes called Quantum Gravity), then we could claim to know something absolutely, but any good scientist will tell you that NO theory is EVER 100% complete.
I can't even make such a simple statement as "There is water in my cup." with 100% certainty. A documentation of the caveats that we are even capable of understanding to describe this statement would likely take up more computer memory than exists right now, and even that would not prove the statement completely. That is just as far as we understand it.
To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: In the world we see, nothing is very large, or very small. Nothing is very fast, very hot, or very cold. We interpret the world around us as we need to in order to survive in it.
That being said, morality is so much deeper a concept than whether there is water in my cup, that to even imagine calling any form of it "objective" is ludicrous. In fact, I think the term objective should be stowed away on a shelf somewhere along with the square root of negative one. At present, and for the foreseeable future, it is an imaginary concept.
I think the term we REALLY want to use in conjunction with Morality is "Practical".
None of the above applies to 42, which is objective.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hate to use a cliche', but remember the time when most of the world's population thought the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around us.
But this isn't like just saying the earth isn't flat. This is like saying the entire concept of a "flat earth" is nonsensical, and couldn't exist even in principle - that people who spoke about such a thing were just speaking gibberish, even though they thought they were describing the earth as they conceived it.
quote:The truth of the matter is: every subject (save POSSIBLY mathematics) is subjective (hence the term "subject") if you zoom in, or out far enough. Maybe if we can find, and put together the pieces to make the Unified Theory of Everything (sometimes called Quantum Gravity), then we could claim to know something absolutely, but any good scientist will tell you that NO theory is EVER 100% complete.
I don't think "subjective" = "uncertain". And I don't think "objectivie" = "certain".
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you are in essence saying that the leading thinkers, along with the masses, of all of these cultures literally did not know what they were talking about when they spoke about right and wrong
I don't think that follows. What he would be saying is that they did not know what they were talking about when they spoke about objectivity. And that's pretty much true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: If I ask, "Is there a set of objective morals?" then I am implying that such a set could exist in the first place.
While I agree with you on the whole, I think your phrasing was a bit awkward and emphasized the above point too much. I also find the point questionable. I can see that some people would look past your question and assume that you are hiding your belief in said morals, but I would take your question at face value as truly wondering whether such a set exists. Why is it that a question must necessarily have a supposition behind it, couldn't it just as easily be a real unbiased question?
This is what I was trying to explain with the "Is the number five a bachelor?" analogy. To ask whether or not something exists implies that the something could exist (in principle) in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The problem with that analogy is that whereas it is pretty obvious to everyone that saying "the number five is a bachelor" makes no sense, most people seem to have an understanding of what it means to have an objective morality. Objective morality has been accepted by countless independent cultures throughout history - so it is pretty tough to assert that objective morality obviously makes no sense in the way "five is a bachelor" does.
I'm not saying that it "obviously makes no sense", I'm saying that I don't see any way in which the concept makes sense.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: So you are in essence saying that the leading thinkers, along with the masses, of all of these cultures literally did not know what they were talking about when they spoke about right and wrong. If you are going to make that claim, I think you need a pretty convincing logical argument that "morality" and "objective" are inherently contradictory.
The burden of proof is not on me in this case. For any discussion of objective morality to make sense it requires that objective morality can exist in principle. I don't see how it can and it is unreasonable to say that I should just assume it can because most everyone else does. Part of my reason for making the OP was that I hoped that some people here would attempt to answer how it can.
Again, how can a moral exist in an absolute sense? It seems to me that the only places that morals exist are in our minds (meaning that they are physically represented by the neuron connections in our brains). If thats the case then how can a moral be absolutely true?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: There is no need to PROVE murder is objectively bad, in order for it to be objectively bad.
I already made this point when I said "This means that it is impossible to establish any set of morals as absolute. For any set of supposed absolute morals that you provide I can always append an arbitrary moral of my choosing that you cannot show to be non-absolute. This is a problem even if absolute morality were a sensible concept."
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: In other words, you seem to be assuming that in order for objectively morality to exist, there must be some way of proving or showing what is or is not objectively right.
I don't think I made that assumption anywhere.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm curious, Threads. Have you ever read the essay "The Objectivist Ethics"? In it, Rand starts from scratch and demonstrates that there is an objective morality.
If you haven't read it, I recommend that you do. It can be found in the poorly named book The Virtue of Selfishness.
If you have read it, I'm curious to know what you think is wrong with the case she makes.
No I haven't. I may be able to get the book out of the library today and offer a critique (long shot). If not then I'll have to wait till next week because I will be busy Friday night and for all of Saturday and Sunday.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Threads, the major flaw in the OP is that you rest your argument in part upon the fact that you cannot imagine any way for a moral to be absolute. Failing to be able to explain something doesn't mean it cannot exist.
That's true. I didn't mean to come across as trying to offer some sort of proof on the matter. I was just trying to describe the reasoning I followed to reach the position that I currently hold. I cannot answer the question and have not found any satisfactory answers to it. This does not mean that there isn't an answer (as you point out) but I hope that if my current belief is wrong then it is wrong because of a lack of information and not because of a logical error.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: The truth of the matter is: every subject (save POSSIBLY mathematics) is subjective (hence the term "subject") if you zoom in, or out far enough. Maybe if we can find, and put together the pieces to make the Unified Theory of Everything (sometimes called Quantum Gravity), then we could claim to know something absolutely, but any good scientist will tell you that NO theory is EVER 100% complete.
I can't even make such a simple statement as "There is water in my cup." with 100% certainty. A documentation of the caveats that we are even capable of understanding to describe this statement would likely take up more computer memory than exists right now, and even that would not prove the statement completely. That is just as far as we understand it.
To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: In the world we see, nothing is very large, or very small. Nothing is very fast, very hot, or very cold. We interpret the world around us as we need to in order to survive in it.
That being said, morality is so much deeper a concept than whether there is water in my cup, that to even imagine calling any form of it "objective" is ludicrous. In fact, I think the term objective should be stowed away on a shelf somewhere along with the square root of negative one. At present, and for the foreseeable future, it is an imaginary concept.
I think the term we REALLY want to use in conjunction with Morality is "Practical".
None of the above applies to 42, which is objective.
It is incredible that we don't all die of thirst.
Absolute certainty may indeed be impossible which only demonstrates that it is not necessary.
We can still make meaningful statements about the world: Hydrogen is the lightest element. That is objectively true. It cannot be said to absolutely true given that we don't know what we don't know. But it is objectively true in that experimentation nets that result regardless of the subjective status of the experimenter.
Quantum gravity, BTW, is the missing piece in what is colloquially called the 'Theory of Everything' but more precisely called the Grand Unified Theory. Nailing gravity and unifying it with the other forces is unlikely to explain love or class conflict or 42.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The burden of proof is not on me in this case.
I would think that if you say something is impossible, a certain burden of proof does fall on you.
quote:Again, how can a moral exist in an absolute sense? It seems to me that the only places that morals exist are in our minds (meaning that they are physically represented by the neuron connections in our brains). If thats the case then how can a moral be absolutely true?
Aren't there plenty of other concepts that exist absolutely but not anywhere outside our minds? Logic, for instance? Or how about the properties of even and odd? I think it is absolutely true that 2, 4, and 6 are even numbers - but I don't think you'll find that property in physical existence anywhere outside our minds. If someone said to you "I think even numbers are only those numbers divisible by 3, like 3, 6, and 9" you could not point to anything in the physical world that would prove them wrong. You might say "But 3 is not even!" but if they then replied "Yes, 3 is, under my definition", you'd be stuck.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Again, how can a moral exist in an absolute sense? It seems to me that the only places that morals exist are in our minds (meaning that they are physically represented by the neuron connections in our brains). If thats the case then how can a moral be absolutely true?
Would you at least concede that it's objectively immoral to do something you consider immoral? Along the lines of saying that even if you can't prove A is true, you can prove that A is not not-A.
I'm asking this only hypothetically.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: It is incredible that we don't all die of thirst.
Absolute certainty may indeed be impossible which only demonstrates that it is not necessary.
We can still make meaningful statements about the world: Hydrogen is the lightest element. That is objectively true. It cannot be said to absolutely true given that we don't know what we don't know. But it is objectively true in that experimentation nets that result regardless of the subjective status of the experimenter.
Quantum gravity, BTW, is the missing piece in what is colloquially called the 'Theory of Everything' but more precisely called the Grand Unified Theory. Nailing gravity and unifying it with the other forces is unlikely to explain love or class conflict or 42.
Thanks for the clarification of the whole GUT/Quantum Gravity thing. It didn't sound right when I was writing it, but I couldn't place why.
However, love, and class conflict are complex composites of smaller processes which are composites of still smaller processes and so on right on down to the GUT (M Theory maybe? Who knows...). It is my understanding that such concepts are the entire point of science; to find the base of the seemingly infinite regression of questions (like when a child keeps asking "But why?" to every answer).
As an aside, this is my problem with Religion: They are content to answer a question with God, claim victory, and go home (or not go home, and instead try to force their "Answer" onto other people), but that's my stream of consciousness talking... back to the point at hand.
Also, Subjective is not necessarily the opposite of Objective. As I see it, Objective means true regardless of context, whereas Subjective is true within a certain context.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: I don't know about threads, but I wouldn't concede that in the slightest.
For instance, no matter how immoral a person might consider it to not turn in someone they know to be an escaped slave (assuming this person lives a bit ago), I think it is far more moral if they don't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, I just want to commend you on a beautifully constructed thought process. It's not flawless by any means, but it's something you should definitely be proud of.
I'm in complete agreement with you on all points (particularly with that last bit on those who treat at least some moral statements as ends rather than means with no further explanation), and I honestly felt like I was reading my own writing throughout most of it. I don't really have any objections other than the awkwardness of your number five/bachelor analogy and the implied knowledge that an objective morality is conceptually impossible. But you've already clarified both of those points to my satisfaction.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Aren't there plenty of other concepts that exist absolutely but not anywhere outside our minds? Logic, for instance? Or how about the properties of even and odd? I think it is absolutely true that 2, 4, and 6 are even numbers - but I don't think you'll find that property in physical existence anywhere outside our minds. If someone said to you "I think even numbers are only those numbers divisible by 3, like 3, 6, and 9" you could not point to anything in the physical world that would prove them wrong.
I would say that numbers do not exist absolutely. You can't point to anywhere in the universe and say "that is the number 5." Numbers are abstract concepts that we have defined into existence. This means that it is absolutely true that 2, 4, and 6 are even numbers and that even numbers are not divisible by 3, 6, and 9. We have defined these numbers so that this is true.
EDIT: As KoM has pointed out, even numbers can be divisble by 3, 6, and 9
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: However, love, and class conflict are complex composites of smaller processes which are composites of still smaller processes and so on right on down to the GUT (M Theory maybe? Who knows...). It is my understanding that such concepts are the entire point of science; to find the base of the seemingly infinite regression of questions (like when a child keeps asking "But why?" to every answer).
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Threads, I just want to commend you on a beautifully constructed thought process. It's not flawless by any means, but it's something you should definitely be proud of.
I'm in complete agreement with you on all points (particularly with that last bit on those who treat at least some moral statements as ends rather than means with no further explanation), and I honestly felt like I was reading my own writing throughout most of it. I don't really have any objections other than the awkwardness of your number five/bachelor analogy and the implied knowledge that an objective morality is conceptually impossible. But you've already clarified both of those points to my satisfaction.
Thanks. I've been trying to make my posts more clear but I guess the bachelor analogy is a good example of how I still need to do more work. Anyways, thanks for the kind words Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Thank you for this link. It is precisely this kind of talk that excites me about physics.
On the matter at hand; having done some more thinking on the subject, I feel it necessary to refine my stance slightly.
I think it best to think of "Subjective" and "Objective" to be the extremes on either end of a scale. Things can have degrees of objectivity. The variable that would dictate movement on this scale would be how far abroad a particular statement holds true.
If I say "I live in the suburbs"; that seems like a fairly objective statement to most of us here right? The problem is, it only holds true to people who understand the concept of suburbia. Even if I said "1+1=2", I could be wrong if we just happened to be working with a scale 2 system, in which case 1+1=10.
Yet another reason I liked that video: even a professional Physicist admits that perhaps even our fundamental laws may not be as fundamental as we think. Perhaps they are a part of something even more basic.
So you see, even though we now have a scale, it is still impossible by any current means to make a 100% Objective statement. Objective is basically infinity. We can no more reach Objective than we could accelerate to the speed of light, or reach absolute zero. The best we can hope for is subjectively objective- a concept that holds true within a closed system. Now, the question is merely: Where does the system, in which this statement holds true, end?
I don't think you'll find any single moral code that applies to the entire system of humanity. You would have to find something that everyone on Earth would say "I would never do that", as well as something that nobody has ever done BEFORE. I certainly can't think of anything along those lines.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say that numbers do not exist absolutely. You can't point to anywhere in the universe and say "that is the number 5." Numbers are abstract concepts that we have defined into existence. This means that it is absolutely true that 2, 4, and 6 are even numbers and that even numbers are not divisible by 3, 6, and 9. We have defined these numbers so that this is true.
So why isn't it possible that we have similarly "defined" morality into existence, thus making it absolutely true that murder is wrong in the same way that it is absolutely true that 4 is even?
---
I put "defined" in quotes because I'm not really sure what you mean by saying we defined numbers into existence. Are you suggesting that math is subjective? If so, why does the universe seem to be so consistent with something that we "defined" into existence?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: there's the really obvious (and rather accurate) reason; the universe is so consistent with something we defined into existence because we defined the constructs in math to be useful in the physical world.
Now, that still says something nice about the physical world, as we do things like discover parallels between higher order mathematical constructs and complicated physical rules, but it doesn't mean math isn't just a matter of reasoning on an ultimately arbitrary set of axioms.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, considering the existence of friendly, pyramidal, and virtuous numbers I don't think the statement 'five is a bachelor' is necessarily nonsensical.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
<.< While we're at it, so is every other multiple of 18. Needless to say, that encompasses an infinite amount of numbers.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
