A Further Exploration of the True Definition of Truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 05:29 pm
@ACB,
ACB;82841 wrote:
All we can say is that, had Kennedy been alive and run in the 1964 election, he could have won and he could have lost. Likewise, the election could have been fixed and it could have been fair. We cannot say "would", because there is no basis for picking out a unique course of events.


Why not. It seems to me true that if Kennedy had been alive, and if the election had been fixed, then Kennedy would have won. (In fact, that seems to me a likely event, given Kennedy's morals).
 
ACB
 
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 06:21 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;82864 wrote:
Why not. It seems to me true that if Kennedy had been alive, and if the election had been fixed, then Kennedy would have won. (In fact, that seems to me a likely event, given Kennedy's morals).


If you mean "successfully fixed", then of course it is true by definition that he would have won. But if you just mean "fixed", it is far from certain that he would have done so. For example, corrupt party workers and officials could have manipulated the result in certain key states, thinking they had the election sewn up, only to find that other states had unexpectedly voted against JFK. Nothing is certain in this life. You can say he "would probably have won" if you like, but that is quite different from "would have won". Don't you agree?

And, as I said before, what if the election had not been fixed?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 08:25:10