[LINK] Minister warned on porn filters

[Ivan Trundle]

On 02/01/2008, at 12:28 PM, Rick Welykochy wrote:

> Ivan Trundle wrote:
>
>> What didn't amuse me was that the thrust of the argument during the  
>> hearing went like this: if you didn't use filtering, or advocate  
>> filtering, then you're a pornographer, or worse.
>
> The conditional is easily proven false by disproving its  
> contrapositive.

'Easily' is not a word that comes to mind in the hallowed halls of  
Parliament House. Nonetheless...

> "If you are not a pornographer then you use internet filtering."
>
> This is demonstrably false, as is the original statement.

Demonstrating an untruth is of little benefit to Senate Committee  
hearings, where logical argument rarely sees the light of day. It's no  
court of law, and without any of the benefits of an intelligent  
arbitrator, alas.

iT