Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (4284)	2/1/2001 2:19:04 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Tell me how." Simple. By taking it out of context. Which is effectively what you are doing when you reduce most anything to "just facts". Bland is not weaseling out of an argument, he is weaseling out of work. He now needs to weasel back to work.

To: epicure who wrote (4284)	2/2/2001 12:14:40 AM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

I can see the argument that to say "You stole that money" might be equated to "You wrongly stole that money," but only because the use of the verb "stole" contains in its definition the "wrongness" of the action. "You stole" means You took something that we humans who made language have designated as wrong, witness that we have different word for took stole found borrowed etc.

To: epicure who wrote (4284)	2/2/2001 5:29:18 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

How: Read both sentences as if you've never read them before in your life. Better yet, read them as if bland had written them rather than Ayers: >>Thus if I say to someone, "you acted wrongly in stealing that money," I am not saying anything more than if I had simply said, "You stole that money." In adding that this action is wrong I am not making any further statement about it. << Sentence number one: "you acted wrongly in stealing that money" is a different statement than saying "you stole that money." The first statement explicitly adds a value judgement that is not explicitly present in the second statement. So a person making the first statement is in fact saying something "more" than a person making the second statement. And it is illogical to deny that "fact". Therefore the sentence as a whole is both factually and logically incorrect. Ayers has written a sentence that is in its most basic and literal sense...wrong. Sentence number two: "In adding that this action is wrong" you are in actuality and in fact making a further statement about it: The beach ball is blue. The beach ball is blue and ugly. Now...you don't have to agree with the value judgement that is being made, but you can't deny the "fact" that a value judgement has been added to the statement. Value judgements are just as "real" as "facts" are. Value judgements are a fact of human experience. Ethical perceptions are a fact. Subjective attitudes are a fact. They do "attach" to objects in ways that alter human behavior toward those objects. Therefore they have force, power, and influence. You can't wish them away or neatly write them out of your equations. They will still "act". Ayers might as well be arguing with gravity.