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: Lane3 who wrote (5025)	2/6/2001 4:38:01 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Steven's truths and values and assumptions and priorities and all that stuff are his. He owns them. He may hold them in common with a lot of other people but they're still his to do with as he pleases. He can change them any time he gets some new input that causes him to reassess because he made them up in the first place. It is theoretically possible for me to change his mind about something with new evidence and/or a rational argument... There's not even a theoretical possibility of my ever affecting your thinking about your truth. You don't have the authority to make changes; only your source for the truth, its owner, can amend it. It is theoretically possible for you to change my mind as well. Evidence would normally only apply to tangible facts, but I am open to rational argument. Any rational argument will however make certain assumptions. I have certain assumptions I make that are not the same as yours (there may be overlap between our axioms but they are not identical). You might even be able to convince me that one of my axioms was wrong but you would have to make your argument with premisies that I would accept. I believe in certain truths and if I am right about them then maybe they can not be changed but my opinions about them could theoretically be changed. This to say the least would not be easy. If you did have success in this attempt to make me change one my basic assumptions about life it would cause me to have to reexamine many of my conclutions, many of my thoughts about life. BTW - "Abortion should be illegal" is not one of my axioms but one of my conclutions. It is something I reach logically from what I assume. If you are depending on logic to reach your conclutions you have to start with some assumptions and then build your arguments. I'm OK; you're OK. Who is right and who is wrong isn't the point. My point is only that we all live on this planet together. One group wants to find a consensus. The other group doesn't have the flexibility to operate in a consensus environment. I like the idea of consensus as well but I do not give up my principles just to find a consensus. Steven can't convince you because you can't budge on your truth. You can't convince Steven because you have no rational basis to present to him. No one has presented a rational basis to me to cause me to change my views either. Actually in a sense we both have made rational arguments, but our different axioms lead to arguments with different results. We both have rational arguments for our final beliefs but no rational arguments for the original premises that start us towards those beliefs. I don't know if there can be rational arguments for the original assumptions. 'm OK; you're OK. Who is right and who is wrong isn't the point. One of the reasons why I consider it to be such an important point in this context is in this conversation I have been told that I seek to impose my version of truth on others without proof or consensus. However if I am right about my opinion of the status of the fetus then the pro-choice side is simular in its attempt to impose it's ideas on unborn children. If the standerd is that imposeing your ideas without proof or consensus is not a good thing then they should not do this. This doesn't change whatever the source of the standerds, be they ideas about external moral truths, opinions about what will practically have the best result, what ever idea is most popular, or just some one's whim. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (5025)	2/6/2001 4:39:29 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

Karen, I thought that was one of the most brilliant posts I've read here and whether you turned on any lightbulbs for Tim or not, you very much enlightened me and I thank you. I was just staring at some posts on the new pro-choice thread and wondering at the giant chasm that exists between people-- why there are some who have no willingness to listen, to understand, and no tolerance of people who think differently from them, who feel that they are justified in being rude and insulting- and then--- there you are with a very good explanation. How comforting the extrinsic authority must be, and apparently how liberating-- from even the basic structures of civility.

To: Lane3 who wrote (5025)	2/6/2001 4:57:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

That, IMO, is why we talk past each other. Actually I think we have been paying a lot of attention to each other and having some interesting conversation in the process. The one point that perhaps we have been talking past each other about is whether or not the fact that I make certain unproven assumptions makes me irational or illogical. I have not directly been called irrational, but I think the point was made if not in so many words. My response, boiled down to be as short as possible, is that all logical arguments have to start with assumptions. Tim