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: thames_sider who wrote (15044)	5/31/2001 9:23:27 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Of course, you are right. But I wanted to gentle him a bit before undoing the tether. I would have been unfair to myself, if I had let huge lies and attacks against me stand. It is unfortunate that the high road of logical truth must sometimes be defended in muddy lowland swamps. (Spoken in the purest english accent I can fake! ;)

To: thames_sider who wrote (15044)	5/31/2001 10:17:01 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

that he can actually accuse you of circular argument That is definitely one of the most amazing distortions we've seen. We all have our own way of looking at things. We have touchstones that ground us. We have pet peeves and hobby horses. We have philosophical and experiential frameworks. We have truths or truth-like principles. We have our own unique way of understanding the world. For example, we know that Brees places a high value on telling the truth, so high a value, it seems, that it's become an organizing principle for him in his morality scheme. I say that because yesterday he seemed to be treating gossip as a subset of lying when they're really two very different things, I think. I'm not trying to make an issue here of the relationship between lying and gossip, or to pick on Brees, merely to illustrate the influence of framework. I've noticed over time that Greg has an unusual usage of the word, objective. He seems to equate it with conformance with the Bible. If it conforms with the Bible it's objective, otherwise it's not. Framework. I've fussed at Solon at times because he tends to want to discuss things in his own unique language where words have his own tweaked definitions. That's hard for me to do. Just recently I sent the thread off on a tangent because I attach connotations to the word, morality, that make it hard for me to treat the word like everyone else. There was a more recent discussion about being happy or unhappy that I didn't enter at all because I have a problem with that word, too. (Those are the only two words that affect me that way as far as I know. I really need to get over it.) We all have messages to share. We all have things to learn. Some of us try harder than others to hear other messages. Some of us are more agile than others in understanding other ways of looking at things. None of us is truly adept at it. Observing that process is often more interesting than the subject matter being discussed. Speaking of process, part of the process is the venue. I thought we had a pretty nice venue here, relatively speaking. It's less nice than it used to be. For the venue to be viable, we need to work as a team. We were talking the other day about leaderless teams. We are one. One of the elements of team membership is to just show up. Many of us no longer show up and I miss them. We can't talk if there's no one to talk with. Others of us so routinely ignore those who show up that the discussions become distorted or we're effectively talking to ourselves. Perhaps it's all over for our little venue. Just ruminating. Karen

To: thames_sider who wrote (15044)	5/31/2001 10:43:42 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Actually, Greg is not engaged in circular argument, although the argument is weak. What he is saying is this: The Resurrection of Christ is as well- attested as many historical facts that we accept. If we did not automatically discount the miraculous element, we would take it as well- established. Since discounting the miraculous element is unempirical and a priori, we should accept the fact. Since someone who rises from the dead in that manner has demonstrated his bona fides as a representative of God, His statement about the Bible establishes its bona fides as more than an historical document. Now, there are several weaknesses, but the most glaring is that that the Resurrection is not an ordinary claim, but one which is intrinsically controversial. Even without excluding the miraculous a priori, to accept something with so much baggage given the looseness of historical accounts based on hearsay, and put forward by partisans, with noteworthy differences among the accounts extant, is possible, but not compelling.......

To: thames_sider who wrote (15044)	5/31/2001 11:01:43 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The bible does prove it's own inspiration, but not through begging the question or by circular reasoning. as generally reliable documents, the four gospels bear witness to a miracle working Jesus Christ. His enemies did not deny it, and our contemporaries have no arguments against it. since His status as a divinely certified messenger is established, his testimonies must be true. No one but no one denies that He believed that the Bible was the word of God." (J Gerstner) The fact that you don't like the conclusion does not invalidate the argument or render it illogical. Just dismiss everything you don't agree with, that's easy. If you reject all documentary evidence, I doubt you could prove that you own your house or car, or even that you were ever married.