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 (79962)	12/30/2003 4:22:52 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I've seen men wearing dresses. Phil Donahue even wore one. Something wrong with the logic when you come up with a null set, and you have obvious examples of members of the set. Of course not all people are as observant as they should be, so people who cannot see further than the end of their noses must be forgiven for not seeing the great variety of set members to be found in the world.

To: Lane3 who wrote (79962)	12/30/2003 4:30:31 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

Good point. A man wearing dresses (a subset of women's clothing) does not make the man a woman, even though he is attempting to give some sort of female impersonation. Its even humorous when he consciously mocks the notion. Its just sad when he is serious. Likewise people can spout off about ethics without being ethical.

To: Lane3 who wrote (79962)	12/30/2003 7:42:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As you are well aware, intentionally I'm sure, your statement is a logical fallacy with no parallel to what I posted. That doesn't affect the validity of my presention one whit.

To: Lane3 who wrote (79962)	12/30/2003 7:47:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I should perhaps clarify one thing. I do not belive there is such a thing as a "pure" atheist. Some say they are. But I have engaged in many dialogues with purported atheists and in every casae have emerged with agreement that they did have theistic belief. Which is not surprising since our brains are hard wired for religious belief. One can no more be a "pure" atheist than one can be totally empty of all sexual feelings. That's not to say that people can't practice what they call atheism. Certainly they can. But it is to say that they remain subject to theistic belief systems that no amount of intent or desire to be a "pure" atheist can eradicate. Which is why my statement is accurate.