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: The Philosopher who wrote (79991)	12/31/2003 6:53:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| 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. I was trying to illustrate your "fallacies." Just as I asserted that the dress is a subset of women's clothing, you assert that ethics is a subset of morality, morality is a subset of religion, and religion is always theistic. All of those are a function of your frame of reference and arguable on the broader scale. Garbage in, garbage out. Your other error is that, even if ethics, the concept, is within the theism circle, that doesn't mean that individual non-theists couldn't and don't apply it just as individual men can and do wear dresses. I was reading something just the other day that referenced how people deal with cognitive dissonance and here you've given me this perfect illustration. You're struggle with it is so great that not only do you concoct this logical monstrosity, you then persuade yourself that we ethical non-theists are, in fact, theists after all. Good grief, Chris. So much easier to just accept what is right under your nose.