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: one_less who wrote (82319)	2/3/2010 6:18:16 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"so I don't understand your grievance." My opposition to your inference was as stated. "Imperfect being" has no implication for "design". I concede nothing controversial when I acknowledge the obvious( that we are all imperfect and ignorant and that it is natural to ask questions or "wonder"). I don't see any argument for assuming "design" as the reason we are born mortal and lacking omniscience and perfection. So I repeat again that "we are given an incomplete condition by design" is a bald statement and not an argument. It is no more meaningful than saying that trees have leaves by design or that the earth circles the sun by design. If you want to make such hypotheses, that is fine. Show us your evidence. "I was using 'given' differently, as in, 'it is a given fact.'" Given ("by design") sounds like an assertion that there is some thinking entity that is giving or designing because designing is what creators do. Designing implies (indeed necessitates) planning. Why should you infer that imperfection (ignorance) is "by design"?" It is in the blue print. So you have evidence of a blueprint for imperfection? Have you ever seen anyone other than a human being draw up a blueprint?? Where are you keeping the evidence that there is a blueprint for imperfection?? "I didn't make that presumption or conclusion, and would not..." Well, I have not taken a position, have I?? It seems to me that when one is in a discussion about "ethereal aspects" and starts talking about human imperfections flowing from "design" and occurring after "blueprints" have been planned and given appropriate detail..it is natural to assume your "designer", planner, blueprint creator--is indeed a creator of some sort--a creator who can design, who can plan, who can make a blueprint? Talk about blueprints and designs certainly advances very clear implications to anyone reading your posts. I am trying to be fair to you but if you are speaking in code you need to give me (all of us) the ciphering key. Otherwise, we can only rely on standard English.