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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (9234)	10/13/2010 4:52:53 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Don't blame me for your poor choice of examples. "The definition of what distinguishes a living organism as a bird includes feathers." If you can remove the feathers from a bird and it still remains a bird then feathers are not a necessary condition of birdness: are they? Again: that just so basic that you should be embarrassed to keep repeating it. Lets see how your argument lays out Premise 1. All birds have feathers. Premise 2. The featherless thing in the oven is a bird. Conclusion: At least one premise or possibly both are wrong ............................... <<<Nowhere in the article does he conclude that: "you have an obligation to attack others based on his presumption of being right.">>> Yes he did and I've already demonstrated that fact. His premise is based on the 'Jesus is God' statement and his position on that is transparent. He infused several comments that leave room for plausible deniability but they don't match the context and drift of his general delivery. "Therefore, those with bad beliefs (that is, unsound beliefs) are not merely different, they are wrong; and we should not be squeamish ..." Interesting that you are not squeamish about saying that he's wrong and in doing so are perpetrating the very thing you are objecting to. At least you bothered to accurately quote him this time rather than putting words into his mouth that are not there. The fact is, he is calling for reasoned dialog not attacking anyone. Disagreement about the truth of a matter is not synonymous with attacking a person. His point that you keep missing is that logically, mutually exclusive truth claims cannot both be true and we should not be "Chicken" to say so.