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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (13821)	11/23/1997 4:29:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, this posting started as a response to your blatant hate-mongering of Christianity. I could care less if you want to be a pretend-pagan. Go sacrifice a goat and read its entrails if it makes you happy. But when you indulge in bigotry, don't cry when you receive return fire. Let me commend you for trying to turn this into a debate on me: "you are mean when you play with me, and a bully." "You know plenty about logic, but you use it in a silly game to twist the argument, not to actually explore interesting subjects." "You, on the other hand, deride anything that doesn't fit into your picture of history or politics or religion." "I am concerned about is that if someone wasn't really following the discussion, they might think you were making sense, and you are not." "I do get concerned when people use the Feelings thread to simply ridicule someone else's positions in an underhanded way. Examples of this would include your condescending and less-than-scholarly reactions and comments on Hakeem" " Why does this belief system threaten you so much would be a more interesting question?)" An excellent collection of ad hominem arguing. Of course, ad hominem argument is yet another logical fallacy, but sometimes a clever debater can use this fallacy to shift the discussion away from the subject. Unfortunately, I don't fall for it. No wonder you disparage "epistemology, Aristotle, Sir Thomas Aquinas, the ASSUMED superiority of cultures with written languages." As for Dr. Hakeem, you cite him as an authority, so it is legitimate to investigate his credentials. Since his field is not religious history, his writing isn't peer reviewed. Concerning "the ASSUMED superiority of cultures with written languages", you have the argument wrong. The superiority is not with the culture involved, it is about our ability to know the culture. I will merely point out the Rosetta Stone, and how it revolutionized our knowledge of ancient Egypt. One need only compare the speculations pre-Rosetta with knowledge post-Rosetta to see the importance of writing to the study of an ancient civilization. A similar revolution is occuring in the study of Central American civilizations, as their writing is being deciphered. Talk about non sequiturs!! Oh, that is a word I don't really have to look up, incidentally, Freddy, and another example of your condescending tone. OK, I admit it: your argument wasn't a non-sequitor, it was a non-sequitur. You caught me. I also become concerned at perceived inaccuracies, like Johnny's statement that Lincoln held slaves. If he did I would really like to know this, but he offered no evidence at all. Not that Johnny needs help on this, but Lincoln's wife inherited slaves and apparently the Lincolns sold them. Seeing as Johnny brought it up, he can find the reference.