13 of 13
13
Welcome “Non-Believers”
Posted: 03 May 2009 07:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 181 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26
PLaClair - 02 May 2009 09:59 PM
Ecrasez l’infame! - 02 May 2009 07:58 PM

First, shouldn’t we define the term(s) we are discussing before beginning the discussion?

What terms do you want to define? The discussion is clear to me.

Ecrasez l’infame! - 02 May 2009 07:58 PM

Second, while you can quote from Dewey and I can quote from Mencken, and you can quote from….and I can quote from…. Where is this going? 

The appropriate place for it to go is for you to acknowledge that Dewey used this word in perfectly appropriate ways, and so do I. You don’t have to use it that way; just acknowledge that this is a perfectly good way to use it. You’re right, there’s no point in a back-and-forth exchange of quotations, though I was prepared to go next to Bertrand Russell. This isn’t majority rules. You argued that these uses of the word were meaningless and, I gather, inappropriate. They are not. The appropriate place for the discussion to go is for you to admit that you overstated your argument and are guilty of excessive attachment to words instead of ideas.

Ecrasez l’infame! - 02 May 2009 07:58 PM

Neither of us will change our attitude - so what measure do we use to win or lose, or is it a matter of winning and losing - where do we end?

Excuse me, you don’t speak for me. I would change my mind and my attitude if someone showed me that it bore changing. A big part of Faith is openness. If you will not change your attitude no matter what, then you are behaving emotionally, not rationally.

Ecrasez l’infame! - 02 May 2009 07:58 PM

Third, because of the rules on this forum there are problems with quoting full statements from writers - should we follow the references or what?

There’s no problem. I can read a link and so can you.

O.K. I accede - As far as Dewey’s uses and yours are concerned, they are appropriate in your context (particularly since your usage is so deeply personal as you explained to Adonai, and no-one can compete with that).  In fact I already said this.  However, I will continue to disregard it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 182 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Ecrasez l’infame! - 03 May 2009 07:09 PM

O.K. I accede - As far as Dewey’s uses and yours are concerned, they are appropriate in your context (particularly since your usage is so deeply personal as you explained to Adonai, and no-one can compete with that).  In fact I already said this.  However, I will continue to disregard it.

Now there’s the difference between someone who has a commitment to rationality and someone who doesn’t.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 08:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 183 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26
PLaClair - 03 May 2009 07:49 PM
Ecrasez l’infame! - 03 May 2009 07:09 PM

O.K. I accede - As far as Dewey’s uses and yours are concerned, they are appropriate in your context (particularly since your usage is so deeply personal as you explained to Adonai, and no-one can compete with that).  In fact I already said this.  However, I will continue to disregard it.

Now there’s the difference between someone who has a commitment to rationality and someone who doesn’t.

!

Profile
 
 
   
13 of 13
13