Subject:
|
Re: A Lego display fund raiser
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 May 2001 19:39:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
296 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Warning, semantic slicing and dicing ahead. :-)
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Based on what I've seen of your interactions with various christians here,
> > specifically on issues where religion or belief have strong relevance(1),
> > you appear to fairly consistently hold a stance that their belief or faith
> > is not valid (or perhaps, less valid) because it doesn't hold up to critical
> > thinking.
>
> I would agree except to say that it should read "is not valid for me" or "I
> cannot accept it as valid within my framework".
Hmm, OK. I'm not certain that the distinction is relevent most of the time
unless you're actually in a debate about perceptions of reality, but I'll
grant it to you anyway. :) (although taking this any farther is *really*
splitting hairs)
> > I may be misreading you here, but that sounds like a bias. Not, I grant
> > you, a bias that appears to interfere with impartial judgement, but still a
> > bias.
>
> I don't think that's a bias, but I am willing to posit it as such as long as
> the key point stands... it doesn't interfere with (my) impartial judgement.
> I put great stock in my reputation among critical thinkers here (1) and
> would not be pleased to be thought not to have impartial judgement.
I think that your judgement is generally impartial, but I also think you
have a tendency (like many of us, I hasten to point out) to skip right to
the end of a debate when you've seen it a few times before. This can fairly
easily be mistaken for a snap judgement, especially by someone who isn't
very familiar with the sheer volume of () in .debate.
> Helps? I think your clarification did...
Ya.
> 1 - it is left as an exercise to the reader to discern what I care about my
> reputation with those who are not critical thinkers.
Not much of an excercise, I don't even need to work on it at home... ;)
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser
|
| Warning, semantic slicing and dicing ahead. :-) (...) I would agree except to say that it should read "is not valid for me" or "I cannot accept it as valid within my framework". I acknowledge that others do find it valid. I judge *them* only on (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
