Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:45:01 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4556 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
<snip>
>
> So for example, if someone posts to OT.debate to argue in favor of a certain
> political position, they can expect to be taken seriously (and have the
> possibility of rationally covincing others) only to the extent that their
> arguments depend on rationally-derived beliefs. If, in defending that
> political position, they ultimately fall back on a belief such as "This is
> what God wants us to be like", which was derived nonrationally, their whole
> argument becomes nonrational and therefore not rationally convincing.
<snip>
> -Brendan
Great Googly Moogly this debate is great!
Anyway, I just wanted to pop up at this one point--it's best described, for me
anyway, as the 'Decker Arguement'
See, here's Kirk, listing the positive attributes as to why he should be in
command of this particular mission--with the experience and the knowhow and the
ability to 'save the universe' and the history of confronting the 'unknown', and
then he says 'and my experience with this ship'
To which Decker responds--'Hey you! This ship is completely redesigned--you
don't know nothing about this ship so your whole arguement is null and void!'
Like the OJ case--'cause the gloves didn't fit, that made the entire case
circumspect.
Drives me bonkers--hey, if you have 9 points out of 10 that are 100 percent
legit, but 1 point that, well, isn't so much, that does not allow the other guy
to throw out the entire case--is like, as the cliche goes--throwing the baby out
with the bathwater.
Anyway, throwing it in there.
:)
Dave K
-go on about your business--loving this thread :)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
| (...) No, they need not be mutually exclusive, but I don't see that that is more than a trivial point to make. I suppose someone could, for instance, be rationally convinced that nautral selection accounts for the diversity of life on Earth because (...) (18 years ago, 22-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
