Re: Innocence & harmless weapons (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 21:35:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> Subject: Re: Innocence & harmless weapons
Whose side of the truth?
That was a capital "T", bub. Truth doesn't have sides. (Think of it as an archetype.)
Sorry but the very fact that I don't agree with you is proof enough that there is no absolute 'Truth' as you use it. That is unless you are attempting to claim absolute omnipotence on the point of determination.
To be honest I was surprised by your simplistic responce.
That was a question mark, bub. It wasn't an answer, it was a question. Hey, the devil is in the details, gang. Too bad modern schools teach "self-esteem" instead of reading, writing and rhetoric. (Spelling wouldn't hurt either.)
Nice tactical ploy, an ad hominem buried in a straw man argument. Jim Choate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> wrote:
From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
That was a capital "T", bub. Truth doesn't have sides. (Think of it as an archetype.)
Sorry but the very fact that I don't agree with you is proof enough that there is no absolute 'Truth' as you use it.
Hm. So you are using the implied premise, Jim, that if there were an absolute 'Truth' that you would know it? I find that somewhat amusing. :-) Regards, Bryce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMaV7j0jbHy8sKZitAQGP2wMAq9MTFw9Mamepgp58aTRjae2VqFDDJfVn 78LdugL+f6Kd0X4I5nfWs6EEKlItchtmCFxu2sUGKL55igk1D+z+hCfgZflWUocU mECzMzX3Al3HinsunA3NBW4zY61jpCuW =Wnod -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 24 May 1996, Jim Choate wrote:
Sorry but the very fact that I don't agree with you is proof enough that there is no absolute 'Truth' as you use it.
It isn't obvious that we DON"T agree. It was still a question. Actually, I rather fancied Bell and May's responses. To the extent we do disagree reflects in no way on the Truth, only in our abilities to determine what Truth is. Again, think of it as an archetype or reality not as a popularity contest.
That is unless you are attempting to claim absolute omnipotence on the point of determination.
Nope, not me. Hell, I don't even claim *partial* omnipotence. You really have to pay attention to those details. Why are you having so much trouble understanding the question mark?
Nice tactical ploy, an ad hominem buried in a straw man argument.
Thanks, but you got it wrong again. Yes, there was an indirect (and apparently valid) ad hominem, but apparently you do not know what a straw man is. For your edification, your out-of-left-field suggestion that my discussion of Truth represents some claim of omnipotence on my part is clearly a straw man (and an implied ad hominem, for good measure). S a n d y ...WHAT IS TRUTH? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 6:45 PM -0400 5/24/96, snow wrote:
Reality viewed through the lenses of Dogma.
The Words Speak You War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Murk is Darts <er, scratch that...> Can we stop this crap, now? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "If they could 'just pass a few more laws', we would all be criminals." --Vinnie Moscaritolo The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/
participants (5)
-
bryce＠digicash.com -
Jim Choate -
Robert Hettinga -
Sandy Sandfort -
snow