Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:49:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020903120653.N35147-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain > >> from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) > > > > Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. > > I don't care what he was. There was zero excuse for that display > of police brutality. There's zero excuse for any of it actually, > and it's a prime reason I despise authority and rebel against any > sort of organized policing. Who watches the watchers? Hmmm...On what basis does anyone say that there is "zero excuse" for such and such action? Moral condemnations flow forth, but on what basis? You and Terry really are more alike than you may know. I do think you realize it more than he does. However, given your rejection of authority, who are you to condemn police brutality? All you are doing is confirming that "there is none righteous, not even one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless, there is none who does good, not even one..." (Romans 3:10-12) You really should read the entire passage, it gets even more to the point, such that, "every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God". Who watches the watchers indeed! > > [ ... ] > >> > Spare me the "exception to every rule" sophistry. > >> > >> You don't spare me the "prove every principle" dogma, why should I > >> reciprocate? > > > > You want to sway me with your arguments, then you accept my > > standards of proof. > > You presume I want to sway you. I can assure you I don't have a > wrecking ball in my posession, cause that is what it will take > to sway someone so deeply entrenched in assumption as yourself. > I really don't want to sway you. I really think you are deceiving yourself if you think you are not also deeply entrenched in assumptions. Everybody has them, and they are very important. The trick is in adopting the *right* assumptions. But this involves us in worldview considerations. > > I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause > > given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof". > > I'm actually quite convincable given a rational argument which accepts > that everything we work with is assumption. However, I don't think you > are capable (I could be wrong), and this is the wrong forum. You've hit upon something that is deeply profound. All reasoning is ultimately circular and dependent on presuppositions that are not verified by anything else. The question to be asked is what presuppositions are transcendentally necessary for experience to be meaningful at all. The reason that both of you are so difficult to argue with is that neither of you seem to think anything is meaningful. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020903120653.N35147-100000>