Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale II

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Eireann I think the reason they get indignant is because they are insecure in their beliefs. When you are insecure in your beliefs you can’t stand to have your beliefs put up to scrutiny. I think that because I came from that mindset when I just believed what I had been taught instead of later when I struggled through to what I now believe. So they come back with insults to cover the fact that they don’t have answers. Have you noticed how the discussions start out pretty well and right when you get to the meat of the discussion, the insults start?

    I had a fairly long running discussion with themusicman about when human life began. He was able to stay on the subject with very few belittlements and the discussion was pretty enjoyable. He brought up several points that made me think about and clarify my beliefs about the subject. Wish I could have more discussions like that.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Hank
      Eireann I think the reason they get indignant is because they are insecure in their beliefs. When you are insecure in your beliefs you can’t stand to have your beliefs put up to scrutiny. I think that because I came from that mindset when I just believed what I had been taught instead of later when I struggled through to what I now believe. So they come back with insults to cover the fact that they don’t have answers. Have you noticed how the discussions start out pretty well and right when you get to the meat of the discussion, the insults start?

      I had a fairly long running discussion with themusicman about when human life began. He was able to stay on the subject with very few belittlements and the discussion was pretty enjoyable. He brought up several points that made me think about and clarify my beliefs about the subject. Wish I could have more discussions like that.
      All too often, participants in a discussion don't want to allow their "opponents" to have equal footing or to give equal ground. When it comes to matters of faith, we're all on even turf, none of us having proof that our matters of faith are fact. If they were provable facts, they wouldn't be matters of faith, they'd be matters of fact. And you're right, usually that unwillingness to view someone else's position as equal to your own stems from insecurity.
      Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

      Comment


      • #93
        This message was deleted...
        Last edited by admiral_d; August 22nd, 2002, 12:51 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          "I had a fairly long running discussion with themusicman about when human life began."

          Life begins when the children move out and the dog dies.

          Comment


          • #95
            I just read the whole debate, after reading what people were saying about it a while ago... Interesting, though poorly debated on both sides in my opinion. I thought Zakath won, because Knight had the burden of proof (he had it from the start since he was in the affirmative and later accepted it anyway) and yet proved absolutely nothing. However I thought Zakath went about approaching the arguments in an absolutely (just kidding) incorrect manner and could have done much better. Something of a key in the debate against absolute morality is to acknowledge Godels (umlaut over the o...) theorem and what it implies about reality in general. Zakath wasn't challenging Knights basic conception of reality enough and since he didn't he did a rather poor job of defense against Knights bandying about of the murder/kidnap/rape situation. You have to realize that Language is a system, and as a system it operates off of absolute rules, that are only absolute within the system (relatively absolute, as it were, ). Words aren't reality, they describe reality, and when you take a term like murder or rape which is *defined* as absolutely wrong within its own system you can't scrounge about for situations where murder isn't murder because of someone's perspective or whatever, you can't succeed, and Zakath didn't. Anyways, that was my main gripe about how the debate went.

            Comment

            Working...
            X