I came across something interesting today. one of those common sense things that people don’t often put into words. there’s a sort of “religion vs. science” thread on the club that’s staying remarkably civil. anyways, I found myself complimenting one of the religious folks on his presentation of a factoid because he didn’t put it in absolute terms. he pointed something out and expressed an opinion, and the way it was put it was seemingly inviting a response and rebuttal. I was impressed and decided to make an example of it. one thing I typed was:
to argue, you must first allow for an arguement.
clever, huh? it’s common sense and all, but it’s so often lost. religious folks, among others, often cite sources they believe to be absolute authorities. the ineffable word of God and whatnot. first they assume we are accepting the source as absolutely authoritative as well whether they know it or not. they don’t ask anyone if they will accept that souce as an authority. even if so, you can’t argue based on authority, authorities should only be used as support.. not body. anyways, the use of an absolute authority by nature denies rebuttal and thusly arguement as well. they are arguing their position without allowing for an arguement. I dunno. that’s all I got.
-IggDawg
Yeah. That, irrationalism, and a similar thing that I call (and have mentioned) A.P.O.P. (Axiomatic Polar Opposite Pillars) leads to terribly long unproductive discussions.
“But that would mean….that you….wait a damn second here…do you even believe in an objective reality?”
“No.”
“AAAAAAAARRRRGH!! A.P.O.P.!!!!This has been 17 hours of APOP???!!!!” (kills other person…or self, depending on ego)