A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bible-beater pilots



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #581  
Old December 2nd 03, 07:09 AM
Rob Perkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:00:25 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

In message , you cite scripture
instead of dictionary as a source of a definition. It was to this I
referred with the text (which you didn't include in your citation):

When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation
with some referenced scripture...well, there's little point
to this.

You'd do as well to cite a Spanish dictionary for the definition of an
English word. It's about as meaninful.


!!

The first dictionaries *were* descriptions of the meanings of foreign
words. Are you even aware what a modern dictionary is and how it's
compiled?

Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad
hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon."
It's not reasonable.

Rob
  #582  
Old December 2nd 03, 06:17 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rob Perkins wrote:

[...]
Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad
hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon."
It's not reasonable.


Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If
you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable.

However, you used one in place of a dictionary. That is not a reasonable
act, any more than citing a Spanish dictionary would be for claiming proper
use of English words would be so.

What point is there in having a discussion with a person where that person
feels free to use unreasonable sources for citation? If we cannot even
agree upon something as basic as the lexicon, discussion isn't even truly
possible. You can make claims like "experiments require faith", and never
even "know" (or "care", more likely) that you're using at least one word in
a grossly nonstandard way.

In your language, perhaps you're even correct. But I'm not using your
language. I'm using English.

It would be akin to someone saying "the rudder turns the airplane". Many
here would leap to correct this. But if the poster of such a statement
cited different definitions for either "rudder" (those things on the
trailing edge of the wings outboard of the flaps) or "turn" (rotate around
an axis) or "airplane" (a waterbound vehicle), then the statement would be
correct in the speaker's lexicon.

But that wouldn't be English.

Of course, you can define "English" however you want in your own lexicon.
That's just how pointless such a discussion becomes.

- Andrew

  #583  
Old December 2nd 03, 11:12 PM
Rob Perkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:17:06 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If
you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable.


And, here's where I get off the ride. If I can't explain my point of
view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being
dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it.
Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew.

And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail"
strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts.

Rob
  #584  
Old December 2nd 03, 11:53 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rob Perkins wrote:

And, here's where I get off the ride.


You can get yourself off whereever you like.

If I can't explain my point of
view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being
dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it.


We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant
difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals.
Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol.

Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew.


Any fallacies you think you see are the result of the difference between our
two languages. I'm using English. You're using something else. As I
wrote before, as long as we're not using the same language, communication
isn't possible.

And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail"
strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts.


The goalposts are where they've always been. You're just trying to redefine
the language - and therefore the discussion - and are perturbed about being
denied this sophistic ploy.

I don't really see that I can add anything more to this game - until/unless
you submit to the use of English - and so you'll just have to play with
yourself.

- Andrew

  #585  
Old December 3rd 03, 04:55 AM
Rob Perkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:53:38 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Rob Perkins wrote:

And, here's where I get off the ride.


You can get yourself off whereever you like.


Y'know, sexual innuendo doesn't really help win arguments.

We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant
difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals.
Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol.


You've got to be kidding. Look, at times I've been entertained doing
epistemology with novices; it can be fun and usually a lurker writes
to me thanking me for the insights. But I'm just not interested this
time, it's the holiday season and I've got to get my day job
accomplished sometime.

One more time, then, as denouement:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,835-1,00.html

....defines "faith" in my context. If you want to have a protracted
conversation with someone, take it to soc.religion.mormon or
something.

I'm done!

plonk
Rob
  #586  
Old December 11th 03, 04:39 PM
Mike Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Maybe that is why we aren't using it anymore.

Mike Z

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
Martin,

Just check what is printed on your money.


And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
Dover short pilots since vaccine order Roman Bystrianyk Naval Aviation 0 December 29th 04 01:47 AM
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? No Spam! Military Aviation 120 January 27th 04 11:19 AM
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? No Spam! General Aviation 3 December 23rd 03 09:53 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.