Maybe McCain should have vetted PalinFollow

haha, accidental eels

***



I get rhetoric. It's purpose is to confuse and persuade other people. I do not care about rhetoric. If you set forth a proposition which may be symbolized charitably, then expect it to be done. When you then lead to a formal fallacy, expect to be called on it.

For the record, I do not claim to have a vast intellect. I despise arrogance. I also, however, harbor a disdain for all that attempts to be logical and simply fails to attain. You made a bad argument and got called out. Sorry. You're more than welcome to say that you weren't really making an argument, and that you were just blowing some hot rhetorical air. I don't see the value in it, personally.



Awesome. I have an inkling of respect for you now. You still contradict the basis of modern science though, and for that well, your view is just so alien to me that we may literally not comprehend each other through language. Good day to you.

And yes, I'm being completely sincere.



Yes it is. RM Hare had a quite good response to flew, which is why I included it in the reading. There is a point at which all beliefs may be traced to an unfalsifiable one, such as the belief in the ego, or in causality. Kant, however, answers many of those questions quite splendidly in his Transcendental Deduction. As another act of humility, I will admit that I could not have read that deduction without a teacher. It's hard @#%^ing stuff.

Edited, Sep 5th 2008 2:58pm by Pensive

Why am I arguing with varrus?

Goddammit I feel like I just lost my virginity to some 25 year old highschool dropout who used a broken condom on purpose. It is time for some videogames.

I laughed. Thanks I needed it.

Boy did this one spin out of control! ;)



She's not though. Read it again. She says that we should "pray... that our leaders... are sending {US soldiers} on a task that is from God".

She's not saying that it is, but that we should pray that it is. Kind of odd phrasing if you think she actually believes we're fighting a holy war of some kind.

She doesn't say that though. She says to pray that that the task our leaders have sent our soldiers on is "from God". That perfectly fits my interpretation. It's even more clear when you add the second sentence "make sure that we're praying... that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan".

She's not proclaiming the war to be sanctioned by God. She's praying that the decisions our leaders make in that war are "from God" and are "God's plan".

Again. This makes zero sense if you believe it's about Holy War. People proclaiming something to be commanded by God don't use that sort of phraseology. It makes a heck of a lot of sense when you realize that Christians often use references to "God's plan" and things that are "from God" as a reference to something being "good" or "right". As I said earlier, all this really means is that she's asking people to pray that our leaders make good decisions with regard to the war.


I know that this may be hard to grasp, but I've heard Christians say things like "I'm praying that it's in God's plan for my cat to win first prize in the show". Does this mean that person believes that her cat is some kind of holy warrior sent by God to crush the other cats at the show? No. She's just praying that her cat does well at the damn show. Same deal here. Palin is praying that our leaders make good decisions. Don't read any more into it than that.

Sure. It's a valid simplification though, so no problem.

I guess my issue is that it's a bit unfair to quote her and assume that she's a particular type of Christian when interpreting the quote and then arguing from that interpretation.

That ends up being circular logic. You're assuming she's a religious fundamentalist who believes in Holy War, then using that assumption to interpret her quote to mean that she's referring to said Holy War, and then using that interpretation itself as evidence that she's a religious fundamentalist. But the whole thing ultimately hinges on the initial assumption. Remove that starting assumption and the whole argument falls apart.



By that argument though, you can attack any person of faith, or any person who refers to God in any way using that same assumptive process. I think that's kind of pointless unless your entire point is just to attack people for having faith.

A pragmatic approach wouldn't involve trying to interpret some quote. It would involve looking at actions and direct statements made by the person herself. If you want to know what kind of person someone is, you don't take a vague quote and guess, you look at their life and decisions. And when you look at Palin's life and especially her political actions, what should be jumping out at you isn't her faith, but her willingness to expose and fight corruption and ability to trim fat from budgets.

Isn't that more significant when electing a politician? It's not like her faith is going to magically rub off on you or be forced on you. I'm much more concerned about the fiscal responsibility of a candidate than I am about their religion.

Comedy break: My sixty year-old mother just sent me a fwd of what the Obamas, Biden and Michelle were doing when they found out who McCain's running mate was.