Disqus - Latest Comments for laffingboi

Re: Wider template

laffingboi — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:07:19 -0000

Seinfeld reference alert!

Re: Wider template

laffingboi — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:01:45 -0000

"luxurious!"

Re: Of Heresy, Blasphemy, and the Price of Tea in China

laffingboi — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:37:51 -0000

I want to ponder. I am a ponderer. My name is Roger the Ponderer.

Re: Of Heresy, Blasphemy, and the Price of Tea in China

laffingboi — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:30:04 -0000

That doesn't mean we are all over the spectrum of religions never knowing what to believe, but it means that we don't need to hold to "well-polished, sharp edged systems."

Does this allow for well-polished and sharp edges in some facets of our system? Is Chesterton correct in saying, "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

To assume I have all the answers (and that they are all perfectly correct) is more than arrogance, it's ignorance. But to be confident that I have some (correct) answers is required to be able to reason effectively.

Re: Of Heresy, Blasphemy, and the Price of Tea in China

laffingboi — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:13:07 -0000

Does the fact my beliefs have evolved very much along the lines above set me closer to some kind of truth than the simple believer?

Is this a rhetorical question? What is the nature of truth that it can be gotten closer to or further from? Can it be gotten closer to by intention or only by coincidence?

Re: Of Heresy, Blasphemy, and the Price of Tea in China

laffingboi — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:51:07 -0000

I hope you aren't referring to me...
No, I was just calling attention to the irony of relativism.

If all you are saying is that we should be considerate (both socially and intellectually) when dealing with those who hold other opinions then how could I disagree?

...do you disagree with my statement "If Gnosticism..."
No. I agree with your statement. But again, so what? Christianity is called heretical and a false belief system by many millions around the world.

Re: Of Heresy, Blasphemy, and the Price of Tea in China

laffingboi — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:52:46 -0000

Heresy and a false belief system, not unlike what Judaism would consider Christianity, or Christianity considers Mormonism, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses and on and on.

So what? I'm always amazed when I'm told that, because people have differing opinions, nobody should consider their opinion the correct one. Especially when the people telling me this are convinced that I'm wrong and they are right. Why is it so difficult to accept that people believe differently and that in some cases people think other people should believe like they do? Why can't we allow everybody to hold firm opinions and speak their minds? Then we can challenge their reasoning if we choose to instead of insisting that everybody play 'I'm OK, You're OK'. If we get insulted we turn away. If we get challenged we respond, retrench, or retreat. This is how we learn.

Re: I'll never forget weeping in front of the TV this day seven years ago

laffingboi — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:04:50 -0000

I think our mexc conversation is bleeding into this one. No more moral relativism comments for me in this thread after these parting thoughts.

CK: I cannot think of much in the world that [is self-evident].

How about your sense perceptions?

CK: Yet I think that people should be treated *as if* they are equal because this is a much better and fairer attitude to take.

How is it better or fairer to act falsely? Is it fair to give everybody an 'A' on a test if only a quarter of the people who took it deserved the grade? Is fairness a more fundamental value than justice? In the classic example, is it really better to tell your wife that that dress does not make her butt look big, when in fact it does? Then she goes out in that dress, everybody of course thinks her butt looks big and she is humiliated. She realizes that you lied to "spare her feelings" and hates you for it. This can be avoided in one of two ways. 1) You tell the truth up front (and she goes on a diet or wears another dress), or 2) everybody lies and the poor wardrobe choices are ingrained—and passed on the the next generation, inevitably causing suffering for millions :-)

Are you an advocate of Noble Lies?

CK: Various groups have been denied such rights throughout our history and, no doubt, will be denied them again in the future. Such denial is cultural in nature.

Denial (and acceptance) may be cultural, but is the truth of the matter cultural as well? Does a group truly not possess inherent dignity (and therefore deserve equal rights) if society denies it of them? Again, yikes! If that's true then society might decide to "treat all people equally anyway" or not, and be justified in either case. In fact more justified in selective denial since it accords with reality (if inequality is the reality).

I think we should face the world as it is, make our decisions accordingly, and let the chips fall where they may. One can't ultimately win a fight against the natural order. I'm being completely serious.

Re: I never wanted to be an Atheist.

laffingboi — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:32:17 -0000

Talking to a brick wall is no good, that's for sure.

He had *no* reason? Did he really give no reason at all or did he just not give an adequate one in your estimation.

For the sake of argument, what if, according to Dan's POV, you actually *are* lying (he might even acknowledge that you don't *think* you are) - and (let's assume) he had a *reason* for saying so. In *that* case, should he lie to you (since you asked, right?) about whether or not he thinks *you're* lying? What is more important, honesty (true or not) or congeniality?

What if he said that you were mistaken in saying that you didn't believe in God instead of saying that you were lying? Would that have been acceptable?

I hope you're doing well. Sorry for all the *. Can I italicize somehow?

Re: I never wanted to be an Atheist.

laffingboi — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:20:12 -0000

Given what you want to accomplish with this blog, actions that cause communication between two people to be terminated are, as they say in the Councils, anathema. Your conversation with Dan presents us with a case study. If you and Dan could have a 'do-over' conversation, what should he have said (since he was clearly in the wrong) in reply to your question that would have allowed for a better outcome?

P.S. What's the "Verify my post" checkbox supposed to do?

Re: Why can't we all just get along?

laffingboi — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:45:49 -0000

An ocean of words. Spirited, too. Not sure it's a good spirit, but spirited nonetheless. I'm not well suited mentally to extended online reading, but I'll try to go through it all maybe we could discuss how it is that such conversations go off the rails and what it would take to avoid it (if avoiding it is a worthy goal which I expect you think it is.) Good night.

Re: Why can't we all just get along?

laffingboi — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:26:46 -0000

Are you glued to your computer, man? I've had slower conversations on IM!

Re: Why can't we all just get along?

laffingboi — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:06:55 -0000

Mike, I really enjoyed your comments and responses over at Kevin's blog. I think I'd enjoy having more conversations in the future. I don't have time to comment now (since I spent so much time responding at mexc) but I'll be back. Hopefully a community will form here that allows for congenial interaction. That's a tall order but given what I've read, I think you can pull it off. Good luck with the blog and I hope to contribute positively when I can.

***
This is great! I can edit my comment after I've submitted! I really need to hit the Submit button in order to activate my editor :-)