Mike Long

SteveInCO wrote:@Davis

I am much more sympathetic to outing a politician than a preacher, because only the politician can be an agent of force (as you touched on). But it had better be a politician that really goes against the group he’s fighting (gays, atheists, whatever). Occasional pandering speeches is one thing, I’ve never known a pol…

[Read more]

Agreed, cased closed, unless perhaps God Himself has a Free Will on/off switch that still works. (Please don’t elaborate on the implied paradoxes… I’ve said too much already.)

I think we all think we think we all want Free Will, without the red buttons.

I used to have a wonderful cartoon of Arnie as Terminator, running from the crosses with Jesus slung over his shoulder and the caption, “We’re not putting up with your shit for the next 2,000 years”.

So the consensus is that pushing the big red atheist button would be a bad idea. I’ve decided not to build my time machine…go to the future…steal brain control technology…go back into the past…get Einstein and Turing to work out the details and create a mock up…and then come back into our relative time frame…and push the big red…[Read more]

Matt wrote:
Personally though, I never really liked the Blog section on TA. I preferred the threaded replies of the discussions to help me keep track of the covnersation. I guess now we are on AZ, I’ll (we’ll) have to get used to it.

There are some things one can do to alleviate the confusion non threading causes, such as quoting (with the quo…[Read more]

Hi Keith, as you guessed; video hosting tends to become cost-prohibitive due to storage, processing, and bandwidth costs. I’m guessing there’s wordpress plugins which would give us just about all the other functionality you mentioned.

Personally though, I never really liked the Blog section on TA. I preferred the threaded replies of the…[Read more]

I am working on it. You will soon be able to upload images to server and then insert them in replies.

There is some conflict with the theme. Theme author is trying to fix it.

I usually just put the image on Flicker; then use the url from Flickr for the image.

@Davis

I am much more sympathetic to outing a politician than a preacher, because only the politician can be an agent of force (as you touched on). But it had better be a politician that really goes against the group he’s fighting (gays, atheists, whatever). Occasional pandering speeches is one thing, I’ve never known a politician who didn’t…[Read more]

@Strega

Strega wrote:@Davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

Couldn’t agree more.

@Davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

SteveInCO wrote:

Davis wrote:
And so…outing someone who works against your interests within a group is okay…but outing someone outside of your group who works against your interests is not okay. I can see how this might be fair…but perhaps you can explain why?

To be clear, I was thinking of the case where someone is pretending to be in Group…

[Read more]

Indeed. I was thinking about this a fair bit this weekend. The only reasonable argument (though not necessarily a good one) for outing someone like this is if the person is in the role of a leader or representative (or internally within an advocacy group) … who is working to undermine the rights of others, not as an ad hominem but as an attempt…[Read more]

Haven’t we slipped a little off topic here? I liked the original poser, got another, anyone?

Unseen wrote:

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. I have already rep…

[Read more]

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. I have already replied to this charge.

Also, you call my defintion “idiosyncratic” whereas it is really merely a minority usage, but it is sanctioned by the dictionary.

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s cre…[Read more]