On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -0000, iaamoac wrote: > But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that > one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with > agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
If you are not willing to change your assumptions based on data, then the discussion will be rather limited. If religion is measured on a linear scale with atheists on one end and zealots and literalists on the other end, then it seems that agnostics are the most neutral and willing to change assumptions, and therefore the best viewpoint for a productive discussion. At least, that is how I interpreted David's comment. > More imporantly, why is it so radical to simply insist upon a basic > level of *civility* from all List-Members. Sure, I have been known > to engage what has previously been described here as "rough and > tumble adult conversation", but when I apply "zingers" in my post, I > at least accompany it with content. That is a matter of opinion. > In my mind, the posting of mere insults, without any accompanying > substantive content is inappropriate - and hence I am objecting to it. In my opinion, that hasn't been nearly as prevalent as you are suggesting. Some people are just over-sensitive. Maybe people should be more tolerant of the way other people express their disagreement? Or not. Whine if you want. :-) -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
