On 31 Oct 2003 at 21:28, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 31 Oct 2003, at 20:59, Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > > --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On 31 Oct 2003, at 17:29, Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> > >>> On 31 Oct 2003 at 15:19, William T Goodall wrote: > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion > >>>>> > >>>>> 4. "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or > >>>>> conscientious devotion." > >>>> > >>>> You realize that is a figurative usage as in 'baseball was his > >>>> religion' and not actually about religion qua religion? > >>> > >>> I don't accept that, > > > > You don't accept that the use of the word "religion", or that the > > intent was that use? > > > >> You don't accept that you are mistaken about this usage? > >> > >>> sorry. > >> > >> But you are sorry - for what? > >> > >>> I'm perfectly willing to argue that many > >>> people in these days worship capitalism as a religion, quite > >>> seriously. > >> > >> That would be a non sequitur. > > > > No it isn't. > > > > It is actually. First Andrew argued that the definition 'A cause, > principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion' > meant religion qua religion and was not a figurative usage of the > word. > > Then he said " I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in > these days worship capitalism as a religion, quite seriously." > > Now it seems to me that for this to make any sense he must mean > something other than "I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people > in these days pursue capitalism with zeal, quite seriously." > > But if he does mean something different than that, then he is using a > different definition of religion than the one he used in the first > paragraph. > > Hence it is a non sequitur.
Why? Because I'm attacking something YOU believe in for a change? There's no non sequitur here except you on the defensive. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
