On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:27, Ritu wrote: > > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* > > certainly am not > > > a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid > > foundations. > > > > No, you do not. Your principles have no backing beyond what you feel. > > Two things: > > How would you know? > And, how about not just what a person feels but also what s/he thinks?
It's an accusation, and one WTG has not been able to refute. feels/thinks/whatever - their belief patterns. > > Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of > > say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. > > Umm, why does one have to follow *anyone* to the letter? Why can't one > just pick and choose? After all, no one is infallible, believer, > agnostic or atheist, so why should people act as the others *are* > infallible and obviously know better? Someone can, it's not important to the argument I was making. What is important is the picking and chosing of groups selectively into catagories based on personal bias. > Which is my basic problem with religion - God never came up to me and > told me what She wanted me to do. Failing that, I can conceive of no > reason why somebody else's interpretation of what She might or might not > want should matter to me. Then that's your call and it's fine, as long as you don't try and tell me that your way is the one way. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
