> If you have actually read (I hesitate to say
> "understood") what I have
> written you'll know that I have made more than one
> comment regarding
> truth. Which ones do you believe to be false and why?
It is the claim to know absolute truth period - isn't that enough - need we get
into particulars?
> Or, to phrase it in terms that won't offend the delicate sensibilities
> of the relativists
Again with the "relativist" thing - I don't remember anyone arguing for
relativism or claiming to be a relativist. Do you know what a straw man
argument is or maybe a red herring - take your pick.
> Do you know what a "straw man" argument is?
> It's where someone argues
> against a caricature of someone else's argument rather
> than against
> that argument itself. You are doing that here.
You replied to Simon's criticism of your claim to know truth and your reaction
was against relativism NOT in support of your claim to know truth, but to
attack relativism. Simon never brought up relativism. That's the straw man
you've put up! Defend your own argument that somehow you have access to
absolute truth rather than bashing Simon for something that he didn't say.
Simon wasn't making a case for relativism he was questioning absolute truth.
That is not the same thing. One can not believe in absolute truth and also NOT
be a relativist. It's easy. Much of so-called postmodern theory explains the
basis for this quite well. You want names of authorities - I could list them
all day - what difference would it make? You'd just quote others to refute it.
What's the point? It's clear we have different values on these issues.
> Please explain the basis for this assertion like an honest
> debater. Or
> at least appeal to authorities by name.
Could you find more ways to insult me. Now I'm a dishonest racist. Great! I'm
through with this enlightening conversation.
Best wishes.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
