Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 476762" data-attributes="member: 4937">"Did you really think about that before you posted it?"Oh dear.  Someone accussing me of shallowness of thought.  Oh woe is me.   As if such accussation is going to send me scurring for cover.   Please, if you are going to try to insult me, at least attack one of my many real flaws so that you will at least get something that bites or sticks.   It is pathetic to see people struggling to be insulting because they lack any real command of the English language.   Of all the derision you could have composed with this noble tongue, was that the best you could do?  If you want to belittle my thoughts, do a real job of it next time, OK?And you probably won't even need to misrepresent me, which is the thing that has really got me peevish."I hope not, the last thing the world needs is another person who believes they have a unique insight to 'truth and right' that other's are incapable of seeing."Ahhh... While we are on the subject, did you really think about that before you posted it?  First, I did not claim that I had particular insight in the statement you quoted.  In fact, quite the contrary, if you will look at it in context you will find I expressed the opinion that I could not draw a conclusion because didn't have enough insight.Secondly, I did not claim that such insight as I did have or might eventually gain was unique.  In fact, quite the contrary.  I was argueing for such things as Thomas Jefferson's 'self-evident truths' - life, liberty, and freedom to pursue ones own happiness where it does not unduly infringe upon others life and liberty.  Self-evident or not, those are certainly not unique opinions, and the key to my arguement is commonality not uniqueness.Thirdly, I did not claim special powers of perception above and beyond ordinary individuals.  In fact, it should be clear that the belief that special powers of perception are required to know truth and right, then my whole arguement goes up in smoke.  While it is not essential to my arguement that everyone be able to descern right from wrong (that is, the existance of sociopaths is not fatal to my line of reasoning), if everyone's sense of right and wrong were in fact wholy unique it would be impossible to argue that such notions in fact exist.   But, in fact, when I wrong you, you generally hold the opinion _that that was something that I ought not to have done_.   I'm simply expressing the opinion that the notion of 'ought' and 'fairness' are enherent in human thought and social behavior, and from that we may conclude that common belief in good and evil is not nearly so rare as some would have us believe.So, having failed to grasp even the slightest part of my thought, and having responded in such a snipping, terse, unreflective, and reflexive manner, I deduce that whatever depth of thought may have been lacking in my post, that you are the proverable man with a plank in his eye trying to fish a bit of sawdust out of mine.Normally, little snide comments like yours don't bother me much,  but I really detest when the substance of my posts is misrepresented.   Your post amounts to 'Either you are stupid, or else this follows...', when in point of fact, neither am I stupid (which I do hold to be a self-evident truth), nor do I hold the opinion you attribute to me (which ought to be evident to anyone who bothered to read my post).</blockquote>

Verification