- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!
That's an interesting analogy because neither argument presented is what is required to make it a fish, nor does the presence of both characteristics make something a fish.
For example, sea snakes have scales and they swim, yet they are not fish.
Nor does something actualy need to have one of those charchteristics to be a fish: Catfish have no scales, for example.
As far as swimming goes, I'm not aware of any fish existing which doesn't have the ability to swim, but when you look at something like th emudskipper, it's clear that this need not be the primary means of locomotion either.
So I think your analogy is very appropriate becuse of this. It is hitting on one aspect of my arguments perfectly: by arbitrarily defining something using superficial characteristics instead of substantial characteristics, we tend to label things whatever we wish them to be without any regard for the veracity of that label.
Instead, these terms need to be defined objectively and with a primacy taken on the charactersitics that actually delineate such a thing from something else and then making sure to include all aspects into the definition.
For example, any such argument regarding definitions doesn't include the way that fish respirate is ignroing a major part of the actual definitions in favor of nonessential stuff.
I disagree with your assesment that the influence primarily one directional.
I would say it is a two-way influence i.e. what we do influences how they perceive who we are and who we are influences their perceptions of what we do. It is more cyclical than anything else, creating a snowball effect over time.
Meh, most people promote a limited and/or simplistic view of things. I don't take the same approach myself, for example, earlier in this thread I've pointed out that who we are is definitely a factor. I think I've been one of the few peopel who have acknoeldged both aspects when discussing their motives. While you and I clearly disagree on the one-directional vs. two-directional aspects of the influence, we both agree that it is dualistic in its nature with regard to Islamic terrorism.
I do have a question though: if you are so unimpressed by refusal to acknowledge the that both contribute, why is it that you never seem to correct those who refuse to see how our own actions have contributed?
That's an interesting analogy because neither argument presented is what is required to make it a fish, nor does the presence of both characteristics make something a fish.
For example, sea snakes have scales and they swim, yet they are not fish.
Nor does something actualy need to have one of those charchteristics to be a fish: Catfish have no scales, for example.
As far as swimming goes, I'm not aware of any fish existing which doesn't have the ability to swim, but when you look at something like th emudskipper, it's clear that this need not be the primary means of locomotion either.
So I think your analogy is very appropriate becuse of this. It is hitting on one aspect of my arguments perfectly: by arbitrarily defining something using superficial characteristics instead of substantial characteristics, we tend to label things whatever we wish them to be without any regard for the veracity of that label.
Instead, these terms need to be defined objectively and with a primacy taken on the charactersitics that actually delineate such a thing from something else and then making sure to include all aspects into the definition.
For example, any such argument regarding definitions doesn't include the way that fish respirate is ignroing a major part of the actual definitions in favor of nonessential stuff.
I disagree with your assesment that the influence primarily one directional.
I would say it is a two-way influence i.e. what we do influences how they perceive who we are and who we are influences their perceptions of what we do. It is more cyclical than anything else, creating a snowball effect over time.
Meh, most people promote a limited and/or simplistic view of things. I don't take the same approach myself, for example, earlier in this thread I've pointed out that who we are is definitely a factor. I think I've been one of the few peopel who have acknoeldged both aspects when discussing their motives. While you and I clearly disagree on the one-directional vs. two-directional aspects of the influence, we both agree that it is dualistic in its nature with regard to Islamic terrorism.
I do have a question though: if you are so unimpressed by refusal to acknowledge the that both contribute, why is it that you never seem to correct those who refuse to see how our own actions have contributed?