Are you religious?
- Thread starter ComedyPilot
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Rev
Active Member
ok so
Try this........If the overwhelming majority of people think 'Bugs Bunny' refers to a cat
, and a tiny minority think it refers to an engaging, carrot-munching cartoon rabbit, the majority is wrong. They can use Bugs Bunny to refer to engaging carrot-munching cartoon rabbits if that works for them; but if they try to insist that their view has any wider validity, they will be, literally, correct. Bugs bunny is a rabbit, not a cat. minority rule? Absolutely. It's how language works.
See how your logic does not work?
That is because you base it on a fallacy!
The fallacy works like this
Premise: Most people believe A
Conclusion: Therefore A must be true
Premise: Most people disagree with B
Conclusion: Therefore B is false
sorry
Try this........If the overwhelming majority of people think 'Bugs Bunny' refers to a cat
, and a tiny minority think it refers to an engaging, carrot-munching cartoon rabbit, the majority is wrong. They can use Bugs Bunny to refer to engaging carrot-munching cartoon rabbits if that works for them; but if they try to insist that their view has any wider validity, they will be, literally, correct. Bugs bunny is a rabbit, not a cat. minority rule? Absolutely. It's how language works.
See how your logic does not work?
That is because you base it on a fallacy!
The fallacy works like this
Premise: Most people believe A
Conclusion: Therefore A must be true
Premise: Most people disagree with B
Conclusion: Therefore B is false
sorry
clarion
Guru
But if Bugs Bunny is a rabbit, knows he is a rabbit, and says he is a rabbit, then nothing anyone says can change that.
If, as you seem to wish, we extend the definition of 'rabbit' to include cats, dogs, mice, Elmer Fudd and Priests, then it becomes meaningless, and another term must be found if we (or, more likely, poor old Bugs) wish to describe rabbits.
Besides, the cartoons would be less funny.
If, as you seem to wish, we extend the definition of 'rabbit' to include cats, dogs, mice, Elmer Fudd and Priests, then it becomes meaningless, and another term must be found if we (or, more likely, poor old Bugs) wish to describe rabbits.
Besides, the cartoons would be less funny.
Not sure where this thread is going now but we've had the 'not literal' and 'can't be proved either way' discussions and now we've disappeared into the minefield of semantics.
A diversionary ploy to steer the conversation away from the 100% unproven lunacy of believing in a supernatural creator and a wonderous post-death life.
Religion - should've be knocked on the head centuries back.
A diversionary ploy to steer the conversation away from the 100% unproven lunacy of believing in a supernatural creator and a wonderous post-death life.
Religion - should've be knocked on the head centuries back.
Rapples
Guru
There is no such thing as Lamb sausages, don't be so silly, that's just lamb in a sausagey shape. Sausages are only ever pork or beef!
You're correct, they're called kebabs, but those of limited vocabulary or unworldly wise call them sausages. Sometimes it better to just agree with them
EltonFrog
Legendary Member
Thus far the only sensible post on this thread.
swansonj
Guru
Unproven, yes, certainly, but lunacy? Just out of interest, why do you regard it as lunacy?
There is no such thing as Lamb sausages, don't be so silly, that's just lamb in a sausagey shape. Sausages are only ever pork or beef!
Well, I believe in lamb sausages, it doesn't matter how much evidence and argument for the contrary you put forward, I will not be swayed.
In fact I feel sorry for those who do not have lamb sausages in their heart.
threebikesmcginty
Corn Fed Hick...
What about Glamorgan sausages?
Rev
Active Member
ny is a rabbit, knows he is a rabbit, and says he is a rabbit, then nothing anyone says can change that.
If, as you seem to wish, we extend the definition of 'rabbit' to include cats, dogs, mice, Elmer Fudd and Priests, then it becomes meaningless, and another term must be found if we (or, more likely, poor old Bugs) wish to describe rabbits.
[/QUOTE]
Misdirection (unless you really misunderstood) I will keep this very simple, No one (including me) suggested bugs bunny was not a rabbit. Although this is not the point as most will well know.
Clarion I refer you back to...I like that Quakers accept gay, lesbian and transgendered into the fold. I do wonder though if Clarion would insist on telling a trans that they are their birth gender?
After all following his logic......
As surely they would not fit the medical model for the gender they chose to be re-assigned to!
Nor would they fit most definitions of the genders they choose...fitting more definitions of their birth genders.
So how do we solve this conundrum Clarion, do you follow your fellowship/friends in the society or do you apply your rather vociferous tests?
(after all one should be true to ones self)
You Madam are most definitely a man, I have the definition here in my dictionary! Stop being so silly take off that ridiculous dress and act manly!
Don't you have an answer or are you determined to misdirect?
If, as you seem to wish, we extend the definition of 'rabbit' to include cats, dogs, mice, Elmer Fudd and Priests, then it becomes meaningless, and another term must be found if we (or, more likely, poor old Bugs) wish to describe rabbits.
[/QUOTE]
Misdirection (unless you really misunderstood) I will keep this very simple, No one (including me) suggested bugs bunny was not a rabbit. Although this is not the point as most will well know.
Clarion I refer you back to...I like that Quakers accept gay, lesbian and transgendered into the fold. I do wonder though if Clarion would insist on telling a trans that they are their birth gender?
After all following his logic......
As surely they would not fit the medical model for the gender they chose to be re-assigned to!
Nor would they fit most definitions of the genders they choose...fitting more definitions of their birth genders.
So how do we solve this conundrum Clarion, do you follow your fellowship/friends in the society or do you apply your rather vociferous tests?
(after all one should be true to ones self)You Madam are most definitely a man, I have the definition here in my dictionary! Stop being so silly take off that ridiculous dress and act manly!
Don't you have an answer or are you determined to misdirect?
tug benson
Survived the Tour O the borders 2013
Religion is a big pile of pish...
clarion
Guru
Rev, you are being silly now, and I hope that you understand that gender is not dictated by the possession of a certain set of genitals.
You are engaged in misdirection. I hadn't thought to label it that, but, now you've used the word, I realise how well it fits your absurd crusade against meaning.
You are engaged in misdirection. I hadn't thought to label it that, but, now you've used the word, I realise how well it fits your absurd crusade against meaning.
Rev
Active Member
Personally I agree with you
( for what would seem to me the majority of people claiming to be in a religion) but there again I find atheism to be a pile of pish for the majority of people claiming it as part their make up.I could probably say the same for Socialism, Conservatism, Anarchism, Swingers, Liberals, the list goes on.
I however do not draw the conclusion that because most of it is a big pile of pish all of it is. That is not only illogical but a little silly. Maybe just a lot of people have a tendency to be Pish irrespective of their allegiances.
