Why do I do this to myself?

[mbarrick]

I really have to stop reading the discussion threads attached to articles on Yahoo! news. The amount of intolerance, ignorance, and idiocy is infuriating. It's like chasing ambulances - why go out of ones way to be disgusted?

Comments

The Gospel According to Nimrod

[sovietnimrod.livejournal.com]

Just because its written in a book or on a webpage doesn't make it the truth (KKK.org? Chick.com? Churchofscientolgy.org?) becuse the author him(herself) may be full of shit.

EXACTLY! I tired this once with those door-to-door JW types; I said what's stopping me from writting my own gospel and claiming it to be part of the Bible?

I remember once saying during some door-to-door banter when Biblical passages were slung like mud going out of style; I said "Well, if you read Nimrod 4:78 and/or Clarence 1:34 in the Old Testament it says 'such and such'..." - the evangelist bozo at my door was so dogmatic that she had no clue whether or not there were actually passages in the Bible called The Book of Nimrod or John The Baptist's Second Letter to Clarence. Took my quote at face-value as she counter-attacked with her own passages...

Fair enough

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

For both of you. As I said (#t1041217), "It's passionate convictions based on faith (not necessarily a religious faith) that fly in the face of truth that annoy the crap out of me." But that does not mean once is restricted from referencing material that shores up a premise in an argument - "Ex nihil nihilo fit" (Nothing comes from nothing). If, for example, I wish to discuss words that defy comprehensive definition I am going to point you toward Wittgenstein. It does not mean I take Wittgenstein as gospel truth and you should to, meerly that I am departing from his argument as a premise for my own, and if my argument is sound but you want to argue that it is false then you have to back up to faulting my premises, in this example, Wittgenstein, at which point you need to examine the soundness of his argument and the validity of his premises if you wish to falsify my use of his conclusion as my premise.

If you want a simpler example, both of you answer me this as a point of departure: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The Surrealist In Me Would Answer:

[sovietnimrod.livejournal.com]

The giraffe took harmonica lessons...

No seriously - I would have to answer the chicken.

The assumption is that both the chicken and the egg would evolve simultaniously from the same departure point of The First Amino Acid Creature - which is essence would be the proto-pre-evolutionary chicken.

That and because in the Bible, the passage of Warren 8:21 says so...

Re: The Surrealist In Me Would Answer:

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

And there you go, you couldn't give a "why" without defining "chicken". The whole problem hinges around an accurate definitition of chicken. Agree on a definition of chicken and there is no paradox at all.

Virtually every annoying debate that crops up on message boards and elsewhere hinges happens because of a lack of logic and sloppy language.

Re: The Surrealist In Me Would Answer:

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

"hinges happens" ?!?

Look at me talking about sloppy language. D'oh!

Re: Fair enough

[valerian.livejournal.com]

which came first, the chicken or the egg

The chicken. Because I read from left to right.