Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!blenko From: blenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Down to Brass Tacks Message-ID: <10719@rochester.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 00:52:27 EDT Article-I.D.: rocheste.10719 Posted: Fri Jul 26 00:52:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 08:42:49 EDT References: <11605@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1236@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: blenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko) Distribution: net Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Lines: 130 Enough stupid slop from Rich Rosen (posted over and over and over again). If I have shown any reason for not assuming what some people choose to assume, then they might perhaps take that as a reason to exercise their rights as people instead of imposing their assumptions on themselves. Whatever they choose, it is their right. ...we are talking about human rights. Human beings taking precedence over "free market economic rules". (Good idea, no?) We are denying people the "right" to impinge on other people's rights of employment/housing/etc. It ain't a "right" at all. It has been pointed out more than once that this is not the place to debate Judaism vs. non-Judaism. If this is you intent, please take your postings elsewhere (preferrably to a group I don't read). If you don't understand that this is the only thing you have been doing, I'm not surprised. If you have been as oblivious to your education as you are to the viewpoints expressed in other people's postings, the high ratio of blather to substantial content in your postings is quite understandable (but still unwelcome). A few points: One has rights and priviledges under a legal code. Actions are morally acceptable or unacceptable when judged according to a particular moral code (definitive judgement, of course, may be impossible). Neither "rights" nor "moral correctness" have any standing independent of the code with respect to which they are defined (if you don't realize this, consult your dictionary). Similarly, logical consequence is a property of formally-defined systems of logic. It is not something to be routinely invoked for any silly argument you wish to make. As a formal property is frequently used to model certain kinds of human reasoning, but this provides no prescriptive power whatsoever. If I believe that a particular car is red, and that all cars are Thunderbirds, I am certainly entitled to believe that the car is not a Thunderbird. No, no, don't tell me that either the conclusion or the antecedant is wrong. The material implication may be wrong. In fact, this is often where your problem lies because your implications are far too simplistic and undiscerning. The main point, of course, is that no extant logics are sufficient models for human thought. You also seem to have extraordinary misconceptions about what a fact is (or would or could be). Examples are in order: "What I am trying to demonstrate has little to do with the "modern American attitudes of tolerance" you would seem to find so heinous. What I am trying to demonstrate is the lack of rooting in actual fact that these beliefs have, which shouldn't dissuade anyone from holding them, but should certainly dissuade them from trying to justify imposing it on others." "All you have shown is that the basis for Judaism is indeed different. The claims are more "persuasive", in that they would appeal to you more because they involve "mass revelation" instead of single prophets. But recognize that while you have shown the difference between the claims of Judaism and the claims of other religions, you have skirted the fact that different or even "better" claims (as in advertising) do NOT prove the point of the claims unless you already accept their sources as factual. These claims are no more or less viable than those that Christians offer from the Gospels. The amazing empty tomb. The virgin birth. All of these things are marvelous claims. If you base your choice of religion on who makes the "best" claims that appeal to you most, it is no different than buying laundry detergent based on what you are told in the commercial." The points is utterly trivial and uninteresting. Where are any facts? One cannot even prove in any rigourous sense that it did/did not rain this morning, or that mine was not an immaculate conception. This is a well-known philosophical problem. The only question is what the basis is for what people do in fact believe, which is quite different from the question of what they ought to believe (I know, most readers will realize this, but Rich habitually misses distinctions like this). And the reason is exactly what I think you have missed all along -- that discussion of what people ought to believe can only take place with respect to an assumed standard. With respect to the stupid remark at the end of the last paragraph cited, if you do not recognize many differences between the way one adopts religious beliefs and the way one chooses one's laundry detergent, you are yourself suffering from a serious deficit. If the attempt is to argue that since laundry-detergent-buying behaviors are influenced by advertising, so, by analogy, are religion-adoption behaviors, then your argument is at best shallow. Anyone (I think) would be willing to agree that one's beliefs are influenced by one's environment and experience. The analogy is bad (or worse), as I would expect anyone of age ten or above to be able to detect, and consequently quite unenlightening. Advertising may influence behavior of whatever sort, but until you examine with some care how it exercises that influence, the broad claims are merely speculative and hence of very little content. Broadening "advertising" to include all life experiences, or even just those planned by others, is similarly without merit. With regard to "maximal tolerance": What is tolerance? What is the measure of tolerance by which one may determine tolerance which is maximal? Is this different from minimal intolerance? Are tolerance-neutral actions possible? If you wish to limit tolerance to tolerance of actions which don't harm other people, are there any such actions (I doubt it)? Isn't there always an opportunity cost associated with an action? As a simple example, don't your actions harm other people working at Bell? And if there aren't such actions, isn't it true that you have been saying nothing at all, even if everyone else in the world's beliefs are "wrong" (I doubt this also)? I feel somewhat guilty including this last little bit because a reply is not appropriate to this newsgroup. So for anyone who would like to answer these questions, or to see the answers/discussion, I hereby volunteer to collect and distribute such. On a more operational level, I propose that henceforth all subscribers return to the practice of giving articles from rlr the attention they deserve (and I'll follow my own advice). Tom