You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #41: Actually, I said the necessary ambiguity is subject to resolution through PROCESS [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Actually, I said the necessary ambiguity is subject to resolution through PROCESS
When people stand off, even on their own TV shows, (ala Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer) they can toss talking points or brickbats forever. But when they are forced into a real engagement, as when Cramer went on Stewart's Daily Show, a type of accountability is created, and, in that case, Stewart demolished Cramer. The Daily show quasi-"debate" format is but one of many examples of types of direct dialog/give and take that are the kinds of "process" I'm speaking of that help to resolve the incipient status quo of freedom allowing for nearly any conceivable opinion to simultaneously co-exist.

Some analogous process would benefit here, as I don't think you're fairly characterizing what I'm saying at all, and if that process had a third party it could provide feedback, or perhaps a "ruling" if the process allowed that, on whether or not characterizations of yours (for example) or mine, for that matter, are fair or not, and whether or not questions have been answered. That would help move things down the road.

Until we can, for example, agree on a neutral third party (as just one but not the only example of process) we're stuck or stymied at the point where you mischaracterize my position. For example, the "insult" i referred to is to the good faith SELFLESS believers, whose personal positions (and assets, and time) have yielded to the results of a sincere quest for God's will, but who under the terms of the study are lumped in with "egocentric" believers who merely project their personal desires onto God. The study is an insult to a portion of the people classified as egocentric, but not to all -- and this is taking the study on its own terms, as advertised. I might take issue with and argue against the study but before doing that I would read the whole thing, which I haven't yet done. Therefore I give it the benefit of every doubt and take it at face value, and at that point I find it lacking in the way I've described.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC