Terrapin Station wrote:In a couple different senses I could say I do, but simply agreeing with something isn't sufficient for it to be wise.
For example, if someone says, "Don't try to order a Whopper from McDonald's. Go to Burger King for a Whopper." I'd agree, but I'd not say that that's wisdom. Wisdom requires more than simple agreement.Only in the sense of exploring how I really feel about something, or seeing if my initial stance is consistent with what would otherwise be conflicting feelings.
Round and round.
Are you saying that you are agreeing with an unwise saying?
Regards
DL
"Wise/unwise" is a false dichotomy. "Unwise" has an implication that one shouldn't follow something, because it's likely to lead to trouble if one does. At that, there is advice one can disagree with that wouldn't be unwise to follow. One could just believe that it would be neutral to follow it, for example--perhaps it might waste a bit of time at most.
Even if one were to try to parse "wise/unwise" as "agree/disagree"--which wouldn't capture the semantic nuances of "wise/unwise," "agree/disagree" is still a false dichotomy. There can be things that you have no opinion on and where one is uninterested in the issue in question and feels that it doesn't make a difference either way. There can be things that you're interested in but where you do not know if you agree or disagree, and so on.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Easy.
Since god is a figment, it should always hold a subordinate position below things taken as real.
Indeed.
Regards
DL
So I am curious to know why you think the country needs to be under the yoke a a religion based on this figment. Do you not think that people will see through it?
It does not. This aside.
Look at the stats and recognize that the vast majority are believers in some supernatural God or other.
This tells me that we are not teaching our children correctly. We are teaching that unproven faith trumps facts.
Stupid is as stupid does and religions are quite stupid, --- yet still hold the vast majority of the population.
But to your last, England does not seem yoked to their state religion.
Terrapin Station wrote:In my opinion it's unwise to feel that it's unwise to sit on a fence. Whether you should sit on a fence depends on the situation.
Only lack of thought leads to fence sitting.
Regards
DL
Lack of thought leads to believing it's unwise to ever sit on fences.
Tell that to any judge on any bench who must decide one way or the other.
So I am curious to know why you think the country needs to be under the yoke a a religion based on this figment. Do you not think that people will see through it?
It does not. This aside.
DL
You are advocating a state religion, on other posts. Do you deny it?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
So I am curious to know why you think the country needs to be under the yoke a a religion based on this figment. Do you not think that people will see through it?
It does not. This aside.
DL
You are advocating a state religion, on other posts. Do you deny it?
Not at all. I think a yoke ,as you call it, of a moral creed, would be superior to what we have.
That would be a good way to raise the moral standards of the country by showing all the citizens the immorality of the mainstream religions.
Or do you like the ongoing Inquisitions and Jihads that Christianity and Islam have always used against non-believers?
