92
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 495:
Line 495: − You still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run. + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 22:42, October 2, 2007
, 22:42, October 2, 2007→Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible
There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
----
<small>edit to add:</small>First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.
That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.
But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things: