in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
Morph you’re one of the ones who think WT has found a sustainable alternative model based on real estate or some such? And you puts words in my mouth I never said. Need I say more?
Crow, it seems to me the rules of the universe call for some sort of explanation. If you don’t think so, there’s little point arguing about it. It’s like arguing whether the sunset is beautiful. If you don’t feel it, then you can’t be convinced to feel it.
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
Why does reality exist in such a way that there is the relationship we call Pi?
Reality seems to be strained through a sort of order that calls out for an explanation.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6314606905524224/piano-inevitable
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
Why is Pi the value it is and not some other value? Could it be otherwise? To me God is the one for whom even these building blocks of reality are not taken for granted.
Where is the equivocation?
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
I shouldn't mind not being taken seriously. It's less pressure. But I'd be interested what you find objectionable about the question. I can only imagine you considered it to be out of place, context or in some sense rude. But to me it's one of the most profound issues I keep coming back to. Mathematical relationships are arguably the purest kinds of unconstructed concepts available to us. They appear to exist independently of us and our awarenss of them. Where did they come from, if not from God? The idea that such laws can just exist of themselves and require no explanation seems unsatisfying somehow. An "inch" on the other hand, is straightforwardly constructed, and I can't find the enthusiasm to press the point, when it seems so obvious. So I'm more interested in Pi than an inch, hence the abrupt turn.
l have researched this subject and come to the conclusion that no we didn't.what do others think?.
Not just the moon. I met a man on Sauchiehall Street who's been to other planets. He gave me a booklet. I've not read it yet.
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
An inch of what?
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
Somehow we're back on the topic of various perspectives on the earth's shape! But the important point is that we are capable of seeing the same thing differently.
my brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
It depends on how you draw lines in reality, like I said here:
my brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
Things appear differently from different perspectives. How you describe something depends on how you look at it and the reason for the description. The trouble is we simply cannot see things from a perspective that is not our own. For some people this inability to see from other perspectives leads them to conclude that other perspectives in some sense are not real or that they are inferior in some essential respecf.
Cofty you illustrated this the other day when you said about someone singing in a Quaker meeting:
That must have been agonisingly uncomfortable.
I guess what you meant to say is that for you it would have been "agonisingly uncomfortable". For people who are accustomed, and open to it, in fact welcome it, then obviously it is not "agonisingly uncomfortable" for them.
