Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Problem with Agnosticism (Read 33459 times)

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #100 –
People can't break the law - bur they create the law -- where they elect - democratically - their representatives, or even sometimes by referendum.
And not always that straight. The public opinion may also (and often does) incite politicians to create/change the legislation.
It is a model.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #101 –
@Josh
Very poetic.

In my view, inasmuch as the parts of the system don't act in unison, it's undescriptive to view them as a single unit with a single purpose or rule. It's not practical to state that Greek or Latin plurals are English, when they in fact only interfere with English plurals and are neither universally applied nor applicable the way native rules are.

Also, it's not practical to state that people can't break the law when the focus of all legal systems anywhere is to tell criminals from non-criminals and illegitimate rule from legitimate.

The bottom of our disagreement has been reached.

@some mod
Is the latest span of posts in this thread grammatical mutterings, political mutterings, or some third kind of mutterings? It doesn't appear to be about agnosticism any more.

Re: The Problem with Agnosticism

Reply #103 –
Quote from: ersi on
@some mod
Is the latest span of posts in this thread grammatical mutterings, political mutterings, or some third kind of mutterings? It doesn't appear to be about agnosticism any more.

I could try to split if off if you like, but I think some kind of pragmatism vs. idealism is at least tangentially related. :)