Quote:
|
As for your lack of participation in all of the meaningful discussions available to you, lack of time is really a cop-out. Tell me, what could ever be more meaningful than philosophical discussion?
|
Meaningful is the wrong term. Try important.
There are many things more important than philosophy. Having food to eat, for example, at a rate sufficient to keep you alive in order to argue philosophy.
Other things could also be more important than philosophy.
Quote:
|
If you really cared you'd make time, right?
|
Ridiculous. I care about many things. Some things I care about more than others. Just because I care about something else more, doesn't mean I don't care about the other thing.
Examples:
Assertion: "making money is important".
"but, there are trillions of dollars in the USA you do not own. If making money is important, why have you not earned all the trillions of dollars in the USA?"
"because I don't have time".
"lack of time is a cop-out. If making money was truely important, you would make time!"
The arguement presented here is about as ridiculous as yours.
Quote:
|
I'm just not sure how that could be, since you think that all philosophy is immeasurably valuable.
|
Please quote the position that implies that the value of philosophy is immasureable. I didn't see it.
It is quite possible that you are simply pointing out Sturgeon's Law:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theodore Sturgeon
90% of everything is crud.
|
However, the use of the term "in general" to me, at least, implies that the exceptions are not just in the minority, but are anomolous.
"In general, American voted for Gore last election. Bush only won because of the electoral college system."
This is a ridiculous statement. More people did vote for Gore, so "most" people who voted voted for Gore, but a simple majority isn't enough to use a term like "in general".
"In general, eating a McDonalds hambuger is not immediately fatal."
"In general, airplane travel is safer than travelling the same distance by car."