Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Theist's debate


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 335 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:17:36 BDT
I thought underwater mountains were called Sea-mounts... therefore, technically in a different category? Or did I not pay attention in Geography? lol.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:17:57 BDT
Drew Jones says:
Everest is the highest mountain or peak in the world (measured from sea level to summit), Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain (from it's base to summit).

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:34:32 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Out of interest, how does one determine where a mountain's base is? I think I'll have to investigate.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:36:50 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 May 2012 15:37:30 BDT
Sombrio says:
Sam,

Perhaps you're right. Maybe, as reported, he did do it,..."because it was there." (The 'it', in this case, NOT being the principle activity of male mind).

It does make me wonder why I spent so much of my life trying to get 'it', because it was there. (And here, in contrast, I'm not referrring to standing on top of a mountain and planting a flag.)

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:39:43 BDT
Sombrio says:
Drew,

Are you telling me that there are people on this forum who don't believe what I'm saying is true !??

If that truly is the case,... I'm outta here !!

I mean,... what is the point ?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:45:06 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 May 2012 15:50:09 BDT
Drew Jones says:
It's the lowest point before you meet acendency I think. So Everest sits amongst other peaks within the Himalayas you'd have to climb up some lesser mountains before you got to the ascend Everest, if you were to stand at the summit and climb down you'd met the incline of another peak before you reached sea level or a plateau - that would be the base of Everest (or whatever mountain you're looking at) and the start of a second peak.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:48:38 BDT
Drew Jones says:
No I'm not saying anything (yet), I'm asking you a question so can you please stop avoiding it and tell me if you understand that an analogy while possibily valid in isolation doesn't automatically carry through that validation to the situation at hand?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 15:56:19 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 May 2012 15:58:13 BDT
Sombrio says:
Drew,

Sorry for messing around, sir. Yes, I understand about analogies. I think I first got to grips with them when I was about 14 or 15. I use, mis-use, and generally hack about with them depending on how the mood happens to stike me,... just because I enjoy playing around with words. I love the English language.

As for my analogies not working for some people some of the time,....my philosophy on that state of affairs is,
"Hey-Ho,... you can never please everybody all the time.

Heard any good flatulence jokes recently ?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 16:00:20 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 16:07:57 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 16:09:32 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 16:16:19 BDT
Drew Jones says:
Again that wasn't quite the question, I know you can do analogies I'm not convinced you know how impotent they are as an argument. So it's not a case whereby your analogies work for some and not for others as a matter of taste, it's that switching the points of reference in a discussion and proving something is valid in a completely unrelated other topic is useless. To argue from or by analogy is to produce a red herring and totally distract from the point actually under discussion. Whether you like playing with the English language or not, the point remains that validity in one situation can not easily and automatically be assumed in another. All you're really doing is saying: 'if we were having this argument instead my position would be correct'.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 16:17:02 BDT
Drew Jones says:
Google says: Olympus Mons

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 16:32:22 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 2 May 2012 16:52:01 BDT
The central mound of Rheasilvia?

Posted on 2 May 2012 17:00:54 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 17:03:50 BDT
Drew Jones says:
It's google that would be wrong because as I said, I've been totally up font about the fact I had to look this up. So what is the answer you were looking for?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 17:12:01 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 2 May 2012 17:30:05 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 17:20:15 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 2 May 2012 17:34:37 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 17:20:28 BDT
Sombrio says:
Drew,

I see what you're saying. But if it were true,... then surely there would be no valid purpose for analogies. They wouldn't be deemed as unacceptable by academia, and even the general public would have long ago seen how false they were.

Yet analogies have been around a lot longer than you or I. Why do you think that is ?

Sometimes I think it helps to try and work out the converse side of a position one is taking if it is true understanding a person is looking for. Otherwise, things can easily fall into automatically defending the particular set of ideas that come naturally to us all. Opening up the windows of the mind is the best thing after a long winter cooped up with our old familiar gaggle of thought bubbles.

(Or is that another dreaded analogy ?)

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 17:33:52 BDT
Drew Jones says:
You're still failing to get what I'm saying. Analogies aren't totally useless, in literature they may help create more evocative imagery in the reader's mind but as a form of argument, especially in the manner you use them each vehicle needs to be tightly tethered to the elements of the point you are making otherwise you are just going off on tangents proving something that has nothing to do with the subject you are meant to be addressing. Just because they work in certain situations doesn't mean that any and all analogies are valid and warranted and that is the point I think you miss.

Analogies have been around and will continue to be used because they can work, that doesn't mean they all work or are appropriate by virtue of the ones that do.

Posted on 2 May 2012 18:10:19 BDT
I love the tv series 3rd Rock from the Sun, with John Lithgow, about a group of aliens who come to settle here and study our ways. In one episode they decide the in-thing here is to belong to a minority group, so they decide after looking through a brochure to become Jewish. Then the one who is a woman starts a relationship with a man and they all talk together after her first date. She says, Oh he's so sensitive, caring, a sense of humour. They say So, is he Jewish?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 18:22:42 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 May 2012 18:23:59 BDT
Sombrio says:
Drew,

I certainly couldn't argue with anything that you've said there. Sounds about right.

However, I'm not actually convinced that this new way of looking at analogies will actually affect the way I write. I enjoy the process of taking nebulous thought bubbles and 'solidifying' them into visible words. It's a process that helps me to see what my current stock of beliefs is, (when I read and modify my own posts in the writing of them). For me, analogies are a large part of the fun of writing.

You wouldn't deprive a man of one of his few remaining harmless amusements, would you ? Just for the sake of improved grammar, (which wouldn't end up convincing anybody of anything, any more than my flawed writing does now.)

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 18:32:05 BDT
Drew Jones says:
You are welcome to continue your analogies by all means just as long as you're under no illusions that you are making a relevant argument by them. You shouldn't be surprised if people ask you get back to the point once you're done or get perturbed next time you suggest someone is being illogical or irrelevant.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 19:01:34 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  335
Initial post:  23 Apr 2012
Latest post:  7 May 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions