Re: Why vitzivanu lehadlik ner?

In <1135826487.026873.134940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Lisa" <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:


>Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> In <1135804407.498148.65890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Lisa" <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> >> -- even
>> >> stipulating rabbinic authority, it's still RABBINIC authority. Even if the
>> >> rabbis are authorized to legislate - that is, to say "God wants you to..."
>> >> - that's still not the same thing as being able to say "God commanded you
>> >> to..."
>>
>> >Sure it is. The difference is on another level.
>>
>> While I accept that you can certainly define it as such, it serves to
>> undercut the significance of your position. For example, the USDA could
>> define "fresh milk" to mean any milk less than 6 months old,

>This isn't the USDA. And it doesn't have to live up to your peculiar
>standards.

That's true, it isn't, and no, of course "it" doesn't have to "live up" to
anything. However, is this simply the application of legal principles via
a legislative body, as you and Jacko sometimes claim - in which case it
ought to work more-or-less the USDA example - or is it simply mystical
"only the initiated can peer into the dark waters" sort of thing?

Anyway, it's not a question of my standards, or of "it" doing anything.
We're having a discussion and in the context of the discussion you're
making certain claims, including the claim that there's some rationality
to this process.

It's like discussing homeopathy - it's absolutely rational and reasonable
if you accept their premises, and they too will object that you're being
closed-minded if you question their premise. Hm - actually I was going to
talk about scientology or any other religion but perhaps homeopathy is
better.

>> But why on earth should I come to you, given that you don't mean what you
>> say?

>We do mean what we say. You just don't understand what we say. You're
>like an Israeli complaining that "you're pulling my leg" doesn't
>actually mean that you're yanking my lower extremity. Context, dammit.

"Pulling one's leg" is a figure of speech, which has two completely
different meanings, one literal and one not. It's nearly always clear
which meaning is meant, and if someone created a sentence where it wasn't
(e.g., Bob went to Dave's house to pull his leg") then it's either an
intentional joke or sloppy writing.

In this case, it says "who commanded us." How is that a figure of speech?
Sometimes it means literally "who commanded us" and sometimes it means
"who commanded other people who then commanded us"? That's not at all
equivalent to "pulling my leg," the meanings are too inter-related.


>> What you are saying is that if I accept your conclusions, then I can
>> learn to suppress any perceptions that might contradict those conclusions.
>> That is, "see it your way." But why would I want to do that?

>Any system of knowledge is self-referential. Even languages are. Why
>does "rectangle" mean a four sided two dimensional polygon with each
>pair of opposite sides having matching lenghts and all four angles
>being 90 degrees? Because that's what it means. You don't like that?
>Bummer. And the same applies here.

Sure, but if a system of knowledge is going to be useful, it has to be
consistent.

If you tell me that "rectangle" is as you define it above, and "triangle"
is a 3 sided two dimensonal polygon with all 3 angles adding up to 180
degrees, and then show me a four-sided two-dimensional figure and say
"This is a triangle, we know because of the context" --- which is exactly
what you're doing here -- then I'm going to question the usefulness of you
knowledge system.

Now, the thing is you are of course free to do that - you can show me the
4-sided figure and call it a triangle - and I'll even concede that within
your system it might be a triangle. It's the "and therefore..." that I
have a REAL problem with. I'm skeptical by nature, and I question
authority. If somebody says "I'm the authority and you have to do what I
say" I say "oh yeah?" And when they say "Yeah, and that 4-sided figure is
a triangle, so you need to do X" I just laugh at them and walk away.

--s
--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re-adjusting a bad triangle
    ... >> Triangle from guard: Let's say you commited the fatal sin on not ... >> I know you can sometimes underhook their leg to spin, ... Grab under their knee to pull your body around. ... even with both hands on the side of the head. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: O&R clarification with remote start
    ... starting in the middle of a leg with 3 turnpoints and a start and ... finish not on one of the verticies of the triangle. ... equal exactly or increase the actual distance compared to the claimed ... well to me if you can do a remote start along the leg of a triangle ...
    (rec.aviation.soaring)
  • Re: Re-adjusting a bad triangle
    ... > Triangle from guard: Let's say you commited the fatal sin on not ... > I know you can sometimes underhook their leg to spin, ... Grab under their knee to pull your body around. ... the ankle to keep the leg locked in and unhook your other leg and use it to ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Video of my comp today.
    ... leg could have been easily underhooked by your right arm.Epecially ... I don't even squeeze a triangle tight unless I can spin out enough ... that my left leg is touching his head his right arm is the one out ... triangle....Eddie Bravo says dont get your head out, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... "If we call the tail a leg, how many legs would a dog ... that words can't change meanings. ... bird, which is nearly universal except for you. ... some Miocene avians are members of modern genera. ...
    (talk.origins)