Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)


millerjamesc@xxxxxxx wrote:
> The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
>
> > [Note: I also see the "critic" and "apologist" roles as a continuum,
> > with a middle ground where one can be both and neither at the same
> > time.
>
> Certainly, but just as with the light spectrum, we still maintain
> distinct names for specific colors along that spectrum because it is
> useful to keep separate names for such colors as red and green and blue
> and yellow.

Ask someone Japanese what the color red is sometime. The response you
get is somewhat hit-and-miss, but it tends to center more towards what
Americans call orange. What we call red tends to be perceived by them
as vermillion.

Part of that is because of the inexact nature of the translation
dictionaries. (Vocabulary doesn't have a one-to-one correspondence.)
Part of it is that they tend to have a greater incidence in
color-blindness, although that is not as bad as it used to be, now that
their average level of nutrition is improving. (Mixing Big Macs into
their diet is not what is curing that, of course.)

A related point that might be interesting, where we tend to prefer a
fairly stark white to read against, they tend to prefer a muted
yellowish-manilla. Not just prefer, but find it less tiring, so much so
that the hard-cover Books of Mormon here are printed on such paper.

> > But then I sort of reject binary as a decent number system for
> > human interactions, anyway.]
>
> Doesn't maintaining this position for you require you to disavow the
> LDS position on gender and sexual orientation?

What is the LDS position on gender and sexual orientation? (Give
references as you go, please, and contrast your references to the
extant external society, if you will.)

.