Theos-Talk Archives (April 1997 Message tl00214)

Bart, my cloven-footed friend:

-You belched: I phrased it that way to avoid smart asses from twisting
my words,

Calling me a "smart ass" instead of a "dumb ass" was theosophical of
you.  Gives my self-esteem some wiggle room.

Well, grab your toupee, Barto - I'm not done with you yet.

Your original statement - "That someone whose genetics would make them
capable of producing fertile offspring with other humans is less than
human." - makes no sense, grammatically or rationally.  Nor does your
answer to my question - ("I phrased it that way to avoid smart asses
from twisting my words, saying, "what about eunuchs?" or "what about
people who die before they reach puberty"? etc. And there are many who
consider some humans less than others.") 

Did you mean to say "incapable" instead of "capable?"  Or are you saying
that those who cannot produce fertile offspring deal with the problem of
being thought of as less than human?  Are you saying people who are
childless suffer discrimination?  
 

-You wrote: 2) That there is only one path to the Truth.

-I replied:  Perhaps, deep down, at the heart of it - there really is
just one Path.

-You belched:  And perhaps the Nazis were right, as well. But I don't
call them
-Theosophical, either.

What I meant was the Path of Love, or Compassion.  To me, there are
different ways of finding Truth, but they may all converge, eventually,
onto one Path - The Path of Love, or Compassion.

What do Nazis have to do with this subject?  


-You wrote:  3) That anything that is not observable with our senses or
detectable
with our instrumentation does not exist.

-I replied: Are we to declare, then, that it DOES exist?  Would this be
theosophical?

-You belched: I am talking about those for whom the inability to sense
or measure
-something is in itself proof of its non-existence.

This would be extreme 'objectivism' and I doubt very many people go that
far, or are that arrogant.  

I am not implying that the reverse - my previous reply - was the correct
alternative either.  It would seem balance would be the most prudent
course.


-You wrote: That anything that IS observable with our senses or
detectable with
-our instrumentation does not exist.

-I replied: Again, does this mean that it DOES exist?  And since each of
us have our own
-'sense data' telling us different things - different colors, what's
lovely
-and what isn't, etc - does all of it exist?

-You belched: Once again, and it was obvious to everybody but you. . . 

Excuse me, but Barto?  I recall ONE person agreeing with you.  This does
not mean, however, that EVERYBODY does.  I suggest that the next time
you visit your psychiatrist you mention to her the above response of
yours - she will find it quite intriguing.


-(you continue). . .I was talking about those who are using our ability
to sense -something as PROOF that it does not exist.

I have heard of people saying that just because something can be sensed
doesn't mean it exists, BUT, I have never heard of anyone saying that
because something can be sensed means that it does not exist - which is
what your above statement is saying.

Your mastery of the art of non sequitur arguments is impressive, as is
your subsequent, although predictable, temper tantrums when asked to
clarify your often murky ramblings. Your inability to tolerate opposing
viewpoints is a lesson for all Theosophists.

Keep up the good work - and, hey, give my regards to Beelzebub.


Kym