Words describe things at different abstraction levels. It doesn't work if one demands to know what a word that describes a high abstraction level means at a lower level. Because we recognize that they cover a broad range of specifics can use these terms to describe those in general without specifying each or any particular specific. It just seems as if you're semantically confused or unaware.So what do you think we disagree about, if anything?
Actually, Paul, I think that might be your biggest problem. I suspect most people here have no idea what you are talking about.
George, I wish to be open to improving my communications skills, and being more easily understood; but this statement from my opening post here expresses the main point: “I cannot think of any successful group that assigns a single unambiguous definition to itself, because in point of fact, not everyone in the group will look at it in the same way. To be sure, the group needs enough definition to be inviting, attract members and move forward toward its goals.” In other words, a group has to have enough agreement to function but an unambiguous definition for a group like this - which is what advocatus argued for before he left - is not attainable. Occam seems to be making that point, so I don’t understand what he thinks our disagreement is about. So I asked.
Do me a favor. Tell me whether you think that is clear.
True, George, and Paul, my second sentence of my last post above seems to me to address quite precisely your original post.
Occam
I still don’t understand, Occam, so please explain.
Ah, this post seems to be reminiscent of the witness asking for definitions post. :lol:
Hey, guys, I have to get to the YMCA to exercise. I can’t keep this up all day. See you when I get back. 
Occam
Words describe things at different abstraction levels. It doesn't work if one demands to know what a word that describes a high abstraction level means at a lower level. Because we recognize that they cover a broad range of specifics can use these terms to describe those in general without specifying each or any particular specific. It just seems as if you're semantically confused or unaware. Re Question 4: Or the jury would laugh at the lawyer for not being able to deal with a recalcitrant, but verbally skilled witness. OccamIt depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.......:lol:
Which, W4U, may be why I avoided using that word in that post. Right? :lol:
Occam
You guys are entirely transparent. You’re doing the equivalent of bullying. Don’t misunderstand or distort that observation, your behavior does not threaten me. This isn’t a comment about me, it’s a comment about your behavior. I’m making you uncomfortable, so you want me out of here. You’ve even resorted the laugh-out-loud face. How juvenile can you be? As a moderator, Occam, that behavior is utterly shameful.
I know this is what you’re up to because if you truly didn’t understand what I was writing, you would ask what I meant by this or that. But instead, I’ve gotten angry denunciations, and now insults. There’s no reason to be angry with someone, or ridicule someone because you don’t understand him. Ask him what he means. Not once has that happened on this thread, except by me asking questions of others. The only questions I’ve gotten on this thread were rhetorical.
It may not mean anything to you but it means plenty to me: I write appellate briefs and motion papers for judges to read. I win a far higher percentage of my motions and appeals than most lawyers, partly because I write very clearly. If you think I don’t, I’m confident enough about my writing to know that the problem isn’t with me, it’s with your inability to process the information – at least after I’ve read it over again to make sure I was clear, which I’ve done. I’ve had a few people read through this thread today as a favor to me. None of them had any trouble understanding me, or all of you for that matter. They’ve all told me that you’re wacko. You can’t know that but I do know it, and I have to act according to what I know.
This mud-fight has nothing to do with clarity. It has to do with the fact that you guys have a bizarre approach to language, which seems to arise from your visceral reaction to any words you associate with religion. I’ve made a point about the inherent ambiguities of group self-definitions for groups like ours, and something about it rubs you all the wrong way. But it’s obviously an emotional reaction. I’ve seen this too often for it to be an accident here.
There’s no point in trying to discuss this with you. I might as well try having a conversation with a fundie. My colleague had it right: on this subject at least, you’re crazy. He won’t have anything to do with this place, and neither will most people.
So keep on doing your routine. You’ll have your own little echo chamber all to yourselves because no one else will have anything to do with you.
.
.
.
Mr. LaClair,
Let me assure you that I have the greatest respect for your considered opinions. After we came to agreement, I had hope that particular example would bring a smile to your face. My mistake.
Is that rerspectful enought for you. And from now on will you refrain from hurling ad honinems at me? Please…
Seems I am in a time warp, my response being posted before you have made your statement. Interesting, or…foul play…???
Paul, your computer clock is off by some 15 minutes, you may want to check that. Or perhaps it is CFI server.
Too little, too late, Write. I am not an apologetic, and I do not just claim to be an ally. I’ve been on the front lines in more ways than you know about, and have better things to do than waste my time with people who aren’t listening.
Like many people in this movement, you have issues with religion. That would be OK if you kept your reason and sense of proportion but you don’t. That’s my view, whether either of us likes it or not.
Too little, too late, Write. I am not an apologetic, and I do not just claim to be an ally. I've been on the front lines in more ways than you know about, and have better things to do than waste my time with people who aren't listening.Well, perhaps you are so full of yourself you have lost the ability to listen to others.
Like many people in this movement, you have issues with religion. That would be OK if you kept your reason and sense of proportion but you don't. That's my view, whether either of us likes it or not.Oh now you are a psychologist as well? My, my aren't we accomplished. From my viewpoint I see a certain transferrence going on. Well, while you were arguing you case before SCOTUS, I was acquiring grants to build a salmon hatchery, to try and compensate for commercial overfishing of salmon and installing a program to protect the sturgeon, one of the oldest species on earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon And in what way do I have issues with religion? And if you cannot define religion how can you come to the conclusion I have issues with religion? Is that legalese enough for you. In law you have no more rights or privileges than I do and certainly not in this forum. I have not heard an apology from you yet for your insults directed at me. So on this thread you are now the troll, not I.
How fascinating, PLC. Each of us is quite certain he’s a genius and that the other is a dolt who has no ability to understand extremely clear writing.
The use of the smiley is to demonstrate the emotions connected with the post, which may not be apparent from the text. It seems you didn’t understand their function.
Occam
Boy am I glad I didn’t get into this one earlier. Thanks for figuring out that you all agree that words that refer to large groups of people over centuries of history are hard to define. I think I agree with Paul that sometimes we spend a little too much time dealing with those definitions, but, nothing is making me read or respond to those conversations. I don’t spend any time writing theories about Fibonacci numbers either, but I’m fine with others doing it.
What I disagree on is that when I use a word, it should mean what someone else thinks it means. This is what happened in the Science v Religion thread. I used the word “religion" and Paul told me I meant something by that. I didn’t mean that, but it didn’t seem to matter how many times I tried to clarify and explain what I did mean.
Corollary to that would be someone can’t tell you to use a word the way they want it used. The only exception would be when using words that describe what a person is. For example, some Native Americans want to be called Indians, others want to be called by their tribal name. The only way to know is to ask the individual.
I respect Paul’s desire to have his organization named “religious humanism". I don’t respect his request that I use the term “religion" in the way he wants when referring to religion in general in every conversation I have anywhere. If indeed that is his request, but it’s hard to tell with him.
Here’s an exercise for everyone regarding the meanings of words. Imagine yourself accompanied by a person who comes from another country who doesn’t understand the subtleties of the English language, but he/she is interested enough to try to make sense of what is being discussed. As an examole, this person asks you what a Democrat is, a Republican, what religion means, etc. How would you answer those questions? This is not a matter of trying to translate the words into the other person’s language, but interpreting the meaning. Or would you just tell the person that such questions are too complicated to answer?
Lois