VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Mon, March 28 2005, 7:52:15
Author: Katerina
Subject: Re: Not an integral
In reply to: Peter van der Hoog 's message, "Re: Not an integral" on Mon, March 28 2005, 4:38:07

>>I think it would be too primitive interpretation:
>just a few restricted groups of ppl.
>I don’t think so.

That is ur right but I disagree with it. And returning to the main issue: I still don't see how evolution influences social adaptation and u did not comment my example about children brought up by animals.

>>Any closed system has tendency to self-destruction
>and in this respect genocide is understandable.
>The Nazis followed the second law of thermodynamics.
>Strange the defense in Neurenberg did not come up with
>this argument.

Yes, indeed very strange, and evolution theory also was not taken into consideration as an argument and the laws of dialectics.

>>That is just an incorrect analogy. She commented the
>results of the experience with anorectic girls u gave.
>I think it is a perfectly fine, correct, straight
>forward anology. Nothing wrong with it.
>
>>What it has to do with her religious views?
>Since when are casual comments not allowed?

It is a kind of emotional demagogy: making a personal remark instead of refuting the argument.

>>Her another statement "beauty is not the same with
>fitness" u also ignore.
>That statement is irrelevant.

Why?

>>Looks like real life often ignores it.
>You think real life often ignores the second law of
>thermodynamics?

From where does it follow?

>She made such a conclusion from ur words that
>anorectics were more "realistic".
>Exactly and it is a stupid conclusion. Only as a joke
>I might appreciate her comment.

Of course that was ironical.

Suppose a study shows
>that people who die see life more realistic. Fla's
>ironic comment: Too high of a price to pay to be
>"realistic".

Again incorrect analogy: there are many non-anorectic ppl but I dunno anybody who never die.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.