Samantha Atkins writes:
> As far as I see you deny the very concept of meaning being meaningful.
This interpretation is probably not what you intended, but - you're entirely
correct. There is no meaning. Even 'meaning' has no meaning, in a universal
sense of things.
What I want to convey by the above words is this:
Your text referred a lot to terms such as "fundamental rights" or
"principles". But I do not admit *any* fundamental rights or principles
other than those that can be experimentally verified. If you say "a person's
right to life", I am merely confused. I cannot answer an argument of yours
if it is based on "a person's right to life", because I don't admit any such
universal rights or principles. You're relying on a fake authority, and I
don't recognize that authority - it's just as when a catholic leans on the
Bible in an argument with an atheist. No go.
I *would* be able to consider your argument if you used more objective
terms.
Anyway. I think I understand, and accept, your point of view on the vast
majority of issues at hand. So, no need to continue. I'm not sure if you
understand and accept my point of view, but if you don't care about that, I
don't care either. If you do care about it though, ask, and I will explain.
[Maybe in email so as not to aggravate the audience of this mailing list.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT