--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > [snip]
> Translation: Because I disagree with her charge > that I have been intellectually dishonest (even > though I haven't been able to rebut it and have > resorted to trying to make *her* appear > intellectually dishonest to distract attention > from my failure), Entertaining. But false. I don't think for a minute that "I haven't been able to rebut it". You do. I don't. What I think is known to me and not to you. But you will say "Ah, he would say that, dishonest denier that he is". Do you see the circularity? In a civilised discussion one should respect our difference of opinion over whether or not I succeeded in my rebuttal, or anything else for that matter (which doesn't preclude arguing forcefully for one's own position). No one party gets the right to the meta-level and the eye of God though. Fallibilists usually find this easier to grasp than those afflicted by hubris. As the great sage of Sitges so wisely and succinctly put it earlier today: "And, by definition, she knows the TRUTH. So to disagree with this TRUTH is to DENY it. Q.E.D."
