Pope Benedict XVI 'is to resign'

[dps]

Good grief.

I didn't make a shitstorm out of this, Fahdiz did.

Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.

[garbon]

It wasn't a bar to trust. Fahdiz brought that up, that was the misrepresentation. It was a bar to mistrust. An inability to satisfy that condition means mistrust, and ability to satisfy it doesn't result in trust. He turns the conditions I set upside down and then says they are stupid. When I point this out he says he doesn't care and thats not what he was talking about anyways; which is what I was telling him.

I don't see how those are different. A bar to trust means that if a person fails to meet said condition, you can't trust them (and thus mistrust them) - it says nothing about whether or not that means you would trust them if they met the condition.

Or are you saying that there are people you trust even if they don't meet that condition?

[Viking]

Good grief.

I didn't make a shitstorm out of this, Fahdiz did.

Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.

My command of English is more than sufficient. Fahdiz brought up the bar to trust when I wasn't talking about that. Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.

[PDH]

*sigh*  yet another topic about the Pope derailed by grammar nazis.

[fhdz]

I don't see how those are different.

They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.

And if Viking wants everyone to be completely internally consistent before "trusting" them, then that's his problem rather than mine. It must be a strange planet on which he lives, because it doesn't appear to be the one where the rest of us reside.

[garbon]

I don't see how those are different.

They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.

Yeah, I agree with you. That's why I feel like there must be something different he is trying to say.

But otherwise yeah I agree with the part I cropped out.

[garbon]

*sigh*  yet another topic about the Pope derailed by grammar nazis.

But one can still be sexy without (as well as one can still be unsexy even if they meet that condition).

[fhdz]

Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.

Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.

[garbon]

Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.

Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.

It should be considering how long he lived here.

[fhdz]

If someone doesn't clear a bar to trust, it means that you'll automatically distrust them.  Clearing the bar doesn't automatically mean that you'll trust them.  It's what you and fahdiz both said.  Why are you arguing that point with him?  He's not disagreeing with you there.  His disagreement with you is that he thinks the particular bar you set is silly.  If you want to argue, agrue that it's not silly insead of arguing the semantics of "bar to trust"--which you and he don't disagree on.

Yes.

Viking, everyone else seems to get it. Perhaps the issue isn't all the rest of us.

[Barrister]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

[Eddie Teach]

Viking is right; trust no one 

[Viking]

I don't see how those are different.

They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.

And if Viking wants everyone to be completely internally consistent before "trusting" them, then that's his problem rather than mine. It must be a strange planet on which he lives, because it doesn't appear to be the one where the rest of us reside.

Well on my planet there are three categories

- Untrustworthy
- Trustworthyness not yet established
- Trustworthy

BS'ing about your faith puts you in the Untrustworthy category, not BS'ing about your faith doesn't put you in the Trustworthy one.

Does this make it clear to you? This is one of the issues that comes up in every single religion flame war we have here. They are flame wars because I don't think my opponents make any serious attempt (with the exception of JR) to understand me before constructing strawmen and attacking them. The issue is the one of doubt and uncertainty, it exists in my "world" the tentative, the unclear and the unknown are real categories and the fundamental difference between me and the religious is that they put god in those boxes and claim certainty and think that I put not-god in those boxes and claim certainty. That is very specifically not the case for me.

[derspiess]

Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.

Yeah, that's a good way to defuse the situation

[Viking]

Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.

Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.

It should be considering how long he lived here.

I count my 3 years in Australia as cancelling out 3 of my years in England, leaving me with 3 English and 5 American years.

Though I sometimes see obvious translation errors creep in, errors in english that happen when I keep grammar and word order from the language I first had the though in. Depending on topic I'll think in English, Icelandic or Norwegian <- note the strange word order? That thought was first thought in Norwegian and the word order is much more natural in Norwegian.