Hi there,
So this is going to be step by step, ok? I want you to assess where you stand on the idea that there is a right way to wield a blade.
The claim is this: he that has the blade, does not train to be obstreperous. In other words, the efficacy of the blade, is better trained to cut than it is to resist control for no reason. A man who is obstreperous with the blade, cuts little.
The challenge here, is to tease out the use of the blade, from the type of behaviour that wields it. Simply cutting with the blade can be achieved a couple of ways: it can be thrust or it can be thrown. As an Evolutionist, your argument is that there is always more adaptation than a single being of a species can express. It's sort of the credit card of Evolution, you can always use more. That being the case, you may argue that the one who throws the blade, is better than the obstreperous and the one trained to handle the blade, put together.
What I want you to realise, is that the efficacy of throwing the blade, does not remove the efficacy of the blade used to cut. Were circumstances sufficient, I could sneak up on you with a blade and cut you that way. So your presumption - if you did indeed presume as I suggested (not that I did it deliberately) - that throwing the blade would be more effective, had a more limited realm of relevance. And this is the point! Denial of limitations, does not remove competitive circumstance. The blade can be advanced!
I'm really hoping you get this. I could go on about the difference between cutting with and throwing a blade, but the specific concepts are not that important - it is the idea, the idea of using the blade that is important here: the blade was designed to have a specific purpose and later development of other styles of using the blade, in no way diminishes this (design). If I believed that a blade could never be used any other way, I could never conceive of using it to spread butter over bread. Simply announcing that blades used to cut but now can be thrown, is tunnel vision.
So I am taking as my foundation here, defending your right to throw the blade, all the while hoping that you enjoy buttered bread as much as I do. We cannot both have our way, but we can give in to each other (and be stronger for it). I'm not going to stuff you with buttered bread, until you come up with something else (throwing a number of blades). There is no selection pressure that requires me to give up what I have discovered, even if my relationship with you continues to be uncertain. Can you understand this?
So this is going to be step by step, ok? I want you to assess where you stand on the idea that there is a right way to wield a blade.
The claim is this: he that has the blade, does not train to be obstreperous. In other words, the efficacy of the blade, is better trained to cut than it is to resist control for no reason. A man who is obstreperous with the blade, cuts little.
The challenge here, is to tease out the use of the blade, from the type of behaviour that wields it. Simply cutting with the blade can be achieved a couple of ways: it can be thrust or it can be thrown. As an Evolutionist, your argument is that there is always more adaptation than a single being of a species can express. It's sort of the credit card of Evolution, you can always use more. That being the case, you may argue that the one who throws the blade, is better than the obstreperous and the one trained to handle the blade, put together.
What I want you to realise, is that the efficacy of throwing the blade, does not remove the efficacy of the blade used to cut. Were circumstances sufficient, I could sneak up on you with a blade and cut you that way. So your presumption - if you did indeed presume as I suggested (not that I did it deliberately) - that throwing the blade would be more effective, had a more limited realm of relevance. And this is the point! Denial of limitations, does not remove competitive circumstance. The blade can be advanced!
I'm really hoping you get this. I could go on about the difference between cutting with and throwing a blade, but the specific concepts are not that important - it is the idea, the idea of using the blade that is important here: the blade was designed to have a specific purpose and later development of other styles of using the blade, in no way diminishes this (design). If I believed that a blade could never be used any other way, I could never conceive of using it to spread butter over bread. Simply announcing that blades used to cut but now can be thrown, is tunnel vision.
So I am taking as my foundation here, defending your right to throw the blade, all the while hoping that you enjoy buttered bread as much as I do. We cannot both have our way, but we can give in to each other (and be stronger for it). I'm not going to stuff you with buttered bread, until you come up with something else (throwing a number of blades). There is no selection pressure that requires me to give up what I have discovered, even if my relationship with you continues to be uncertain. Can you understand this?
Gottservant said:
Gottservant said:
Evolution? said:
Last edited:
