|
|
| Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) (534106) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 15 19:17:35 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Dec 15 18:36:07 2007. I am not taking Nilet's word for it. I am simply looking at the situation as if Nilet's word is the truth, because that is all we have. I am not saying that it IS the truthBut this is the problem that many of us have with your zealous defense of Nilet.... While I understand that you do not believe that Nilet's story IS necessarily the truth, you concede that you're treating Nilet's story AS if it were IN FACT necessarily the truth because we haven't heard from anyone else who was there. Many of us, myself included, are a lot more skeptical than that, and because of that attitude, which is responsible as we all know for many of the great advances in thought over the past few millennia, we are strongly inclined to not treat Nilet's story as the truth without more indicia of its reliability. His story is not the norm - you've said that by placing blame on the NYCT employee - and so we're inclined to be more skeptical of the abnormal, and also when the story now varies somewhat compared to the original story. He is not an honest debater. He shouldn't be a DEBATER at all, nevermind your charge that he's not honest! This is the problem, to my view, about some posts here. This isn't debate. Most of us want discussion, not debate. Philosophy please, not sophistry, as the Socratics said some centuries back. Real discussion of Nilet's story is fundamentally limited by the lack of information he's provided, though. For that reason, I've shunned the topic, except to address these meta-issues about his account. |
|
|
|