From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Dec 01 14:14:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 1 Dec 2002 22:14:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 55141 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 22:14:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2002 22:14:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2002 22:14:12 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IcLs-00087s-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:14:12 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IcLo-00087H-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:14:08 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:14:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IcLZ-00086n-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:13:53 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-157.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.157]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A026D3CF4D for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:13:19 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Specific example of Sapir-Whorf in English OR How Lojbanmade me think more clearly Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:15:26 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <0H6F005ENYXC6S@mxout3.netvision.net.il> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 2823 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Adam: > >My point: The notion of "meant to be" is meaningless if the expresser does > >not believe in the existence of what is commonly reffered to as 'God' > > I don't think that that's the case at all. "People are supposed to pay > taxes", "People are supposed to help each other", "People are supposed > to think rationally", etc., etc. All of these beliefs presuppose > certain laws or rules, I guess, but I think that they're all held > completely consistently by many atheists But with some sense either of moral imperatives or else some underlying design to the world -- = 'god' in a very very broad sense. > >The sentence "Homosexuals aren't supposed to > >be" would be represented as , > >or in Hebrew, "GVARIM AMURIM LO LISHKAV IM GVARIM" > > Since that sentence doesn't suggest any animate being which prescribes > the event to happen (the English is "Men are supposed to not sleep > with men"), One encounters two sorts of religious arguments against homosexuality, one is that "men are supposed to not sleep with men" -- i.e. it's a contravention of a prohibition -- and the other is that "men are not supposedto sleep with men", which is the idea that we should do only what we are supposed to do, a variety of the "if god had meant us to fly, he would have given us wings" argument. So on the one view, homosexuality contravenes a moral imperative, while on the other view it falls outside the divine design (and is therefore not sanctioned). --And.