From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Tue Jun 13 14:55:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16072 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2000 21:55:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jun 2000 21:55:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 21:55:17 -0000 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19236 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006132155.RAA19236@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo In-Reply-To: Message from Invent Yourself of "Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:46:01 EDT." Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:55:36 -0400 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Invent Yourself writes: >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >> I think I maybe just misunderstand lo. To me, 'lo cevni' sounds like >> the English phrase 'the One True God(s)', which has a _huge_ mess of >> underlying assumptions, many of which ignore the beliefs of 2/3s or so >> of the planet, at least, depending on which god you're reffering to. >> >> Any set of unexamined assumptions that denigrate that many people >> offends me (a lot of the assumptions westerners make about fat people >> and health issues related to that, for example), but the fact that it's >> about religion may make it more touchy. Or maybe it's just because >> no-one ever stopped me in the street to scream "All fat people are going >> to die of heart attacks!", whereas having strangers yell at me that >> "Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light!"" has happened so >> often as to be almost commonplace. > > >If a Christian really believes there is only one True God, it behooves >them to use "lo" to indicate their absolute belief. It is not a relative, questionable point of debate for them. The fact that you don't happen to >agree is irrelevant to them. Preciesly my point. And I'd be just as offended by that assumption in english. >If we restrict lo for points which are never debated then lo can never be >used, since a trivial nonexistence argument can be raised for anything >(although I will not participate in a discussion fleshing this out). I'm not saying it _shouldn't_ be used in that case, just that I reserve the right to get all bitchy about it. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. ... stripped of our uniqueness as human beings by Darwin, exposed to our own inadequacies by Freud, ... Power -- "the ability to bring about our desires" -- is all that we have left. --- Michael Korda, _Power!_