An opinion is not evidence (in this case) - you merely asserted the same claim again but in a longer form.
You've misunderstood me--the QUOTE, meaning the part of my post that was directly quoting what someone else said--proves that at least one person doesn't understand O'ist philosophy. If they did, they'd be aware that those issues had been dealt with, in pretty detailed form. This IS evidence that O'ism is not understood on these boards, because, well, one person failed to.
Also, you never addressed my point that your argument is identical to that of a theist demanding an atheist prove that gods don't exist.
You do realise that this "accusation" can just as easily been made back to you? Indeed even more so as when asked about marriage all you said was (to paraphrase) "oh someone has explained how that can be justified", you presented no actual argument or even an indication that you know on what grounds it was being justified, just an assertion that it doesn't present any problem because someone has justified it. That is hardly demonstrating a familiarity with the ideology is it?
If you want me to demonstrate my understanding, I can. I wasn't trying to argue that marriage would exist in an O'ist society--what I was arguing is that the person to whom I was responding was unfamiliar with O'ist philosophy, as this issue had been dealt with before. I referenced the preson, and her qualifications, who's work I'm most familiar with. So no, I didn't justify marriage in an O'ist society. The person I referenced did, and you completely missed my point.
Now I am more than happy to take your word that you are actually what you claim to be and do have the depth of knowledge and understanding you claim so why not stop discussing what other folk may or may not know and discuss the meat of the subject? Show us why we are wrong when we are wrong, show us why we are misinformed or have misunderstand something when we've got the wrong end of the stick.
Gee, it'd be wonderful if you actually meant that. However, obviously familiarity with the works of others who have demonstrated their understanding of the philosophy--you know, referencing recognized experts--doesn't work for you. This puts me at something of a disadvantage, because as a scientist my first instinct is to understand what previous researchers have done. And if someone else has made an argument, I see no reason to spend my time typing out that argument when I can reference it. But if you want a point-by-point rebuttal, I can oblige.
I certainly can not claim I am an expert of her ideology (I have read her works and listened to her speaking and have been discussing her ideology since I first came across it as a teenager - what can I say I've always read crap science fiction ) Surely that is a much more valuable use of all of our time?
Depends. Are you actually serious, or are you going to dismiss any reference to an expert other than myself as irrelevant? If it's the latter, I'm going to go ahead and not engage you in conversation on this topic, because you're obviously not willing to actually discuss it (I'm not saying that you necessarily are--I mean that as an "If X, then Y" statement).
stilicho said:
Which industry do you feel is entirely self-regulating?
This is why discussing O'ism on these boards is usually a waste of time. NO ONE has EVER said ANY industry is ENTIRELY self-regulating. I said that some industries have introduced safety measures voluntarily. Automobiles are one example. Beer bottle manufacturing is another--once new tech took hold, child labor under horrendous conditions more or less stopped. But individual examples of self-regulation aren't good enough; you demand I answer a claim that was never made.
joesixpack said:
Pragmatism may refer to a specific school of thought, but there are other uses of the word.
I acknowledge that. That's why I mentioned specifically that we're discussing philosophy. It can be assumed, in a discussion of philosophy, that the name of a philosophical school of thought refers to that school of thought. The word "pragmatism" has been bastardized so much that you can't in other discussions, but if you use the names for philosophical schools of thought in discussions of philosophy and aren't referring to that philosophy it gets extremely confusing, often shutting down the conversation (and always resulting in these pointless sidebars). If someone wants to present a definition of "pragmatism" that is provisionally accepted on a non-precidential basis for this discussion, cool, I'll go with it--but until then, when discussing philosophy it only makes sense to assume that when one says "pragmatism" they refer to the philosophy, not some random other definition.
I have to ask: are you familiar with Dr. Hsieh's work? If not, are you willing to admit you're judging this woman's arguments based on knowing absolutely nothing about them? 
