cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-12-11 - Re: [OFF-TOPIC]Re: PICS is not censorship

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: gt@kdn0.attnet.or.jp
Message Hash: c5d3d1d6881be0ead0c01cec9d71e7c641bde6253d39466f604d7108a6c8e862
Message ID: <32AE4912.3442@gte.net>
Reply To: <4484.9612101411@misun2.mi.leeds.ac.uk>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-11 05:41:21 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 21:41:21 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 21:41:21 -0800 (PST)
To: gt@kdn0.attnet.or.jp
Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC]Re: PICS is not censorship
In-Reply-To: <4484.9612101411@misun2.mi.leeds.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <32AE4912.3442@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Gemini Thunder wrote:
> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> wrote:
> >This was, of course, my point about there being no universally valid truth,
> >and what such anti-fraud statutes must mean about religions.

[snip]

> I just want to comment on this, as this is one of my pet peeves.
> There are universally valid truths.  You implicitly admit so by
> stating "...at most, one religion is correct".
> The problem is we can not always determine what the universally valid
> truth is (especially so in moral/religious matters), so we tend to
> cop-out and say there are no truths, or something along the lines of:

The syllogism I remember goes something like this:

If all things are relative then
the statement I just made is relative (sometimes true and sometimes false).
When the statement is false, something is not relative, but implicitly
absolute.

Thread