No, that isn’t so; it suffices that as a matter of fact ghostism doesn’t wield very much political or other thought-shaping power in the countries in which we live.
Of course if we lived in countries where people get executed for being witches, we might have different priorities.
Details are tasty and good. A comment like Allan’s ends conversations and there is nothing more to learn afterward.
A comment like yours can lead into useful conversations about the specific differences between ghostism and theism and the wonderful followup question: Is there something other than theism that qualifies as important but people don’t make a big fuss over?
To ask that question we need to know the details about what is important.
Of course, if no one wants to ask questions, that is fair enough. But I consider those comments/discussions vapid.
Hang on, there’ s a huge gap between “vapid” and “doesn’t spark the particular discussion I’m interested in having”. I think the things you raise would indeed be interesting to discuss, but AllanCrossman’s comment is a specific and sufficient answer to the specific question that roland asks—“what justifies the decision to put more work into attacking theism than ghostism”.
It’s sufficient because no-one disputes the factual accuracy of the answer.
Hmm… when I looked up vapid in my dictionary I got this:
offering nothing that is stimulating or challenging
Looking at other dictionaries it seems like it can also mean lacking life or tedious. I was going for more the former use than the latter use.
So I agree with you. Replace “vapid” with “boring” and you’ll have more of what I was aiming for. “Boring” was too weak so I amped it up with “vapid,” but apparently that was too strong. But whatever. It’s not important.
I definitely would like to discourage you from castigating commentators for failing to entertain you. It’s enough that their comments advance the argument, surely?
Nobody bothers to make a fuss about ghostists because ghostism isn’t particularly important.
I agree, but this comment is vapid unless you offer a reason why ghostism isn’t particularly important.
No, that isn’t so; it suffices that as a matter of fact ghostism doesn’t wield very much political or other thought-shaping power in the countries in which we live.
Of course if we lived in countries where people get executed for being witches, we might have different priorities.
Details are tasty and good. A comment like Allan’s ends conversations and there is nothing more to learn afterward.
A comment like yours can lead into useful conversations about the specific differences between ghostism and theism and the wonderful followup question: Is there something other than theism that qualifies as important but people don’t make a big fuss over?
To ask that question we need to know the details about what is important.
Of course, if no one wants to ask questions, that is fair enough. But I consider those comments/discussions vapid.
Hang on, there’ s a huge gap between “vapid” and “doesn’t spark the particular discussion I’m interested in having”. I think the things you raise would indeed be interesting to discuss, but AllanCrossman’s comment is a specific and sufficient answer to the specific question that roland asks—“what justifies the decision to put more work into attacking theism than ghostism”.
It’s sufficient because no-one disputes the factual accuracy of the answer.
Hmm… when I looked up vapid in my dictionary I got this:
Looking at other dictionaries it seems like it can also mean lacking life or tedious. I was going for more the former use than the latter use.
So I agree with you. Replace “vapid” with “boring” and you’ll have more of what I was aiming for. “Boring” was too weak so I amped it up with “vapid,” but apparently that was too strong. But whatever. It’s not important.
Allan, no insult was meant. Your comment is fine.
I definitely would like to discourage you from castigating commentators for failing to entertain you. It’s enough that their comments advance the argument, surely?
Fair enough.