Originally posted by Jon Miller
But where did I say that I was talking about the success of humans relative to human society?
Yes, I was talking about humans, people, homo sapiens sapiens, whatever you wish to call them. And when discussing methods, yes, human society is part of the dialect (and I used a colloquial example). But I wasn't talking about the success in human society, since that generally depends on the type of society that the humans are involved in, and so isn't universal. I was talking bald, unmitigated, measure of success. Which could be considered universal.
JM
But where did I say that I was talking about the success of humans relative to human society?
Yes, I was talking about humans, people, homo sapiens sapiens, whatever you wish to call them. And when discussing methods, yes, human society is part of the dialect (and I used a colloquial example). But I wasn't talking about the success in human society, since that generally depends on the type of society that the humans are involved in, and so isn't universal. I was talking bald, unmitigated, measure of success. Which could be considered universal.
JM
As a matter of fact you haven't defined ANYTHING you are yammering about. And, as such I can no longer continue trying to chase down your point. If you have one, make it. If not, I'm outta here
Tom P.
Can you tell I'm off-assignment?
Comment