I finished reading through what Zippy has on usury, and while I had great hopes, he starts off wrong and then gets into dead ends. Says Zippy:
It's not that complicated. He is adding the parenthetical "full recourse" which is irrelevant to the definition, to leave himself enough room to drive a truck through. he is another in an ancient line of people trying to carve an exception to the ban.
His Q&A runs into his shutting sown lines of inquiry. I was following one thread of a particularly perspicacious questioner, Arkansas R, and I thought his questions were germaine. Zippy kept referring the fellow back to wobbly explanations based on wobbly sources, and this is how it goes for people with arguments with internal contradictions.
If you don't find joy in the argument, and cannot get people to understand your argument, then something is wrong with your argument.
Very many people disagree with my arguments, but they do understand them, because they are at least coherent.
Got a few sources I had not seen before, but otherwise, what's good is not original, and what is original is not worth citing.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
But usury is and always has been quite simple. Usury is charging interest, any interest, on mutuum (full recourse) loans.
It's not that complicated. He is adding the parenthetical "full recourse" which is irrelevant to the definition, to leave himself enough room to drive a truck through. he is another in an ancient line of people trying to carve an exception to the ban.
His Q&A runs into his shutting sown lines of inquiry. I was following one thread of a particularly perspicacious questioner, Arkansas R, and I thought his questions were germaine. Zippy kept referring the fellow back to wobbly explanations based on wobbly sources, and this is how it goes for people with arguments with internal contradictions.
If you don't find joy in the argument, and cannot get people to understand your argument, then something is wrong with your argument.
Very many people disagree with my arguments, but they do understand them, because they are at least coherent.
Got a few sources I had not seen before, but otherwise, what's good is not original, and what is original is not worth citing.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment