ellauri082.html on line 751: The researchers examine victim signaling, which they define as “a public and intentional expression of one’s disadvantages, suffering, oppression, or personal limitations.” They also examine virtue signaling, defined as “symbolic demonstrations that can lead observers to make favorable inferences about the signaler’s moral character.”
ellauri096.html on line 257: Binkley illuminates this reasoning with doxastic logic. The inference rules for this logic of belief can be understood as idealizing the student into an ideal reasoner. In general terms, an ideal reasoner is someone who infers what he ought and refrains from inferring any more than he ought. Since there is no constraint on his premises, we may disagree with the ideal reasoner. But if we agree with the ideal reasoner’s premises, we appear bound to agree with his conclusion. Binkley specifies some requirements to give teeth to the student’s status as an ideal reasoner: the student is perfectly consistent, believes all the logical consequences of his beliefs, and does not forget. Binkley further assumes that the ideal reasoner is aware that he is an ideal reasoner. According to Binkley, this ensures that if the ideal reasoner believes p, then he believes that he will believe p thereafter.
ellauri143.html on line 63: The state BJP, it is alleged, has given a new inference to the couplet which has a religious overtone. The inference they provided goes like this — “What is the use of education when one who defies god and his believers?”
ellauri156.html on line 303: The inference is often drawn that Bathsheba should not have been exposing herself as she did, and that it was her indiscretion which started this whole sequence of events. Some think her actions may have been deliberate (She knew David was there and could see. . . .), while others would be more gracious and assume it was simply poor judgment. Let me point out several things from the text. First and foremost, when Nathan pronounces divine judgment upon David for his sin, Bathsheba and Uriah are depicted as the victims, not the villains. When Adam and Eve sinned, God specifically indicted Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and each received their just curse. This is simply not the case with Bathsheba. Nowhere in the Bible is she indicted for this sin. It may be that the author did not choose to focus upon Bathsheba, but even in this case, the Law would clearly require us to consider her innocent until proven guilty. (Which law? Not biblical law for sure, take for instance Susan's case, where Daniel had to called upon to prove her innocence.)
ellauri156.html on line 374: Aika hemmetisti kyyhkypaisteja papille, kun jokainen menstruoiva nainen tuo niitä sille 2kpl/kk. Pappi pysyy hyvin selvillä seurakuntalaisten varmoista päivistä. Hmm. Jos Bathsheban kuukkixet oli ohize jo vähintään viikko sitten, kohtahan sillä oli ovulaatio, eikäpä ihme että Taavi-enon mälli teki heti tehtävänsä. Vaikka mä en kyllä usko eze jäi siihen yhteen kertaan. (2) When did this cleansing occur, and when was it completed? Was Bathsheba’s bathing which David witnessed part of her ceremonial cleansing? If so, there may have had to be a delay before the Law permitted intercourse. Otherwise, David would have caused her to violate the Law pertaining to cleansing, since it may not have been complete. The translations which make her cleansing a past, (continued) completed event seem to be suggesting that she was now legally able to engage in intercourse, though certainly not with David. If she was still in the process of her cleansing, David’s sin of adultery is compounded because it was committed at the wrong time, while cleansing was still in process. It is also possible to read the text (as does the NASB) to say that Bathsheba waited at David’s house until she was ceremonially clean from her evening with David. It is interesting that nothing is said of David waiting until he was cleansed. The inference I take from this “cleansing” reference is that Bathsheba was still concerned about keeping the Law of Moses, even if David was not. Big fat hairy diff.
ellauri156.html on line 493: You may remember that when David first fled from Saul he went to Ahimelech the priest and asked for some provisions and a sword. The priest had nothing but the sacred bread, which he would allow David and his men to eat, if they had only “kept themselves from women” (verse 4). The priest assumes they may have conducted themselves otherwise. David's answer, and especially the tone of it, is very pertinent to our text. He confidently assured the priest that he and his men had kept themselves from women, almost incensed that the priest would think otherwise. And the reason David gives is that he and his men are on a mission for the king. The inference is that this is a military (or at least official) mission.
ellauri164.html on line 875: This gets us back to the question of what, exactly, Moses’ sin was. Many commentators focus on the physical actions that Moses took in verses 9-11. Some say Moses sin was striking the rock rather than speaking to it, but Moses was told to take the staff of God. Exodus 17:5-6 had Moses striking the rock to cause water to come out of the rock (in fact, it’s actually the same rock of Meribah!), so it’s possible to read an inference that the staff was to be used to strike the rock. Some commentators see Moses’ harsh words for Israel as the sin, or perhaps that he speaks to the people rather than speaking to the rock. Regardless of which of these views, they don’t account for what the text itself says: Numbers 20:12 makes it clear that the sin of Moses and Aaron was “…you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel.” Indeed, focusing on Moses’ actions of striking the rock or speaking harshly makes it seem doubly unfair to Aaron, who had neither spoken nor struck the rock.
ellauri194.html on line 271: The Flemish Franciscan friar William of Rubruck, who was first-hand witness to Alexander's supposed wall in Derbent on the shores of the Caspian Sea in 1254, identified the people the walls were meant to fend off only vaguely as "wild tribes" or "desert nomads", but one researcher made the inference Rubruck must have meant Jews, and that he was speaking in the context of "Gog and Magog". Confined Jews were later to be referred to as "Red Jews" (die roten Juden) in German-speaking areas; a term first used in a Holy Grail epic dating to the 1270s, in which Gog and Magog were two mountains enclosing these people.
ellauri322.html on line 367: Here I met with an intelligent literary man, who was anxious to gather information from me relative to the past and present situation of France. The newspapers printed at Copenhagen, as well as those in England, give the most exaggerated accounts of their atrocities and distresses, but the former without any apparent comments or inferences. Still the Norwegians, though more connected with the English, speaking their language and copying their manners, wish well to the Republican cause, and follow with the most lively interest the successes of the French arms. So determined were they, in fact, to excuse everything, disgracing the struggle of freedom, by admitting the tyrant’s plea, necessity, that I could hardly persuade them that Robespierre was a monster. Laureenska myöntää että kaikki ukrainalaiset eivät pidä Zelenskystä.
ellauri434.html on line 654: But Hezekiah's boil troubled him at a time of Babylonian political hopes and intrigues and well before the Assyrian invasion of Judea and siege of Jerusalem, so we can dismiss as chronologically untenable the inference that Hezekiah had bubonic plague. Instead, Hezekiah's failure was a two part failure: one, Hezekiah became self-centered, only interested in what was good for him, just him, no one else; and two, Hezekiah did not trust a promise God had given him, he did not act on that promise. And this got Judah into trouble.
10