Vegetarian Discussion: The Argument

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2008-07-11 22:12:11 EST
(p1) If a moral agent A believes that a set of individuals have a
right against a set of moral agents that they not act in a certain
way, and A can avoid being financially complicit in these moral agents
acting in that way without thereby becoming complicit in or committing
any comparable wrong, while accepting a burden no greater than that
incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation becoming fully
self-sufficient in food and electricity, and if A is financially
complicit in that set of moral agents acting in that way, then A is a
moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite.

Abbrevations:

M(x) - x is a moral agent
R(x,y,z,w) - x is a moral agent, y is a set of individuals, z is a set
of moral agents, w is a way of acting, and x believes that y has a
right against z that z not act in way w
A(x,y,z) - x is a moral agent, y is a set of moral agents, z is a way
of acting, and x can avoid being financially complicit in y acitng in
way z without thereby becoming complicit in or committing any
comparable wrong, while accepting a burden of greater than that
incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation becoming fully
self-sufficient in food and electricity
C(x,y,z) - x is a moral agent, y is a set of moral agents, z is a way
of acting, and x is financially complicit in y acting in way z
F(x) - x is a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite

Formalisation:

for all x for all y for all z for all w ( if ( M(x) and R(x,y,z,w) and
A(x,z,w) and C(x,z,w) ) then F(x) )

Discussion:

I guess I always thought that Ball believed this. I always assumed
that that was part of the reasoning that led him to not be shy about
calling me a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite over
all these years. If he says he doesn't believe it, then that will be
an interesting development, and I guess I'll then become unclear about
why he feels entitled to call me a moral bankrupt and a filthy
shitstained hypocrite.

(p2) Jonathan Ball believes that the citizens of Iraq have a moral
right that the officials of the United
States government not order the troops of the United States army to
remain in Iraq and contribute to an unstable
situation in Iraq which has caused the death of at least one million
Iraqi citizens.

Abbreviations:

j - Jonathan Ball
i - the set of citizens of Iraq
u - the set of officials of the United States government
o - the way of acting whereby the officials of the United States
government order the troops of the United States army to remain in
Iraq and contribute to an unstable situation in Iraq which has caused
the death at least one million Iraqi citizens

Formalisation:

R(j,i,u,o)

Discussion:

This is a possible escape clause for Jonathan Ball. I know that my
father opposed the invasion but then said "Well, now they've done it
they've got an obligation to fix up the mess." Or at least he said
that for a while. It would be interesting to hear Ball's views about
this.

(p3) Jonathan Ball can avoid being financially complicit in the
officials of the United States government ordering
the troops of the United States army to remain in Iraq and contribute
to an unstable situation in Iraq which has
caused the death of at least one million Iraqi citizens, without
thereby becoming complicit in or committing any other comparable moral
wrong, by moving to
some other country, buying a plot of land, and becoming fully self-
sufficient in food and electricity.

Abbreviation:

B(x,y,z) - x is moral agent, y is a set of moral agents, z is a way of
acting, and x can avoid being financially complicit in y acting in way
z without thereby becoming complicit in or committing any other
comparable moral wrong by moving to some other country, buying a plot
of land, and becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity

Formalisation:

B(j,u,o)

Discussion:

I would say Ball can do this without thereby becoming complicit in or
committing any comparable moral wrong. He can buy a plot of land
somewhere or other and become self-sufficient in food and electricity.
He could even do it in the United States, avoiding paying taxes by not
having an income. He wouldn't need to abandon his family, he could
still provide them with a satisfactory life.

(p4) For all sets of moral agents T and for all ways of acting W, if
Jonathan Ball can avoid being financially
complicit in T acting in the way W, without thereby becoming complicit
in or committing any comparable moral wrong, by moving to some other
country,
buying a plot of land, and becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
electricity, then Jonathan Ball can avoid
being financially complicit in T acting in the way W while accepting a
burden no greater than that incurred by a
typical citizen of an affluent nation by becoming fully self-
sufficient in food and electricity.

Formalisation:

for all x for all y ( if B(j,x,y) then A(j,x,y) )

Discussion:

Seems fair enough to me.

(p5) Jonathan Ball is knowingly and avoidably paying taxes in the
United States.

Abbreviation:

T(x) - x is knowing and avoidably paying taxes in the United States

Formalisation:

T(j)

Discussion:

I'll go out on a limb and say this one is probably correct.

(p6) For all ways of acting W, if the officials of the United States
government are acting in way W, and Jonathan
Ball is knowingly and avoidably paying taxes in the United States,
then Jonathan Ball is financially
complicit in the officials of the United States government acting in
way W.

Abbreviation:

D(x,y) - x is a set of moral agents, y is a way of acting, and x is
acting in way y

Formalisation:

for all x ( if ( D(u,x) and T(j) ) then C(j,u,x) )

Discussion:

There is room for further discussion here, given that the United
States government is modifying Ball's choice set in a morally
unacceptable way, but I'd say there's a strong case for this one.

(p7) The officials of the United States government are ordering the
troops of the United States army to remain in
Iraq and contribute to an unstable situation in Iraq which has caused
the death of at least one million Iraqi
citizens.

Formalisation:

D(u,o)

So those are all the premises.

Conclusion:

(c8) Jonathan Ball is a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
hypocrite.

Formalisation:

F(j)

I can do a derivation of (c8) from (p1), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6),
and (p7) in the first-order predicate calculus on request.

Are we to understand that Ball accepts (c8)? That would be
interesting, and of course we wouldn't give him a hard time about it.
If he doesn't, well, I'd like to hear more about which of (p1), (p2),
(p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), and (p7) he's not convinced is correct. If he
declines to comment, then every time he ever calls anyone a moral
hypocrite again for any reason I'll point out that he's a disgusting
coward who makes us all want to throw up.

Rupert
2008-07-12 04:05:56 EST
Sorry, I forgot to include one premise. We need the premise that
Jonathan Ball is a moral agent. This would be formalised as M(j). Dave
Harrison would perhaps question this premise, he has suggested that
Jonathan Ball might be less intelligent than an ape. Perhaps he will
help to save Ball this way.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-12 13:32:35 EST
Rupert wrote:
> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that

You are not competent to hold this discussion.

Rupert
2008-07-12 20:09:03 EST
On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
>
> You are not competent to hold this discussion.

That's very funny, Ball, but just tell me which premise is wrong,
there's a good boy now.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-13 00:40:39 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
>> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
>
> That's very funny

No, it's a serious statement.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-13 18:04:23 EST
On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
> >> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
>
> > That's very funny
>
> No, it's a serious statement.


actually it's quite funny as it's another of your PROJECTIONS.

Rupert
2008-07-13 20:44:23 EST
On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
> >> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
>
> > That's very funny
>
> No, it's a serious statement.

You may very well be serious in making it, but it's very funny to me,
and to quite a few others too, I would imagine. Of course I'm
competent to judge whether an inference is valid in first-order logic.
There isn't any subject related to this argument which I'm less
competent to discuss than you. If you reject the conclusion it's your
job to tell me which premise is wrong. Your "response" is lame and
evasive.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-14 00:13:28 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
>>>> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
>>> That's very funny
>> No, it's a serious statement.
>
> You may very well be serious

I am. You should try it some time.

Mr. Smartypants
2008-07-14 00:58:03 EST
On Jul 14, 2:13 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
> >>>> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
> >>> That's very funny
> >> No, it's a serious statement.
>
> > You may very well be serious
>
> I am.  You should try it some time.



More "lame and evasive".

It's all you got left isn't it, Boobs?


Rupert
2008-07-14 01:22:12 EST
On Jul 14, 12:13 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
> >>>> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
> >>> That's very funny
> >> No, it's a serious statement.
>
> > You may very well be serious
>
> I am.  You should try it some time.

You really are quite pitiful, aren't you, Ball?
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron