Vegetarian Discussion: Dutch's Reply To The Argument

Dutch's Reply To The Argument
Posts: 36

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2008-07-11 22:46:25 EST
Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?

Remember that Ball doesn't think the Iraq war is a just war. We don't
have to sort out the rights and wrongs of the occupation of Iraq for
my argument to work. Ball doesn't believe that animals have rights and
calls me a filthy shitstained hypocrite anyway. What matters is what
Ball thinks about the Iraq war. He says Bush should be prosecuted.

Are you saying there's an exception to (p1) for wartime even if the
moral agent in question doesn't believe that the war is a just war and
thinks that the leader who initiated the war should be subject to
criminal prosecution?

Dutch
2008-07-12 03:34:05 EST
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
...
> Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
> is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?

I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted. You appeared to make
it that way deliberately for effect. But yes, there are completely different
rules of conduct in wartime. Acts or decisions taken in time of war are not
a valid comparison to acts taken in day-to-day life.

> Remember that Ball doesn't think the Iraq war is a just war. We don't
> have to sort out the rights and wrongs of the occupation of Iraq for
> my argument to work. Ball doesn't believe that animals have rights and
> calls me a filthy shitstained hypocrite anyway. What matters is what
> Ball thinks about the Iraq war. He says Bush should be prosecuted.

It's still a whole different ball game. Government acts of war should be
opposed by citizens who disagree with them.

> Are you saying there's an exception to (p1) for wartime even if the
> moral agent in question doesn't believe that the war is a just war and
> thinks that the leader who initiated the war should be subject to
> criminal prosecution?

I see no need to letter ideas (p1), so I won't respond. Also if you wish to
argue with me about him, then I will not bother responding either.


Rupert
2008-07-12 04:15:51 EST
On Jul 12, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
> ...
>
> > Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
> > is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?
>
> I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted.

Right, so you're in over your head. I guess you'd better stick to the
other threads then.

It's really not rocket science, you know. I think you could engage
with my argument if you made the effort.

> You appeared to make
> it that way deliberately for effect. But yes, there are completely different
> rules of conduct in wartime.

True but not relevant. You need to identify a premise which is wrong.
(p2) says that Jonathan Ball *believes* that the citizens of Iraq have
a moral right that the troops withdraw. I conjecture that this is
correct, if I'm wrong about this Jonathan Ball hasn't taken the
opportunity to set me straight. The question of whether they actually
*do* have such a right is not relevant here, we can sort that out some
other day.

Are there any exceptions to (p1) in wartime? If so, what are they?
Just let me know.

Have you guys forgotten how to argue all of a sudden?

> Acts or decisions taken in time of war are not
> a valid comparison to acts taken in day-to-day life.
>

Elaborate. What are the exceptions to (p1)?

> > Remember that Ball doesn't think the Iraq war is a just war. We don't
> > have to sort out the rights and wrongs of the occupation of Iraq for
> > my argument to work. Ball doesn't believe that animals have rights and
> > calls me a filthy shitstained hypocrite anyway. What matters is what
> > Ball thinks about the Iraq war. He says Bush should be prosecuted.
>
> It's still a whole different ball game. Government acts of war should be
> opposed by citizens who disagree with them.
>

Perhaps you're going after (p6), then?

> > Are you saying there's an exception to (p1) for wartime even if the
> > moral agent in question doesn't believe that the war is a just war and
> > thinks that the leader who initiated the war should be subject to
> > criminal prosecution?
>
> I see no need to letter ideas (p1), so I won't respond. Also if you wish to
> argue with me about him, then I will not bother responding either.

Don't know why you even bothered to make this post, then.

Anyway, great. Don't comment further on the matter, then, if you don't
want to. It's Ball's job to defend himself like a real man.

As of now neither Ball nor anyone else has presented a satisfactory
response to the argument.

Dutch
2008-07-12 04:52:59 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> ...
>>
>>> Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
>>> is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?
>> I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted.
>
> Right, so you're in over your head

No, it's deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. Why you made it such
a mess I don't care to speculate.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-13 18:06:00 EST
On Jul 12, 6:52 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> ...
>
> >>> Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
> >>> is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?
> >> I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted.
>
> > Right, so you're in over your head
>
> No, it's deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. Why you made it such
> a mess I don't care to speculate.


Just admit that it's over *your* head and be done with it.


Dutch
2008-07-13 20:46:27 EST
Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jul 12, 6:52 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> ...
>>>>> Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
>>>>> is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?
>>>> I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted.
>>> Right, so you're in over your head
>> No, it's deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. Why you made it such
>> a mess I don't care to speculate.
>
>
> Just admit that it's over *your* head and be done with it.
>


I *am* done with it, because it's convoluted, confused and a mess.

Rupert
2008-07-13 22:36:13 EST
On Jul 14, 8:46 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 6:52 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 12, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
> >>>>> is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?
> >>>> I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted.
> >>> Right, so you're in over your head
> >> No, it's deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. Why you made it such
> >> a mess I don't care to speculate.
>
> > Just admit that it's over *your* head and be done with it.
>
>   I *am* done with it, because it's convoluted, confused and a mess.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's not confused at all, it's very precise, that's the whole point of
presenting it in that form.

Mr. Smartypants
2008-07-13 23:31:07 EST
On Jul 14, 12:36 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 8:46 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 6:52 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Jul 12, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > >>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>>> Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
> > >>>>> is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?
> > >>>> I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted.
> > >>> Right, so you're in over your head
> > >> No, it's deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. Why you made it such
> > >> a mess I don't care to speculate.
>
> > > Just admit that it's over *your* head and be done with it.
>
> >   I *am* done with it, because it's convoluted, confused and a mess.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It's not confused at all, it's very precise, that's the whole point of
> presenting it in that form.-



Which totally confuses Dutch.



Dutch
2008-07-14 02:19:10 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 14, 8:46 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 6:52 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
>>>>>>> is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?
>>>>>> I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted.
>>>>> Right, so you're in over your head
>>>> No, it's deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. Why you made it such
>>>> a mess I don't care to speculate.
>>> Just admit that it's over *your* head and be done with it.
>> I *am* done with it, because it's convoluted, confused and a mess.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's not confused at all, it's very precise, that's the whole point of
> presenting it in that form.

It's a completely unreadable mess. I know what you're getting at, but
you're not making the argument any clearer.

Dutch
2008-07-14 03:35:17 EST
Mr. Smartypants wrote:
> On Jul 14, 12:36 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 8:46 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>> On Jul 12, 6:52 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:34 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Okay, Dutch, so which premise are you questioning? Are you saying (p1)
>>>>>>>> is wrong, there's an exception for wartime?
>>>>>>> I didn't follow your whole thesis, it's too convoluted.
>>>>>> Right, so you're in over your head
>>>>> No, it's deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. Why you made it such
>>>>> a mess I don't care to speculate.
>>>> Just admit that it's over *your* head and be done with it.
>>> I *am* done with it, because it's convoluted, confused and a mess.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> It's not confused at all, it's very precise, that's the whole point of
>> presenting it in that form.-
>
>
>
> Which totally confuses Dutch.

It's unintelligible drivel. It speaks to the confused state of his mind.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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