Vegetarian Discussion: Dutch's Idea Of Serious Discussion

Dutch's Idea Of Serious Discussion
Posts: 15

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
2008-07-18 22:37:29 EST
So, Dutch, can I ask you something?

Do you believe the following proposition?

(p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:


(1) Some set of individuals S has right against a set of moral agents
T that they not act in a certain way
(2) A can avoid being financally complicit in the set of agents T
acting in this way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
committing any comparable moral 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
(3) A is financially complicit in the set of agents T acting in that
way.


Then A is a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite.

---


Simple enough question, isn't it? Is the proposition somehow too hard
for you to understand, or is there something illegitimate about asking
that question?

It seems clear enough to me. I thought that this was something that
Jonathan Ball believed. I thought that that was part of the reason why
he felt entitled to call me a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
hypocrite over all these years. So I checked with him whether that was
what he believed, just out of curiosity, and he declined to comment.

Do you believe it? I'd be genuinely interested to know.

I'm trying to achieve some actual discussion here, as opposed to inane
and ignorant slagging off.

Hands up who believes in that proposition? Is it only Jonathan Ball
who believes it? Does Jonathan Ball believe it? I'd like to know. Do
you believe it, Ronny Hamilton? Do you believe it, Dave Harrison?
Lesley? Derek? Hands up who believes it.

Is it that somehow or other asking this question makes me a "snake-oil
salesman" as opposed to a "real educated, intelligent, articulate
person"?

Let's see if you're capable of something other than lame evasion, eh,
Dutch?

Rupert
2008-07-18 23:17:03 EST
On Jul 19, 10:37 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
>
> Do you believe the following proposition?
>
> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>
> (1) Some set of individuals S has right against a set of moral agents
> T that they not act in a certain way

Sorry, this should read "A believes that some set of individuals S has
a right..."

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-19 02:14:08 EST
Rupert wrote:
> So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
>
> Do you believe the following proposition?
>
> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:

Blow it out your ass, you pompous fuck. You don't understand this logic
notation at all.

Rupert
2008-07-19 02:57:56 EST
On Jul 19, 2:14 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
>
> > Do you believe the following proposition?
>
> > (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>
> Blow it out your ass, you pompous fuck.  You don't understand this logic
> notation at all.

Thanks, Ball, that was an absolute classic. So I don't understand the
notation of first-order logic at all? And I take it you do?

Why don't you start telling me how I don't understand algebraic
geometry or algebraic number theory at all either, that would be funny
too.

Dutch
2008-07-19 04:13:13 EST
Rupert wrote:
> So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
>
> Do you believe the following proposition?
>
> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:

No, I don't believe it placing artificial notation like "p1" in
sentences. If you want to talk about a moral agent then just do so.


> (1) Some set of individuals S has right against a set of moral agents
> T that they not act in a certain way

That's the definition of moral agency, again the letters S and T are
just pompous bullshit.

> (2) A can avoid being financally complicit in the set of agents T
> acting in this way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> committing any comparable moral 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

You can't make this statement without rigorously examining and comparing
the relative "burdens", which is no easy task.

> (3) A is financially complicit in the set of agents T acting in that
> way.

Probably, but by now that is irrelevant, the house of cards fell down
already.
>
>
> Then A is a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite.

Compared to what? By whose moral standards?


> ---
>
>
> Simple enough question, isn't it? Is the proposition somehow too hard
> for you to understand, or is there something illegitimate about asking
> that question?

It's a convoluted mess, designed to make a mockery of the issue.

>
> It seems clear enough to me. I thought that this was something that
> Jonathan Ball believed. I thought that that was part of the reason why
> he felt entitled to call me a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
> hypocrite over all these years. So I checked with him whether that was
> what he believed, just out of curiosity, and he declined to comment.
>
> Do you believe it? I'd be genuinely interested to know.
>
> I'm trying to achieve some actual discussion here, as opposed to inane
> and ignorant slagging off.
>
> Hands up who believes in that proposition? Is it only Jonathan Ball
> who believes it? Does Jonathan Ball believe it? I'd like to know. Do
> you believe it, Ronny Hamilton? Do you believe it, Dave Harrison?
> Lesley? Derek? Hands up who believes it.
>
> Is it that somehow or other asking this question makes me a "snake-oil
> salesman" as opposed to a "real educated, intelligent, articulate
> person"?

Yes, exactly. The manner in which you ask the question makes you a
snake-oil salesman.



> Let's see if you're capable of something other than lame evasion, eh,
> Dutch?

You deserve nothing more. You efforts are equivocations designed to
cloud the issue.

Rupert
2008-07-19 04:18:54 EST
On Jul 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
>
> > Do you believe the following proposition?
>
> > (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>
> No, I don't believe it placing artificial notation like "p1" in
> sentences. If you want to talk about a moral agent then just do so.
>

You're a nitwit.

> > (1) Some set of individuals S has right against a set of moral agents
> > T that they not act in a certain way
>
> That's the definition of moral agency,

No, it's not.

> again the letters S and T are
> just pompous bullshit.
>

Get a life. Say something interesting for a change.

> > (2) A can avoid being financally complicit in the set of agents T
> > acting in this way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> > committing any comparable moral 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
>
> You can't make this statement without rigorously examining and comparing
> the relative "burdens", which is no easy task.
>

Quite. What of it? This clause is part of the hypothesis of the
proposition.

> > (3) A is financially complicit in the set of agents T acting in that
> > way.
>
> Probably, but by now that is irrelevant, the house of cards fell down
> already.
>

???

Not following you.

I'm asking you whether you believe in the proposition.

>
>
> > Then A is a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite.
>
> Compared to what? By whose moral standards?
>

Well, by Ball's moral standards apparently, these are his words.

So you do believe in the proposition, or you don't?

Predictably, you are unable to answer a straight question.

> > ---
>
> > Simple enough question, isn't it? Is the proposition somehow too hard
> > for you to understand, or is there something illegitimate about asking
> > that question?
>
> It's a convoluted mess, designed to make a mockery of the issue.
>

You're a nitwit.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It seems clear enough to me. I thought that this was something that
> > Jonathan Ball believed. I thought that that was part of the reason why
> > he felt entitled to call me a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
> > hypocrite over all these years. So I checked with him whether that was
> > what he believed, just out of curiosity, and he declined to comment.
>
> > Do you believe it? I'd be genuinely interested to know.
>
> > I'm trying to achieve some actual discussion here, as opposed to inane
> > and ignorant slagging off.
>
> > Hands up who believes in that proposition? Is it only Jonathan Ball
> > who believes it? Does Jonathan Ball believe it? I'd like to know. Do
> > you believe it, Ronny Hamilton? Do you believe it, Dave Harrison?
> > Lesley? Derek? Hands up who believes it.
>
> > Is it that somehow or other asking this question makes me a "snake-oil
> > salesman" as opposed to a "real educated, intelligent, articulate
> > person"?
>
> Yes, exactly. The manner in which you ask the question makes you a
> snake-oil salesman.
>

You're a nitwit.

> > Let's see if you're capable of something other than lame evasion, eh,
> > Dutch?
>
> You deserve nothing more. You efforts are equivocations designed to
> cloud the issue.

And Dutch still has nothing worthwhile to say, but says it anyway...

Dutch
2008-07-19 04:23:05 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
>>> Do you believe the following proposition?
>>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>> No, I don't believe it placing artificial notation like "p1" in
>> sentences. If you want to talk about a moral agent then just do so.
>>
>
> You're a nitwit.

Thanks for the insight, now fuck off.

Rupert
2008-07-19 04:34:25 EST
On Jul 19, 4:23 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
> >>> Do you believe the following proposition?
> >>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
> >> No, I don't believe it placing artificial notation like "p1" in
> >> sentences. If you want to talk about a moral agent then just do so.
>
> > You're a nitwit.
>
> Thanks for the insight,

Any time.

> now fuck off.

No, you're the one who'll do that, thanks. You're the one who's got
nothing serious or worthwhile to add to this discussion.

Move along now, find some other threads to occupy yourself with.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-19 07:02:48 EST
On Jul 19, 6:34 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 4:23 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jul 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
> > >>> Do you believe the following proposition?
> > >>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
> > >> No, I don't believe it placing artificial notation like "p1" in
> > >> sentences. If you want to talk about a moral agent then just do so.
>
> > > You're a nitwit.
>
> > Thanks for the insight,
>
> Any time.
>
> > now fuck off.
>
> No, you're the one who'll do that, thanks. You're the one who's got
> nothing serious or worthwhile to add to this discussion.
>
> Move along now, find some other threads to occupy yourself with.


Dutch, probably much to his own annoyance, has become a TIME WASTER.


Rudy Canoza
2008-07-19 14:57:31 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2:14 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> So, Dutch, can I ask you something?
>>> Do you believe the following proposition?
>>> (p1) Let A be any moral agent. Suppose:
>> Blow it out your ass, you pompous fuck. You don't understand this logic
>> notation at all.
>
> Thanks, Rudy, that was an absolute classic.

Any time, you pompous fuck queer.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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