What to eat
On Mar 13, 8:09*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 8, 10:32*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
> >> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>
> >> >> >> * * That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>
> >> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>
> >> >> * * Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
> >> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>
> >> >No, I don't.
>
> >> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
> >> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
> >> >offer one.
>
> >> * * I did.
>
> >No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.
>
> * * That's a lie.
It's not. I sincerely believe it to be true, so it's not a lie. And
you obviously haven't got any rational grounds for thinking that I
don't sincerely believe it to be true. You shouldn't accuse people of
lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.
> I even later pointed out some of the specific information it
> conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.
>
Try again. What information does it convey?
> >It really is quite tragic that you cannot grasp this.
>
> >> You couldn't comprehend.
>
> >Because the definition is meaningless and conveys no information.
>
> * * That has been a lie evey time you've told it, and will continue to be a lie
> every time you tell it.
>
See above.
> >> You can't figure it out on your own either,
> >> or at least so far you haven't been able to.
>
> >It's not a question of "figuring anything out".
>
> * * Yes it is. I figured it out for myself, but you can't.
> . . .
>
You should pay attention to the part that you snipped.
> >Well, at one point I was talking about the idea of the outcome being
> >better, but you reject that notion,
>
> * * You have to say what you want us to feel it's better FOR for one thing, and
> also better compared to what.
>
> >so that's obviously not what you
> >had in mind.
>
> >As I say, it's your job to specify what you have in mind when you use
> >the phrase.
>
> * * I did tell you. What did I tell you doc, do you have any clue at all?
What you have said by way of trying to explain what you have in mind
conveys no information whatsoever.
|