On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> > debate. If you are, then poor you.
>
> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> demoninator mudslinging contests. Jon uses logic and embellishes it with
> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.

I would add that I am not condescending very often. Most of the time I
am perfectly reasonable. Jon does occasionally manage to provoke me
into mudslinging contests. Why not? He's beyond redemption and he
certainly has nothing to complain about, why not indulge the urge to
give him some of his own medicine. And I am sometimes perhaps a bit
condescending to you. Well, okay, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but
really, the way you rubbish DeGrazia when you clearly don't understand
him is really a bit much. If you want to engage seriously with
DeGrazia you really need to make a bit more of an effort to understand
him. I'd be happy to help you, but you don't seem capable of
responding to my efforts to help with anything other than calling me a
pseudo-intellectual. So what's the point? When I say you don't
understand DeGrazia, I'm just stating the facts.

If you can't distinguish my conduct here from Jon Ball's, or the
quality of my arguments, then I think your powers of discrimination
need improving.