"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.

I don't disagree, but I think it's because his prose is incomprehensible to
anyone who is attempting to read it critically.

>
> 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.


Do I need to justify discriminating between you and he? :>)