On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > No, it's not.
>
> Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> NEITHER.
>

Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on, isn't it,
Ball? The only trouble is, it's very obvious rubbish.

> > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > No, they do not.
>
> YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > I'm afraid
>
> So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> then.
>

You know, when I was psychotic, I often used to read meanings into
individual words in sentences, which would not have been supported by
looking at the context. Interesting how much you have in common with
psychotic people.

Why would I get the **** out, when I'm having such fun making a clown
out of you, as always?

> > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> "delicate BOY".
>

Apparently the way I look is somehow relevant to your contention.

Yes, well, you have all sorts of interesting opinions about people,
Ball, and you're always quite convinced that they're well-founded
opinions. You think you're competent to judge the quality of my
mathematical work, that's an interesting one. What you seem not to
understand is that in the eyes of rational people you look like a
deluded loon.

Anyway, supposing you were right, what would the relevance be to our
discussion?

>
>
>
>
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > > he thinks
> > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> > A very obvious fact,
>
> Not a fact.
>
> > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > obvious to anyone who can understand English.
>
> It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> arrogance, you can't admit it.
>

Yawn. Can't you think of any new lines? I've already pointed out the
absurd irony of this contention more than once.

> rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> white ones.

Yes, it can and clearly is. You're stipulating a nonstandard usage.

> The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> *prohibited*.

Why? It's logically possible that every prime which leaves a remainder
of 1 when you divide it by 4 is a sum of two squares, so it must also
be logically possible that that's not the case? Why couldn't you have
an action which was clearly morally permitted and there was no serious
moral issue about it?

> That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.

Why? I see no reason at all why that should be the case. An assertion
is not an argument.

> If
> there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>

Well, I do. As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
and I believe that my usage is standard. In any case, this is a
trivial semantic dispute. No particularly interesting issue is
resolved by whether we decide to go with your usage or mine. I believe
that my usage is clearly standard, you believe otherwise, well, fine,
what of it? It's hardly rational to make a big song and dance out of
it and start swearing at people.

> You are so ****ing stupid I can hardly stand it.
>

Well, I'm not, Ball. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that
your point of view is to some extent reasonable, which I don't really
think it is, my point of view is perfectly reasonable as well. It's no
evidence of stupidity. It's also not very rational to practically
burst a blood vessel over a trivial semantic dispute.

> > > > that he thinks it's morally permitted.
>
> > > It *DOES* contradict it, ****wit.
>
> > No it doesn't,
>
> It does. You are wrong - again.
>

No, I'm afraid not.

> > > > > To think it's
> > > > > morally permitted is implicitly to believe there is a
> > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > You can't deny that a moral question can be raised
>
> > > K.M. believes there is no moral issue. He doesn't think eating meat
> > > is *EITHER* morally permitted or morally prohibited.
>
> > That's not coherent.
>
> Of course it is, except to a plodding arrogant youthful pedant like
> you.
>

No, it's not, not to anyone who understands the English language.

> > If you don't think something is morally
> > prohibited, that means you think it's morally permitted.
>
> False bifurcation.
>

Wrong.

> > > He thinks -
> > > correctly - there is no moral issue.
>
> > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > You're such
>
> > > I'm right.
>
> > 'Fraid not.
>
> I can assure you I am.
>

Oh, you assure me that it is so, do you, Ball? Well, *that's*
convincing.

> > > > All this talk about my being "youthful" is pretty amusing as well. I'm
> > > > 31 years old.
>
> > > Your youthfulness is excruciatingly obvious. You are green. You are
> > > inexperienced. You've lived a cosseted, sheltered existence. You do
> > > not know how the world works. Chronologically, you may well be 31
> > > years old, but in terms of your social adjustment and exposure to the
> > > world, you are far younger. It shows.
>
> > How very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for
> > thinking this? I'm fascinated.
>
> It's obvious.
>

Apparently you do not care to elaborate on the reasons. What a shame.
It might have been amusing.

Look, Ball, I grant you that my level of experience with full-time
employment and living out of home is less than most people my age. (On
the other hand, my level of experience with academic research is
higher). I am happy to go along with that, and I don't see any
particular reason why I should feel bad about it.

As for the remarks about my "level of social adjustment", I don't
think we can really take you as a model of a socially well-adjusted
person. Your level of social adjustment is about that of a twelve-year-
old.

And I really fail to see how you can have any insight into my level of
understanding of the way the world works. You often become strongly
convinced of certain opinions you hold about people, believing that
they are absolutely certain when in fact they clearly lack the
slightest rational foundation. I strongly suspect that this is another
case like that. But I am happy to listen to what you have to say if
you care to elaborate on the matter.


> > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > You ****witted plodder.
>
> > > > If there's a serious moral issue raised by modern farming methods,
>
> > > Not what we're talking about.
>
> > Yes it is,
>
> No, it is not.

Translation: I've lost the argument, so I'll snip it and pretend I was
never refuted.