On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> It is axiomatic.
>

No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > 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
>
> Not "was", you psychotic wreck.
>

I have not been psychotic for over four years. Your failure to grasp
this simple point constitutes extraordinary imbecility.

> > > > 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
>
> A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.
>

And I'm immature whereas you're the pinnacle of maturity, isn't that
right, Ball?

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > >> 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.
>
> Yeah, sure.
>
> > > rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> > > white ones.
>
> > Yes, it can and clearly is.
>
> No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.
>
> > > 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?
>
> THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
> of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
> of moral prohibition.

What extraordinary drivel.

> My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
> dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
> morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
> permission, you stupid reeking ****.

Well, to me it obviously does, and I'm afraid I don't find your simple
denial very convincing.

> That's your false bifurcation.
> It is false.
>
> > > 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?
>
> Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Because you're given to false bifurcations.
>

No, because I have common sense and understand the English language.

> > As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
> > permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
>
> NO, you stupid plodding ****.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -