On Jun 13, 7:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> 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.

Wrong.


> > > > > > > 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.

Bullshit.


> > > > > 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

Right.


> > > > > > > > >> 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.

No, rupie.


> > 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,

rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.

If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
permitted. The very concept is absurd in such a case.


> > 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

YES, because you're stupid, arrogant and given to false bifurcations.


> > > 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 ****.