> > If it were human, it would still be considered an
> > unfortunate accident.
>
> No. Animals are slaughtered collaterally in the
> millions. We simply wouldn't tolerate that if the
> victims were human, and you know it.

It would depend on the situation and cultural
norms. We tolerate the fact that smoking
tobacco kills millions of people.

> >>>>But YOU have a responsibility not to reward him for
> >>>>doing something you consider absolutely wrong.
> >
> >
> > What if it's just mostly wrong
>
> It isn't. You must view it as absolutely wrong, or you
> cannot logically and believably view it as wrong at
> all. That's just how it is.

Well, I'm just not doing that which you say I
MUST do.

I don't feel that I am 'wrong' for being currently
unable to obtain cd-free foods. You want me
to feel I'm wrong, but I'm not according to me,
and since it's my life we're talking about, I'll
take my word over yours.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Using a synonym, "requirement", will not help you.
>>There are no needs, requirements, essential
>>ingredients, or whatever else you want to call it.
>>There are only wants. If something was a
>>need/requirement/essential ingredient, we would NEVER
>>see people trade any quantity of it for even an
>>unlimited quantity of some "mere" want; but we DO see
>>such trades all the time, thus rendering "need" to be
>>meaningless.
>>
>>People want things. Period.
>
>
> You seem to have a strong want for making things
> absolute.

Those things that are absolute need to be recognized as
such. Your view that it is wrong to kill animals is an
example.

>
>>>Behaviour won't tell you if something's a need or a
>>>want.
>>
>>Yes, that is ALL that will tell you. You can't ask
>>people; they lie, or are very confused and muddled like
>>you.
>
>
> How does the behaviour of a lying, confused and
> muddled person determine need vs. want?

It demonstrates that there no such thing as "need".

>
>>>I can think of no
>>>behaviours to use for your test.
>>
>>I already gave you the ONLY relevant one:
>>substitution. Because we DO see subsitution, and we
>>would not see it if something were a "need", there is
>>no such thing as need.
>
>
> Again, what about the grocer above? There are many
> exceptions to this rule.

That isn't an exception, you stupid **** - it
demonstrates the truth of it!

> What about the housewife
> who is in possession of some food, yet prepares
> it and gives it away to her family members? Does
> that mean food is not a need?

Yes, exactly.


>>>Then why do you want/need it defined?
>>
>>Because you're trying to use it as an excuse, and I'm
>>demonstrating to you, compellingly, that it won't work.
>
>
> I'm using my need for food as an excuse?

Yes. You're trying to use your PHONY sense of "need"
as an excuse not to follow the demands of your shabby,
shitty pseudo-ethics.

>
>>>>>Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
>>>>>actually a want and vice versa.
>>>>
>>>>You are making it up as you go along.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am?
>>
>>Yes. You have not thought any of this through; that's
>>why you relied on the help of a self-crippled,
>>dog-beating, disability insurance-chiseling fat drunk
>>in England to help you organize your primitive feelings.
>
>
> You really do rely on

Logic and reason. Those are what I rely on.

>
>
>>>>>>>No, but they are valid things to base need
>>>>>>>on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>NO, they are not. You ONLY go on what you observe in
>>>>>>terms of people's behavior, and what we observe is that
>>>>>>people do NOT recognize any distinction between "needs"
>>>>>>and "wants".
>
>
> I'm a person

Barely.

>
>
>>>Maybe you're looking at the wrong things if you don't
>>>get results.
>>
>>No, an honest person would never say that. You clearly
>>are not a scientist.
>
>
> Ha. An honest person did

not say that. A monstrously dishonest person said it.

>
>
>>>>>There's no rule that says needs and wants must be
>>>>>determined by behaviour.
>>>>
>>>>That's the only way.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>Well, thanks for admitting that the vegan usually has
>>>>>no other choice but to buy commercially.
>>>>
>>>>No, you ALWAYS have several choices: grow your own, or
>>>>die - and thereby stop causing the deaths of animals -
>>>>are just two such.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, that's quite the selection of choices. Too bad
>>>none of them are real life options.
>>
>>They are real life options, and in fact, your ****ed up
>>pseudo-ethics demands that you pick one of them, or
>>find another that will get your collateral deaths to zero.
>
>
> Dying is not valid option in my

muddled, incoherent

> opinion. Also, I am
> under no requirement to somehow eliminate all
> cds connected to the food I eat.

Your shabby, shitty pseudo-ethics demands it.

>
>>The problem, skanky, is that you didn't think through
>>the pseudo-ethics/religion before adopting it. That,
>>of course, is yet another option: abandon it.
>
>
> Maybe the religion you're seeing doesn't really
> exist.

You embrace "veganism" with the same blind faith and
imperviousness to reason that people embrace more
conventional religions. Your faith is religious-like.
"veganism" is a religion - a secular religion.

> >>>My view on that is not absolute.
> >>
> >>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees. Morality
> >>is objective, EVEN IF you think you can subjectively
> >>choose your own. Thus, if you think you can choose to
> >>believe that sodomizing children with a broom handle is
> >>morally acceptable - i.e., right behavior - then you
> >>MUST believe it to be ABSOLUTELY right. In any
> >>morality, things are either right, or they are wrong.
> >
> >
> > Who says all that MUST stuff and the ABSOLUTE
> > stuff?
>
> I do. Anyone who thinks reasonably and critically
> about it does. That, of course, lets you out.

That lets me out of your requirement that I take
on your prescribed morals. You just admitted
to writing the moral rulebook. It's yours and
probably yours alone.

> > I'm sorry to see that you can only think in
> > black and white with no grey shades.
>
> I can think of shades of gray - when it's appropriate.
> In making a determination of whether something is
> right or wrong, it is inappropriate. That is
> especially true when we have been exceedingly careful
> to define our terms and narrow the context, as we have
> when discussing whether or not it is wrong to kill
> animals (according to your shabby pseudo-ethics.)

I think killing animals is mostly wrong. Don't
forget I'm not required to take on YOUR
abovementioned shabby pseudo-ethics.

> > And again I notice you are comparing
> > veganism to child abuse.
>
> No, I'm not "comparing" "veganism" to child abuse, in
> the sense of saying "veganism" is somehow "like" child
> abuse. I am introducing a particularly heinous form of
> predation on children to establish the principle that
> right and wrong are absolutes.

I think killing animals is mostly wrong and I
think that abusing children is very very wrong.
While both are high up on the badness scale,
Neither is at an absolute. There are things
even more heinous than your child abuse.

> > Why are you so obsessed
> > with the above form of child abuse?
>
> I'm not.

Well, you sure bring up that specific form
of it a lot.

> NO. It is wrong, full stop; it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
> What you mean to say is that it is very very BAD on the
> badness scale. Badness, or evil, has a scale;
> wrongness does not. Something is wrong, or it isn't.
> If it is, it can be a little bit bad, moderately bad,
> very bad, or monstrous. You keep getting confused
> between "bad" and "wrong".

To me wrongness has a scale. I'm not confused.
I just think differently than you. I sometimes use
bad and wrong interchangably. You have narrowed
wrongs definition to an absolute binary only choice.

> > Nonsense is typed when what I have just read
> > is nonsense.
>
> No. Your mere, unsupported assertion doesn't make it
> nonsense. When you type "nonsense", ALL you mean is
> that you don't like it.

I let your writing speak for itself.

> >>>>>What about the housewife
> >>>>>who is in possession of some food, yet prepares
> >>>>>it and gives it away to her family members? Does
> >>>>>that mean food is not a need?
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, exactly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then let's see how long you can go without it.
> >>
> >>Irrelevant. In fact, people can go without food for weeks.
> >
> >
> > And then you die.
>
> No. Many people have gone for several weeks without
> food, and lived.

They lived because they stopped their famine. If you
continue to go without food PAST those weeks, you
die. Food is a need.

> > How can I discard something I don't have?
>
> You have it. You cling to "veganism" as an ethics, and
> it's a shabby, shitty ethics. You believe it blindly
> and uncritically, hence it is religion to you.

But I have never claimed to believe what you think
I MUST. Why keep giving me your ethics and
telling me it's mine? If you have shabby shitty
ethics, keep them away from me. Shoo shoo


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>My view on that is not absolute.
>>>>
>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees. Morality
>>>>is objective, EVEN IF you think you can subjectively
>>>>choose your own. Thus, if you think you can choose to
>>>>believe that sodomizing children with a broom handle is
>>>>morally acceptable - i.e., right behavior - then you
>>>>MUST believe it to be ABSOLUTELY right. In any
>>>>morality, things are either right, or they are wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who says all that MUST stuff and the ABSOLUTE
>>>stuff?
>>
>>I do. Anyone who thinks reasonably and critically
>>about it does. That, of course, lets you out.
>
>
> That lets me out of your requirement

I wish I could impose a requirement on you to think
logically and critically, but I can't. I can only
strongly suggest that you learn to do so.

>
>
>>>I'm sorry to see that you can only think in
>>>black and white with no grey shades.
>>
>>I can think of shades of gray - when it's appropriate.
>>In making a determination of whether something is
>>right or wrong, it is inappropriate. That is
>>especially true when we have been exceedingly careful
>>to define our terms and narrow the context, as we have
>>when discussing whether or not it is wrong to kill
>>animals (according to your shabby pseudo-ethics.)
>
>
> I think killing animals is mostly wrong.

You can't. Not logically and coherently, anyway.

>
>>>And again I notice you are comparing
>>>veganism to child abuse.
>>
>>No, I'm not "comparing" "veganism" to child abuse, in
>>the sense of saying "veganism" is somehow "like" child
>>abuse. I am introducing a particularly heinous form of
>>predation on children to establish the principle that
>>right and wrong are absolutes.
>
>
> I think killing animals is mostly wrong

Nope. It's either wrong, or it isn't.

> I think that abusing children is very very wrong.

No. You think it's wrong, period. You think it's very
bad.

> While both are high up on the badness scale,
> Neither is at an absolute.

They are both absolutely wrong in your moral view.

>
>
>>>Why are you so obsessed
>>>with the above form of child abuse?
>>
>>I'm not.
>
>>NO. It is wrong, full stop; it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>>What you mean to say is that it is very very BAD on the
>>badness scale. Badness, or evil, has a scale;
>>wrongness does not. Something is wrong, or it isn't.
>>If it is, it can be a little bit bad, moderately bad,
>>very bad, or monstrous. You keep getting confused
>>between "bad" and "wrong".
>
>
> To me wrongness has a scale.

No. You have no criteria for where you place something
on the scale.

You're trying to re-invent fundamental philosophical
concepts, and you're not intellectually up to the task.

> I'm not confused.

You are deeply, probably irremediably confused.

> I just think differently than you.

Oh, yes!

>
>>>Nonsense is typed when what I have just read
>>>is nonsense.
>>
>>No. Your mere, unsupported assertion doesn't make it
>>nonsense. When you type "nonsense", ALL you mean is
>>that you don't like it.
>
>>>>>>>What about the housewife
>>>>>>>who is in possession of some food, yet prepares
>>>>>>>it and gives it away to her family members? Does
>>>>>>>that mean food is not a need?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then let's see how long you can go without it.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant. In fact, people can go without food for weeks.
>>>
>>>
>>>And then you die.
>>
>>No. Many people have gone for several weeks without
>>food, and lived.
>
>
> They lived because they stopped their famine.

"Fast", not "famine", you ignorant ****.

> If you
> continue to go without food PAST those weeks, you
> die. Food is a need.

It's a want. People want to live, so they eat.

>
>
>>>How can I discard something I don't have?
>>
>>You have it. You cling to "veganism" as an ethics, and
>>it's a shabby, shitty ethics. You believe it blindly
>>and uncritically, hence it is religion to you.
>
>
> But I have never claimed to believe what you think
> I MUST.

You must believe it.

> >>>Who says all that MUST stuff and the ABSOLUTE
> >>>stuff?
> >>
> >>I do. Anyone who thinks reasonably and critically
> >>about it does. That, of course, lets you out.
> >
> >
> > That lets me out of your requirement
>
> I wish I could impose a requirement on you to think
> logically and critically, but I can't. I can only
> strongly suggest that you learn to do so.

You just want me to agree with you about
ridiculous things.

> > I think killing animals is mostly wrong.
>
> You can't. Not logically and coherently, anyway.

I can indeed. I'm thinking that right now.

> > I think killing animals is mostly wrong
>
> Nope. It's either wrong, or it isn't.

Mostly wrong, if you want to know what I
think.

> > I think that abusing children is very very wrong.
>
> No. You think it's wrong, period. You think it's very
> bad.

You say bad, I say wrong. I think it's very very wrong.
Do you think it's wrong?

> > While both are high up on the badness scale,
> > Neither is at an absolute.
>
> They are both absolutely wrong in your moral view.

Stop pretending you're me. Wrongness has a
scale for me. Stop saying I believe in your
belief of absolutes.

> > To me wrongness has a scale.
>
> No. You have no criteria for where you place something
> on the scale.

Then how do you judge things for your badness scale?
Which happens to sound a lot like my wrongness scale.

> >>>>>>>What about the housewife
> >>>>>>>who is in possession of some food, yet prepares
> >>>>>>>it and gives it away to her family members? Does
> >>>>>>>that mean food is not a need?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes, exactly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Then let's see how long you can go without it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Irrelevant. In fact, people can go without food for weeks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And then you die.
> >>
> >>No. Many people have gone for several weeks without
> >>food, and lived.
> >
> >
> > They lived because they stopped their famine.
>
> "Fast", not "famine", you ignorant ****.

So sue me. You know what I meant. Unless that's
hard for you. Anyways they are now all dead, the
test subjects because they didn't eat. Proof shows
that food is a need for a healthy life.

> > But I have never claimed to believe what you think
> > I MUST.
>
> You must believe it.

But I don't. So what now Sherlock?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>Who says all that MUST stuff and the ABSOLUTE
>>>>>stuff?
>>>>
>>>>I do. Anyone who thinks reasonably and critically
>>>>about it does. That, of course, lets you out.
>>>
>>>
>>>That lets me out of your requirement
>>
>>I wish I could impose a requirement on you to think
>>logically and critically, but I can't. I can only
>>strongly suggest that you learn to do so.
>
>
> You just want me to

learn to start thinking critically and logically.
That's what I want you to do.

>
>
>>>I think killing animals is mostly wrong.
>>
>>You can't. Not logically and coherently, anyway.
>
>
> I can indeed.

You can't. You failed to note "logically and
coherently". You cannot logically and coherently think
killing animals is "mostly" wrong. It is either wrong,
or it isn't.

>
>
>>>I think killing animals is mostly wrong
>>
>>Nope. It's either wrong, or it isn't.
>
>
> Mostly wrong

Nope.

>
>
>>>I think that abusing children is very very wrong.
>>
>>No. You think it's wrong, period. You think it's very
>>bad.
>
>
> You say bad, I say wrong.

You're deeply, probably irremediably confused.

>
>>>While both are high up on the badness scale,
>>>Neither is at an absolute.
>>
>>They are both absolutely wrong in your moral view.
>
>
> Stop pretending

I'm pretending nothing. Well, maybe I'm only
pretending that you'll ever begin to think rationally.
I prefer to think I'm "hopeful", but maybe I'm only
pretending.

>
>
>>>To me wrongness has a scale.
>>
>>No. You have no criteria for where you place something
>>on the scale.
>
>
> Then how do you judge things for your badness scale?

Irrelevant.

> Which happens to sound a lot like my wrongness scale.

No. There IS no wrongness scale. "Wrong" is binary:
on/off, yes/no, '1'/'0'.

>
>
>>>>>>>>>What about the housewife
>>>>>>>>>who is in possession of some food, yet prepares
>>>>>>>>>it and gives it away to her family members? Does
>>>>>>>>>that mean food is not a need?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, exactly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then let's see how long you can go without it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Irrelevant. In fact, people can go without food for weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And then you die.
>>>>
>>>>No. Many people have gone for several weeks without
>>>>food, and lived.
>>>
>>>
>>>They lived because they stopped their famine.
>>
>>"Fast", not "famine", you ignorant ****.
>
>
> So sue me.

So acknowledge you're a semi-literate dipshit.


>>>But I have never claimed to believe what you think
>>>I MUST.
>>
>>You must believe it.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>But I have never claimed to believe what you think
>>>>>I MUST.
>>>>
>>>>You must believe it.
>
>
> Why?

Because it is the rational position. The position you
WISH to hold is irrational.

> >>>But I have never claimed to believe what you think
> >>>I MUST.
> >>
> >>You must believe it.

Why? And how are you going to stop me
from thinking my own thoughts instead?



--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> >>>>>But I have never claimed to believe what you think
> >>>>>I MUST.
> >>>>
> >>>>You must believe it.
> >
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it is the rational position. The position you
> WISH to hold is irrational.

The position I do hold is quite rational. Rational
is in the eye of the beholder. Since we're talking
about my position on things, I get to do the
rationalizing, not you.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >>>>>But I have never claimed to believe what you think
>> >>>>>I MUST.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You must believe it.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> Because it is the rational position. The position you
>> WISH to hold is irrational.
>
> The position I do hold is quite rational. Rational
> is in the eye of the beholder. Since we're talking
> about my position on things, I get to do the
> rationalizing, not you.
> =====================
LOL That fool, is another great line.... You realize that you just made
an excuse to try to cover your stupidity and irrational ignorant beliefs,
right, killer?

Rationalizing something is trying to make it right in spite of the fact that
you are wrong....


>

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>>>But I have never claimed to believe what you think
>>>>>>>I MUST.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You must believe it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Because it is the rational position. The position you
>>WISH to hold is irrational.
>
>
> The position I do hold is quite rational.

It is fundamentally irrational.

> Rational is in the eye of the beholder.

No. That position ALSO is irrational, and wrong.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >
> >
> > A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>
> No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.

The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
actually exists. I used the example of presenting a false dilemma of
turning left or right, where a third option of continuing straight ahead
exists. I then, having described the fallacy, used an example, applied
this to the discussion at hand -- the application of a moral assessment
of right or wrong excludes the third option of deeming an action morally
neutral.

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>
>>>
>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>>
>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
>
>
> The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
> actually exists.

You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
where there is none.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
> >>
> >>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
> >
> >
> > The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
> > actually exists.
>
> You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
> where there is none.

Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?

Ron wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>>>>
>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
>>>
>>>
>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
>>>actually exists.
>>
>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
>>where there is none.
>
>
> Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?

Only if there really was none.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article et>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
> >>>>
> >>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
> >>>actually exists.
> >>
> >>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
> >>where there is none.
> >
> >
> > Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
>
> Only if there really was none.

The joys of an ego. A false dilemma was identified and a third option
_was_ presented. The more stubborn of the group are resistant, but then
the rest of us are able to see it. Falsely believing 2 options exist
when 3 actually exist _may_ be symptomatic of a delusional disorder.
(That is in the DSM and we won't have to wait 10 years for that to
happen.)

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
>>>>>actually exists.
>>>>
>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
>>>>where there is none.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
>>
>>Only if there really was none.
>
>
> A false dilemma was identified

No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
didn't really do it.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article et>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
> >>>>>actually exists.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
> >>>>where there is none.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
> >>
> >>Only if there really was none.
> >
> >
> > A false dilemma was identified
>
> No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
> didn't really do it.

LOL. Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to remember what was typed even
though you have deleted it.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
>>>>>>>actually exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
>>>>>>where there is none.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
>>>>
>>>>Only if there really was none.
>>>
>>>
>>>A false dilemma was identified
>>
>>No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
>>didn't really do it.
>
>
> Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to

No, you cannot identify something that wasn't there.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article et>,
> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
> >>>>>>>actually exists.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
> >>>>>>where there is none.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>>Only if there really was none.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>A false dilemma was identified
> >>
> >>No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
> >>didn't really do it.
> >
> >
> > Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to
>
> No, you cannot identify something that wasn't there.

Unlss you are editing the google archives, it does exist there. Creating
a reality that is inconsistent with the one we are able to see may
constitute delusional thinking. I did make those statements despite your
editing.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
>>>>>>>>>actually exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
>>>>>>>>where there is none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only if there really was none.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A false dilemma was identified
>>>>
>>>>No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
>>>>didn't really do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to
>>
>>No, you cannot identify something that wasn't there.
>
>
> Unlss you are editing the google archives, it does exist there.

It doesn't. I wrote,

Something is either wrong (not right) or it is right
(not wrong); there are no degrees.

In other words, I said something is either wrong, or it
is not wrong.

This is an axiom of propositional logic: A, or not A.
There is no excluded middle, and there are no
degrees. Something cannot simultaneously be A and not
A, and there are not degrees of A-ness (if we're
careful with our definitions; in your case, if
A=Asshole, then there might be degrees, and you are
very, very asshole.)

You clearly can't do this, homo Ron.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>In article et>,
> >>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
> >>>>>>>>>actually exists.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
> >>>>>>>>where there is none.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Only if there really was none.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>A false dilemma was identified
> >>>>
> >>>>No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
> >>>>didn't really do it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to
> >>
> >>No, you cannot identify something that wasn't there.
> >
> >
> > Unlss you are editing the google archives, it does exist there.
>
> It doesn't. I wrote,
>
> Something is either wrong (not right) or it is right
> (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>
> In other words, I said something is either wrong, or it
> is not wrong.
>
> This is an axiom of propositional logic: A, or not A.
> There is no excluded middle, and there are no
> degrees. Something cannot simultaneously be A and not
> A, and there are not degrees of A-ness (if we're
> careful with our definitions; in your case, if
> A=Asshole, then there might be degrees, and you are
> very, very asshole.)
>
> You clearly can't do this, homo Ron.

I return to your frequent use of the false dilemma. My comments
magically disappear -- either they exist or they don't. The third option
is they exist in the archives as a third option and they existed in the
original form in my original post as a fourth option.

Logical fallacies abound.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
>>>>>>>>>>>actually exists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
>>>>>>>>>>where there is none.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Only if there really was none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A false dilemma was identified
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
>>>>>>didn't really do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to
>>>>
>>>>No, you cannot identify something that wasn't there.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unlss you are editing the google archives, it does exist there.
>>
>>It doesn't. I wrote,
>>
>> Something is either wrong (not right) or it is right
>> (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>
>>In other words, I said something is either wrong, or it
>>is not wrong.
>>
>>This is an axiom of propositional logic: A, or not A.
>> There is no excluded middle, and there are no
>>degrees. Something cannot simultaneously be A and not
>>A, and there are not degrees of A-ness (if we're
>>careful with our definitions; in your case, if
>>A=Asshole, then there might be degrees, and you are
>>very, very asshole.)
>>
>>You clearly can't do this, homo Ron.
>
>
> I return to your frequent use of the false dilemma.

No, you don't, because I haven't used it. I did,
however, IDENTIFY an instance in which you committed
the fallacy.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>In article et>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
> tl.earthlink.net>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
> >>>>>>>>>>>actually exists.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
> >>>>>>>>>>where there is none.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Only if there really was none.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>A false dilemma was identified
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
> >>>>>>didn't really do it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you cannot identify something that wasn't there.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unlss you are editing the google archives, it does exist there.
> >>
> >>It doesn't. I wrote,
> >>
> >> Something is either wrong (not right) or it is right
> >> (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>
> >>In other words, I said something is either wrong, or it
> >>is not wrong.
> >>
> >>This is an axiom of propositional logic: A, or not A.
> >> There is no excluded middle, and there are no
> >>degrees. Something cannot simultaneously be A and not
> >>A, and there are not degrees of A-ness (if we're
> >>careful with our definitions; in your case, if
> >>A=Asshole, then there might be degrees, and you are
> >>very, very asshole.)
> >>
> >>You clearly can't do this, homo Ron.
> >
> >
> > I return to your frequent use of the false dilemma.
>
> No, you don't, because I haven't used it. I did,
> however, IDENTIFY an instance in which you committed
> the fallacy.

Sorry, call me homo or something. So long as I am feeling sorry for you
due to your mental illness, I just can't engage you anymore. I feel that
I have an unfair advantage over you. It isn't your fault that you are
sick, is it?

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a third
>>>>>>>>>>>>>actually exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
>>>>>>>>>>>>where there is none.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Only if there really was none.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A false dilemma was identified
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
>>>>>>>>didn't really do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you cannot identify something that wasn't there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unlss you are editing the google archives, it does exist there.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't. I wrote,
>>>>
>>>> Something is either wrong (not right) or it is right
>>>> (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, I said something is either wrong, or it
>>>>is not wrong.
>>>>
>>>>This is an axiom of propositional logic: A, or not A.
>>>> There is no excluded middle, and there are no
>>>>degrees. Something cannot simultaneously be A and not
>>>>A, and there are not degrees of A-ness (if we're
>>>>careful with our definitions; in your case, if
>>>>A=Asshole, then there might be degrees, and you are
>>>>very, very asshole.)
>>>>
>>>>You clearly can't do this, homo Ron.
>>>
>>>
>>>I return to your frequent use of the false dilemma.
>>
>>No, you don't, because I haven't used it. I did,
>>however, IDENTIFY an instance in which you committed
>>the fallacy.
>
>
> Sorry,

You sure are, homo Ron. You didn't find any commission
of a fallacy on my part, and now you're reduced to
complete non sequitur.

You're a weak joke, homo Ron.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
> l.earthlink.net>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
> .atl.earthlink.net>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>third
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>actually exists.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>You are wrongly claiming to identify a third option
> >>>>>>>>>>>>where there is none.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Yes, it would be a crime to find a third option, wouldn't it?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Only if there really was none.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>A false dilemma was identified
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No. You merely claimed to have identified one. You
> >>>>>>>>didn't really do it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Sure, Rudy. The rest of us are able to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, you cannot identify something that wasn't there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Unlss you are editing the google archives, it does exist there.
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't. I wrote,
> >>>>
> >>>> Something is either wrong (not right) or it is right
> >>>> (not wrong); there are no degrees.
> >>>>
> >>>>In other words, I said something is either wrong, or it
> >>>>is not wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is an axiom of propositional logic: A, or not A.
> >>>> There is no excluded middle, and there are no
> >>>>degrees. Something cannot simultaneously be A and not
> >>>>A, and there are not degrees of A-ness (if we're
> >>>>careful with our definitions; in your case, if
> >>>>A=Asshole, then there might be degrees, and you are
> >>>>very, very asshole.)
> >>>>
> >>>>You clearly can't do this, homo Ron.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I return to your frequent use of the false dilemma.
> >>
> >>No, you don't, because I haven't used it. I did,
> >>however, IDENTIFY an instance in which you committed
> >>the fallacy.
> >
> >
> > Sorry,
>
> You sure are, homo Ron. You didn't find any commission
> of a fallacy on my part, and now you're reduced to
> complete non sequitur.
>
> You're a weak joke, homo Ron.

Good boy. Maybe you should be taking your meds and letting the rest of
us get back to our conversation.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your view on that MUST be absolute, or it is nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no criteria to allow it to be anything less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Furthermore, the very nature of right/wrong is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>absolute, because it is binary with only two possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>options: something is either wrong (not right) or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is right (not wrong); there are no degrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A logical fallacy of the false dilemma
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No. Fundamentally, you do not understand the fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The false dilemma is where two options are presented when a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>third actually exists.

And that is NOT the case here, pathetic felching homo
Ron. There IS no third option. I have CORRECTLY
identified a situation in which there are only two
options from which to choose: wrong, or not wrong.

This, and blinding stubbornness, are the sources of
your great error, felching homo Ron.


>>>>>I return to your frequent use of the false dilemma.
>>>>
>>>>No, you don't, because I haven't used it. I did,
>>>>however, IDENTIFY an instance in which you committed
>>>>the fallacy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry,
>>
>>You sure are, homo Ron. You didn't find any commission
>>of a fallacy on my part, and now you're reduced to
>>complete non sequitur.
>>
>>You're a weak joke, homo Ron.
>
>
> Good

Yes, good, homo Ron. Admit that you incorrectly
claimed I posited a false dilemma. I did not: there
is no third (or more) option, and you are an idiot for
claiming there is, and for claiming I committed the
fallacy of false dilemma.

YOU committed the error of deliberate stupidity.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In any morality, things are either right, or they are wrong.
Jon-a-thug noBalls, hiding behind yet another phony account/headers/name
reveals his profound ignorance of "morality" by stupidly ignoring the simple
FACT that ALL moral/ethical systems are simply made up for the convince of
the individual or group.
Since there is NO objective set of ethics to gage by, ALL 'discussions'
of ethics/morality ate completely absurd, just like noBalls, himself.

> Degrees of badness are in the eyes of OTHERS, not in the objective
> rightness/wrongness of the action.
WHERE is that "objective" set of ethics??

> There is no such thing. There is no operationally rigorous test you can
> apply that reveals "need"; ...
We NEED oxygen or we die.
We NEED water or we die.
We NEED food or we die.
You do not NEED to learn how to think in a rational manner, but it would
be in your best interests to do so.


>>>..., you stupid **** -
Lacking any vestige of intelligence, noBalls wallows in insults and
vulgarity -- all he knows.

>>>shitty pseudo-ethics.
Without an objective set of ethics, ALL claims about ethics are pseudo.

> that it has no value as an ethical system. In short, it isn't an ethical
> system at all, and you should discard it.
There is no such thing as a valid ethical system; they are just made up.

Laurie

Larry Fruity wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>> In any morality, things are either right, or they are wrong.
>
> Jon-a-thug noBalls, hiding behind yet another phony account/headers/name
> reveals his profound ignorance of "morality" by stupidly ignoring the simple
> FACT

Not a "fact", Larry - rather, your interpretation.

> that ALL moral/ethical systems are simply made up for the convince of
> the individual or group.

No.

>
>>Degrees of badness are in the eyes of OTHERS, not in the objective
>>rightness/wrongness of the action.
>
> WHERE is that "objective" set of ethics??
>
>
>>There is no such thing. There is no operationally rigorous test you can
>>apply that reveals "need"; ...
>
> We NEED oxygen or we die.

There is no need to live in the first place.

> We NEED water or we die.

There is no need to live in the first place.

> We NEED food or we die.

There is no need to live in the first place.


>>>>shitty pseudo-ethics.
>
> Without an objective set of ethics, ALL claims about ethics are pseudo.

No.

>
>
>>that it has no value as an ethical system. In short, it isn't an ethical
>>system at all, and you should discard it.
>
> There is no such thing as a valid ethical system;

Of course there is, Fruity. You make use of them all
the time, although in your case it is MISuse.

> There is no need to live in the first place.

Then why do you bother to keep yourself
alive, troll?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Pig-headed Skanky, the ever-defiant, science-illterate,
always-predictable, MOUTHY teenager, wrote:

>>There is no need to live in the first place.
>
>
> Then why do you bother to keep yourself
> alive,

Because I WANT to live.

> >>There is no need to live in the first place.
> >
> >
> > Then why do you bother to keep yourself
> > alive,
>
> Because I WANT to live.

Then what if anything would you
categorize as a need?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>There is no need to live in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then why do you bother to keep yourself
>>>alive,
>>
>>Because I WANT to live.
>
>
> Then what if anything would you
> categorize as a need?

In sense of a need vs. a want? Nothing. There is no
distinction. Everything is a want.

There's a different sense of need, the instrumental
sense, but that's plainly not what you mean. You very
clearly are talking about "need" as some kind of
absolute, and you're contrasting it with want, and
there simply is no valid distinction.

By instrumental need, I mean this. Suppose you say you
intend to travel by car to some place 100 km away, and
you want to arrive there at 17.00. Suppose as well
that you can average 100 km/h. Then, you need to leave
your starting point no later than 16.00.

But you don't "need" in any sense to travel to the
point 100 km distant in the first place; you WANT to go
there. In order to get there by the desired time, you
need to leave one hour earlier.

That is the only legitimate sense of "need": as a
means or an instrument to an end.

You are a twit.

> > Then what if anything would you
> > categorize as a need?
>
> In sense of a need vs. a want? Nothing. There is no
> distinction. Everything is a want.
>
> There's a different sense of need, the instrumental
> sense, but that's plainly not what you mean. You very
> clearly are talking about "need" as some kind of
> absolute, and you're contrasting it with want, and
> there simply is no valid distinction.
>
> By instrumental need, I mean this. Suppose you say you
> intend to travel by car to some place 100 km away, and
> you want to arrive there at 17.00. Suppose as well
> that you can average 100 km/h. Then, you need to leave
> your starting point no later than 16.00.
>
> But you don't "need" in any sense to travel to the
> point 100 km distant in the first place; you WANT to go
> there. In order to get there by the desired time, you
> need to leave one hour earlier.
>
> That is the only legitimate sense of "need": as a
> means or an instrument to an end.
>
> You are a twit.

There you were, almost respectable, posting
an interesting, polite explanation. Then you
went and blew it all with a gratuitous insult.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Then what if anything would you
>>>categorize as a need?
>>
>>In sense of a need vs. a want? Nothing. There is no
>>distinction. Everything is a want.
>>
>>There's a different sense of need, the instrumental
>>sense, but that's plainly not what you mean. You very
>>clearly are talking about "need" as some kind of
>>absolute, and you're contrasting it with want, and
>>there simply is no valid distinction.
>>
>>By instrumental need, I mean this. Suppose you say you
>>intend to travel by car to some place 100 km away, and
>>you want to arrive there at 17.00. Suppose as well
>>that you can average 100 km/h. Then, you need to leave
>>your starting point no later than 16.00.
>>
>>But you don't "need" in any sense to travel to the
>>point 100 km distant in the first place; you WANT to go
>>there. In order to get there by the desired time, you
>>need to leave one hour earlier.
>>
>>That is the only legitimate sense of "need": as a
>>means or an instrument to an end.
>>
>>You are a twit.
>
>
> There you were, almost respectable, posting
> an interesting, polite explanation. Then you
> went and blew it all with a gratuitous insult.

Ha ha! Gotcha! I meant everything I said about no
distinction between "need" vs. "want", the instrumental
sense of "need", and so on, and it's ALL right. But I
knew you'd read all the way to the end, and get a nice
big surprise. Bon apetit, twit.

> > There you were, almost respectable, posting
> > an interesting, polite explanation. Then you
> > went and blew it all with a gratuitous insult.
>
> Ha ha! Gotcha! I meant everything I said about no
> distinction between "need" vs. "want", the instrumental
> sense of "need", and so on, and it's ALL right. But I
> knew you'd read all the way to the end, and get a nice
> big surprise. Bon apetit, twit.

You never really left grade 2, did you. You
blow your own post to smithereens. I think
you like being disliked.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>There you were, almost respectable, posting
>>>an interesting, polite explanation. Then you
>>>went and blew it all with a gratuitous insult.
>>
>>Ha ha! Gotcha! I meant everything I said about no
>>distinction between "need" vs. "want", the instrumental
>>sense of "need", and so on, and it's ALL right. But I
>>knew you'd read all the way to the end, and get a nice
>>big surprise. Bon apetit, twit.
>
>
> You blow your own post to smithereens.

Nope. What I wrote still stands. There is no such
thing as "needs" in some absolute sense; there are only
wants.

> >>>There you were, almost respectable, posting
> >>>an interesting, polite explanation. Then you
> >>>went and blew it all with a gratuitous insult.
> >>
> >>Ha ha! Gotcha! I meant everything I said about no
> >>distinction between "need" vs. "want", the instrumental
> >>sense of "need", and so on, and it's ALL right. But I
> >>knew you'd read all the way to the end, and get a nice
> >>big surprise. Bon apetit, twit.
> >
> >
> > You blow your own post to smithereens.
>
> Nope. What I wrote still stands. There is no such
> thing as "needs" in some absolute sense; there are only
> wants.

You had an opportunity to be serious and
instead you chose to sabotage your own
post. You must be a hateful individual.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>There you were, almost respectable, posting
>>>>>an interesting, polite explanation. Then you
>>>>>went and blew it all with a gratuitous insult.
>>>>
>>>>Ha ha! Gotcha! I meant everything I said about no
>>>>distinction between "need" vs. "want", the instrumental
>>>>sense of "need", and so on, and it's ALL right. But I
>>>>knew you'd read all the way to the end, and get a nice
>>>>big surprise. Bon apetit, twit.
>>>
>>>
>>>You blow your own post to smithereens.
>>
>>Nope. What I wrote still stands. There is no such
>>thing as "needs" in some absolute sense; there are only
>>wants.
>
>
> You had an opportunity to be serious

And I was. There is no such thing as "need" in the
absolute sense in which you mean it.