Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Derek > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article >,
>> >> > Derek > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Then forced complicity
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >There is no such thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>> >> >
>> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>> >>
>> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force
>> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>> >
>> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>> >
>> > I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
>> > situation.

>>
>> You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
>> under extreme duress does not form complicity.

>
> Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.


Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.


  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Derek" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
> >> >> > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
> >> >> > production,
> >> >>
> >> >> If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
> >> >> and I
> >> >> agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
> >> >> rice
> >> >> production.
> >> >
> >> > Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
> >> > fallacy of insignificant cause.
> >>
> >> This is not an example of insignificant cause.
> >>
> >> The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.
> >>
> >> "Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory
> >> government
> >> because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
> >> vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
> >> See the following link..
> >> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php

> >
> > What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is
> > likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create
> > situations where this would be viewed this way.
> >
> > The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat
> > of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted
> > reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the
> > centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to
> > feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc.

>
> Your ranting is becoming increasing incoherent. One does not have to be at
> the centre of the universe to be responsible. If you voted Tory and they got
> in, you were responsible, as responsible as everyone else who voted Tory.
> The alternative is NOBODY was responsible, and that makes no sense.


More either/or thinking.

If the tories win it happens for a variety of reasons.
More people voted tory than other options.
Other people didn't vote for other any of the choices.

But let's leave it that you are the centre of the universe. Everything
that happens can be connected back to you.

> You can have your own personal reality if you want, knock yourself out.
>
> Likewise, the man who eats a burger is responsible for the death of the
> steer.


From the perspective of the eating disordered.

The rest of us see things differently. The rest of us see the death of
the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
daily life and so on.

You certainly are the centre of the universe in your scenario --
anything to be special.
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article >,
> >> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >There is no such thing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> >> >
> >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >> >
> >> > I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
> >> > situation.
> >>
> >> You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
> >> under extreme duress does not form complicity.

> >
> > Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.

>
> Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
> duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
> That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.


I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
sorts of things.

My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
action?"

I like your code though. I can get away with anything by finding someone
else to blame.
  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article .com>,
>> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ron wrote:
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Derek > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >In article >,
>> >> > > > Derek > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >There is no such thing.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>> >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>> >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>> >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>> >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>> >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
>> >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>> >> >
>> >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>> >>
>> >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
>> >>
>> >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you
>> >> feel
>> >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is
>> >> a
>> >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
>> >> the truth.
>> >
>> > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
>> > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
>> > earlier.

>>
>> And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.
>>
>> >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
>> >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
>> >> not identified logical dilemmas at all.

>
> Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.


NO Ron , no I ****ing don't you dingdong. YOU DO, AGAIN.

> Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are
> different
>
> I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices)


I ASK which you prefer of two dishes, without predjudice. You may answer
freely without limitations or consequences. There is no dilemma, no absence
of options is implied. I am imply ASKINg FOR your opinion on something.

> I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices)


BUSH TELLS YOU that if you do not support his adminstration you are
supporting terrorists. It is implicit that he says there is no other way to
intepret a failure to support him. He is trapping you, limiting you to black
and white thinking, refusing to allow you to oppose him AND the terrorists,
which many people wish to do. He has created a false dilemma for you.

> I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices)


Rudy simply wants to know which you like better, so he can plan dinner, he
is not limiting or trapping you in any way, you are in no dilemma and are
free to express any opinion.

> Contrary to the example of the chocolate cake where -- not choosing
> chocolate cake would make one an idiot, bush's comments don't presume
> anything other than what is stated.


Right, you're either a supporter of mine or a supporter of terrorists, that
is false, I happen to be neither.

> Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....


C'mon man use your head.


  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article .com>,
> >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Ron wrote:
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >In article >,
> >> >> > > > Derek > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> >There is no such thing.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >> >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >> >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >> >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >> >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you
> >> >> feel
> >> >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is
> >> >> a
> >> >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
> >> >> the truth.
> >> >
> >> > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
> >> > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
> >> > earlier.
> >>
> >> And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.
> >>
> >> >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
> >> >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
> >> >> not identified logical dilemmas at all.

> >
> > Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.

>
> NO Ron , no I ****ing don't you dingdong. YOU DO, AGAIN.
>
> > Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are
> > different
> >
> > I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices)

>
> I ASK which you prefer of two dishes, without predjudice. You may answer
> freely without limitations or consequences. There is no dilemma, no absence
> of options is implied. I am imply ASKINg FOR your opinion on something.
>
> > I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices)

>
> BUSH TELLS YOU that if you do not support his adminstration you are
> supporting terrorists. It is implicit that he says there is no other way to
> intepret a failure to support him. He is trapping you, limiting you to black
> and white thinking, refusing to allow you to oppose him AND the terrorists,
> which many people wish to do. He has created a false dilemma for you.
>
> > I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices)

>
> Rudy simply wants to know which you like better, so he can plan dinner, he
> is not limiting or trapping you in any way, you are in no dilemma and are
> free to express any opinion.
>
> > Contrary to the example of the chocolate cake where -- not choosing
> > chocolate cake would make one an idiot, bush's comments don't presume
> > anything other than what is stated.

>
> Right, you're either a supporter of mine or a supporter of terrorists, that
> is false, I happen to be neither.
>
> > Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....

>
> C'mon man use your head.


It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
dilemma.


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>> dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>> > In article >, "Dutch"

>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > The example is a case of insignificant cause.

>>
>> No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>> one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>
>> You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>> running your mouth about it.

>
> In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
> vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.


You just did a complete 180.


  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>> > In article .com>,
>> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article >, "Dutch"
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>> >>
>> >>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>> >>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>> >>
>> >>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>> >>running your mouth about it.
>> >
>> >
>> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
>> > other
>> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.

>>
>> Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
>> decisive and significant.

>
> It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.


Right, they are all equal, therefore every one is significant. The only
option is that they are all insigificant, and that is clearly wrong.

>> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
>> clever, when you so plainly aren't?

>
> I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
> attach to it is your issue.


You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating points,
so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in years.


  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote
> You certainly are the centre of the universe in your scenario --
> anything to be special.


It's not special to be the centre of one's universe.


  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Derek > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article >,
>> >> >> > Derek > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Then forced complicity
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >There is no such thing.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>> >> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>> >> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>> >> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>> >> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>> >> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force
>> >> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>> >> >
>> >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding
>> >> > the
>> >> > situation.
>> >>
>> >> You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness.
>> >> Cooperating
>> >> under extreme duress does not form complicity.
>> >
>> > Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.

>>
>> Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
>> duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
>> That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.

>
> I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
> moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
> sorts of things.
>
> My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
> action?"
>
> I like your code though. I can get away with anything by finding someone
> else to blame.


If a bank teller is forced at gunpoint to give money to a robber who is at
fault? The teller took the money after all so I guess she should go to
prison.

You are such a dud.


  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> >> dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >>
> >> No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >> one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >>
> >> You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >> running your mouth about it.

> >
> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.

>
> You just did a complete 180.


No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause. A vote
has an effect, but it one vote in and of itself is insigniifcant cause
in the determination of any election.


  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >> Ron wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article .com>,
> >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >> >>
> >> >>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >> >>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >> >>
> >> >>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >> >>running your mouth about it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
> >> > other
> >> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> >> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >>
> >> Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
> >> decisive and significant.

> >
> > It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.

>
> Right, they are all equal, therefore every one is significant. The only
> option is that they are all insigificant, and that is clearly wrong.


No. They are examples of insignificant cause. An election is won based
on a variety of factors. Oddly, all of your arguments point back to the
individual being important, special, or significant in some way.

> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >> clever, when you so plainly aren't?

> >
> > I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
> > attach to it is your issue.

>
> You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating points,
> so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in years.


I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity. In fact, I have started
several posts with that phrase. Further, I didn't ask you to be my
teacher. Nor did I state that I wanted to learn what you think you can
teach me. Your arrogance in assuming that I lacked what you think you
have to offer is about you.

For example, I have been familiar with the body image arguments and
media blaming for decades. Thanks for telling me something that I
already knew. I have also been aware of conflicting and contradictory
opinions of anorexia for years. I also have my own observations having
viewed many of the relevant arguments regarding anorexia.

I acquire new information on a daily basis. To assume that I don't learn
anything is about you.
  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote
> It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
> dilemma.


Atta boy, nothin gonna change my world. There are dozens of websites on
logic that describe it, I only learned about it myself yesterday and I
understand it perfectly.

Asking which of two movies, A or B, you liked better is not a false dilemma,
it's just a question, made in good faith, without attempt to manipulate you.
No dilemma, just give your opinion, any opinion will do. You could even
mention another similiar movie that you also liked, that would not be out of
keeping with the question. Or you could respond that you don't like movies
at all. It's all good.

Saying to you that only a moron would like movie "A" presents you with a
false dilemma. You liked it OK, and you're not a moron (theoretically), so
you have a dilemma, you must declare the proposition false and contradict
me, or else aquiese to the dilemma, i.e. lie and agree that it is lousy or
admit to being a moron.

Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does not
create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one.


  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:42:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >,
> Derek > wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> > Derek > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Then forced complicity
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no such thing.
>> >>
>> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>> >
>> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

>>
>> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>> person can be forced to comply with brute force
>> and coercion if applied firmly enough.

>
>Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>
>I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
>situation. I have choice of enduring your actions, risking a broken arm
>and seeing you prosecuted for assault. I have the option of matching
>your force to free myself. I have the option of escalating my forcing to
>counter act your force. I have the option of calling out for help. I
>also have legal options and illegal options to counter your act of
>aggression such carrying a knife, gun, pepper spray. I have the option
>of disabling you by attacking your kneecap, striking your nose with an
>upward thrust, gouging your eyes, or crushing your testicles.


All that, for friendly half Nelson? A bit rough. Seriously though,
despite any struggles, if Tyson decided you should stand with
your arm up your back, I'm sure he could force both of us to
comply and stand with our arms up our backs for however
long he wanted. In physical terms, then, forced complicity does
exist, but that's being a little unfair on my part because I'm sure
you were actually referring to our choices, and whether we can
be forced to comply with someone else's choices regardless of
our own. Enter free will. Do we really have it, or could it be that
we are compelled to act according to external influences and
antecedents?

I've often argued that the act of acting indicates free will cannot
exist. I believe that if our will to act was truly free, set like a
balance scale in equilibrium with no external forces or antecedents
acting upon it, we would not act. We would remain at rest, and,
as I'm sure you're already aware, if something is at rest it cannot
be moved unless an external force acts upon it.
  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article .com>,
>> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>> >>
>> >> No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology.
>> >> The
>> >> one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>> >>
>> >> You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>> >> running your mouth about it.
>> >
>> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
>> > other
>> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.

>>
>> You just did a complete 180.

>
> No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause. A vote
> has an effect, but it one vote in and of itself is insigniifcant cause
> in the determination of any election.


So you invent your own meaning for the insignicant cause fallacy and we're
supposed to just go along with it?


  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ron wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article .com>,
>> >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology.
>> >> >>The
>> >> >>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>> >> >>running your mouth about it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
>> >> > other
>> >> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding
>> >> > vote,
>> >> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
>> >>
>> >> Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
>> >> decisive and significant.
>> >
>> > It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many
>> > votes.

>>
>> Right, they are all equal, therefore every one is significant. The only
>> option is that they are all insigificant, and that is clearly wrong.

>
> No. They are examples of insignificant cause. An election is won based
> on a variety of factors.


An election is won by votes, all of which are equally significant.

> Oddly, all of your arguments point back to the
> individual being important, special, or significant in some way.


Individuals are important, special or significant in some way.

>> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
>> >> clever, when you so plainly aren't?
>> >
>> > I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
>> > attach to it is your issue.

>>
>> You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating
>> points,
>> so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in years.

>
> I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity.


Not to me.

> In fact, I have started
> several posts with that phrase.


Usually as a lean-in to a snide rhretorical question, not out of genuine
curiosity.

>Further, I didn't ask you to be my
> teacher.


A smart individual considers everyone their teacher. I continue to attempt
to make you my teacher, but it's a losing cause, except as a lesson in how
bone-headed someone can be, but I already have enough examples of that..

Nor did I state that I wanted to learn what you think you can
> teach me. Your arrogance in assuming that I lacked what you think you
> have to offer is about you.


A closed minded, arrogant individual thinks that nobody can teach them
anything. Thanks for confirming it.

> For example, I have been familiar with the body image arguments and
> media blaming for decades. Thanks for telling me something that I
> already knew. I have also been aware of conflicting and contradictory
> opinions of anorexia for years. I also have my own observations having
> viewed many of the relevant arguments regarding anorexia.


The truth got boring did it?

> I acquire new information on a daily basis. To assume that I don't learn
> anything is about you.


There have been numerous instances where I KNOW that you have been on the
wrong track on issues, and in NOT ONE instance have you appeared to have
adjusted your thinking one iota, even when given numerous irrefutable
arguments. The 'false dilemma' is the latest in a long string of such
instances.




  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > You certainly are the centre of the universe in your scenario --
> > anything to be special.

>
> It's not special to be the centre of one's universe.


Yet, I find it difficult to feel compassion for the choices you have
made.
  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > You certainly are the centre of the universe in your scenario --
>> > anything to be special.

>>
>> It's not special to be the centre of one's universe.

>
> Yet, I find it difficult to feel compassion


I can see that. It's rather sad.

[..]


  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article >,
> >> >> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >There is no such thing.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> >> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> >> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >> >> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >> >> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >> >> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >> >> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > situation.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness.
> >> >> Cooperating
> >> >> under extreme duress does not form complicity.
> >> >
> >> > Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.
> >>
> >> Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
> >> duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
> >> That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.

> >
> > I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
> > moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
> > sorts of things.
> >
> > My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
> > action?"
> >
> > I like your code though. I can get away with anything by finding someone
> > else to blame.

>
> If a bank teller is forced at gunpoint to give money to a robber who is at
> fault? The teller took the money after all so I guess she should go to
> prison.


Who gave your money and mine away?

In my view the bank is responsible for not providing adequate security
fpr her and our money.
In my view the security guard is negligent in not providing security on
that day.
In my view the teller is negligent in her responsiblity to safeguard her
til.
In my view the security company is negligent for not providing an
adequate system to defend against such an act.
In my view the bank is negligent for not providing adequate systems and
policies not to endanger staff and our money.

Of course, your false dilemma excludes any causes for the robber to be
robbing in the first place.

Oddly, there is enough responsibility to go around, but you look for a
singular cause rather than shared responsibility.
> You are such a dud.

  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
> > dilemma.

>
> Atta boy, nothin gonna change my world. There are dozens of websites on
> logic that describe it, I only learned about it myself yesterday and I
> understand it perfectly.
>
> Asking which of two movies, A or B, you liked better is not a false dilemma,
> it's just a question, made in good faith, without attempt to manipulate you.
> No dilemma, just give your opinion, any opinion will do. You could even
> mention another similiar movie that you also liked, that would not be out of
> keeping with the question. Or you could respond that you don't like movies
> at all. It's all good.
>
> Saying to you that only a moron would like movie "A" presents you with a
> false dilemma. You liked it OK, and you're not a moron (theoretically), so
> you have a dilemma, you must declare the proposition false and contradict
> me, or else aquiese to the dilemma, i.e. lie and agree that it is lousy or
> admit to being a moron.
>
> Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does not
> create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one.


I've spent enough time on this. But I'll leave it on this note. What is
the dilemma in posing the question, are you an ass or an idiot?
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:38:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:

>I've spent enough time on this. But I'll leave it on this note. What is
>the dilemma in posing the question, are you an ass or an idiot?


That's not a false dilemma, since no other alternatives
can possibly exist in the real World.


  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article .com>,
> >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology.
> >> >> The
> >> >> one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >> >>
> >> >> You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >> >> running your mouth about it.
> >> >
> >> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
> >> > other
> >> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> >> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >>
> >> You just did a complete 180.

> >
> > No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause. A vote
> > has an effect, but it one vote in and of itself is insigniifcant cause
> > in the determination of any election.

>
> So you invent your own meaning for the insignicant cause fallacy and we're
> supposed to just go along with it?


Look it up.
  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Ron wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article .com>,
> >> >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology.
> >> >> >>The
> >> >> >>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >> >> >>running your mouth about it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
> >> >> > other
> >> >> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding
> >> >> > vote,
> >> >> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >> >>
> >> >> Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
> >> >> decisive and significant.
> >> >
> >> > It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many
> >> > votes.
> >>
> >> Right, they are all equal, therefore every one is significant. The only
> >> option is that they are all insigificant, and that is clearly wrong.

> >
> > No. They are examples of insignificant cause. An election is won based
> > on a variety of factors.

>
> An election is won by votes, all of which are equally significant.
>
> > Oddly, all of your arguments point back to the
> > individual being important, special, or significant in some way.

>
> Individuals are important, special or significant in some way.


Choosing to be anorexic is one way.

> >> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >> >> clever, when you so plainly aren't?
> >> >
> >> > I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
> >> > attach to it is your issue.
> >>
> >> You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating
> >> points,
> >> so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in years.

> >
> > I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity.

>
> Not to me.


I demonstrated it to my satisfaction. Do you see how this works.
Demonstrating anything to your satisfaction is an endless game.

> > In fact, I have started
> > several posts with that phrase.

>
> Usually as a lean-in to a snide rhretorical question, not out of genuine
> curiosity.
>
> >Further, I didn't ask you to be my
> > teacher.

>
> A smart individual considers everyone their teacher. I continue to attempt
> to make you my teacher, but it's a losing cause, except as a lesson in how
> bone-headed someone can be, but I already have enough examples of that..


Telling me information that I already have isn't teaching me anything.

> Nor did I state that I wanted to learn what you think you can
> > teach me. Your arrogance in assuming that I lacked what you think you
> > have to offer is about you.

>
> A closed minded, arrogant individual thinks that nobody can teach them
> anything. Thanks for confirming it.


LOL. I knew of the body image arguments more than 15 years ago. That you
haven't updated your material is your difficulty. That you haven't
revised your position to incorporate (or even exclude) other information
that has accumulated on the subject of anorexia is your choice. Denying
the information exists is just foolish. Acknowledging the information
and disputing would be a mark of wisdom in my view.

> > For example, I have been familiar with the body image arguments and
> > media blaming for decades. Thanks for telling me something that I
> > already knew. I have also been aware of conflicting and contradictory
> > opinions of anorexia for years. I also have my own observations having
> > viewed many of the relevant arguments regarding anorexia.

>
> The truth got boring did it?


Whatever that means.

> > I acquire new information on a daily basis. To assume that I don't learn
> > anything is about you.

>
> There have been numerous instances where I KNOW that you have been on the
> wrong track on issues, and in NOT ONE instance have you appeared to have
> adjusted your thinking one iota, even when given numerous irrefutable
> arguments. The 'false dilemma' is the latest in a long string of such
> instances.


Interpretation. You mean I've disagreed with you.
  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>>>
>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>>>>running your mouth about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.

>>
>>Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
>>decisive and significant.

>
>
> It is not significant.


It is significant. You don't understand the concept of
significance.

> That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.


Its place among the many votes has nothing to do with
its significance.

>
>
>>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?

>
>
> I think I have a tendency to be curious.


No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>>>
>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>>>>running your mouth about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.

>>
>>Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
>>decisive and significant.

>
>
> It is not significant.


It is significant. You don't understand the concept of
significance.

> That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.


Its place among the many votes has nothing to do with
its significance.

>
>
>>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?

>
>
> I think I have a tendency to be curious.


No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.
  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>>>>>production,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
>>>>>>and I
>>>>>>agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
>>>>>>rice
>>>>>>production.
>>>>>
>>>>>Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
>>>>>fallacy of insignificant cause.
>>>>
>>>>This is not an example of insignificant cause.
>>>>
>>>>The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.
>>>>
>>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory
>>>>government
>>>>because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
>>>>vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
>>>>See the following link..
>>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php
>>>
>>>What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is
>>>likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create
>>>situations where this would be viewed this way.
>>>
>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat
>>>of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted
>>>reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the
>>>centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to
>>>feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc.

>>
>>Your ranting is becoming increasing incoherent. One does not have to be at
>>the centre of the universe to be responsible. If you voted Tory and they got
>>in, you were responsible, as responsible as everyone else who voted Tory.
>>The alternative is NOBODY was responsible, and that makes no sense.

>
>
> More either/or thinking.


It's appropriate here. Your irrational dislike for
dilemmas, without really understanding what they are,
leads you into serious error.

>
> If the tories win it happens for a variety of reasons.
> More people voted tory than other options.


That is the ONLY reason.

> Other people didn't vote for other any of the choices.
>
> But let's leave it that you are the centre of the universe.


No, we won't. That's your stupid, snide, juvenilely
sarcastic outburst, intended to PREVENT adult
engagement. It's also a deliberately dishonest view of
how he sees himself: you know he doesn't see himself
as the center of the universe.

> Everything
> that happens can be connected back to you.
>
>
>>You can have your own personal reality if you want, knock yourself out.
>>
>>Likewise, the man who eats a burger is responsible for the death of the
>>steer.

>
>
> From the perspective of the eating disordered.


No, from the perspective of thoughtful philosophy.

>
> The rest of us see things differently.


No, most see it as we see it.

> The rest of us see the death of
> the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
> support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
> daily life and so on.


You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same
immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested
development.


  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>>>>>production,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
>>>>>>and I
>>>>>>agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
>>>>>>rice
>>>>>>production.
>>>>>
>>>>>Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
>>>>>fallacy of insignificant cause.
>>>>
>>>>This is not an example of insignificant cause.
>>>>
>>>>The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.
>>>>
>>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory
>>>>government
>>>>because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
>>>>vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
>>>>See the following link..
>>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php
>>>
>>>What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is
>>>likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create
>>>situations where this would be viewed this way.
>>>
>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat
>>>of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted
>>>reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the
>>>centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to
>>>feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc.

>>
>>Your ranting is becoming increasing incoherent. One does not have to be at
>>the centre of the universe to be responsible. If you voted Tory and they got
>>in, you were responsible, as responsible as everyone else who voted Tory.
>>The alternative is NOBODY was responsible, and that makes no sense.

>
>
> More either/or thinking.


It's appropriate here. Your irrational dislike for
dilemmas, without really understanding what they are,
leads you into serious error.

>
> If the tories win it happens for a variety of reasons.
> More people voted tory than other options.


That is the ONLY reason.

> Other people didn't vote for other any of the choices.
>
> But let's leave it that you are the centre of the universe.


No, we won't. That's your stupid, snide, juvenilely
sarcastic outburst, intended to PREVENT adult
engagement. It's also a deliberately dishonest view of
how he sees himself: you know he doesn't see himself
as the center of the universe.

> Everything
> that happens can be connected back to you.
>
>
>>You can have your own personal reality if you want, knock yourself out.
>>
>>Likewise, the man who eats a burger is responsible for the death of the
>>steer.

>
>
> From the perspective of the eating disordered.


No, from the perspective of thoughtful philosophy.

>
> The rest of us see things differently.


No, most see it as we see it.

> The rest of us see the death of
> the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
> support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
> daily life and so on.


You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same
immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested
development.
  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then forced complicity
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is no such thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>>>>>>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>>>>>>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>>>>>>a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>>>>>>comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>>>>>>person can be forced to comply with brute force
>>>>>>and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
>>>>>situation.
>>>>
>>>>You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
>>>>under extreme duress does not form complicity.
>>>
>>>Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.

>>
>>Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
>>duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
>>That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.

>
>
> I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
> moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
> sorts of things.
>
> My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
> action?"


That is an immature view.
  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then forced complicity
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is no such thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>>>>>>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>>>>>>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>>>>>>a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>>>>>>comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>>>>>>person can be forced to comply with brute force
>>>>>>and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
>>>>>situation.
>>>>
>>>>You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
>>>>under extreme duress does not form complicity.
>>>
>>>Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.

>>
>>Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
>>duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
>>That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.

>
>
> I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
> moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
> sorts of things.
>
> My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
> action?"


That is an immature view.
  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>>>Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....

>>
>>C'mon man use your head.

>
>
> It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
> dilemma.


It seems that you are wrong in your use of the word.
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>>>Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....

>>
>>C'mon man use your head.

>
>
> It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a
> dilemma.


It seems that you are wrong in your use of the word.


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>>>
>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>>>>running your mouth about it.
>>>
>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.

>>
>>You just did a complete 180.

>
>
> No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause.


No, you ASSERTED "insignificant cause". Your assertion
is without support; it's just dogma.
  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>>>
>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>>>>running your mouth about it.
>>>
>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.

>>
>>You just did a complete 180.

>
>
> No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause.


No, you ASSERTED "insignificant cause". Your assertion
is without support; it's just dogma.
  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article .com>,
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>>>>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>>>>>>running your mouth about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
>>>>>other
>>>>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
>>>>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
>>>>
>>>>Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
>>>>decisive and significant.
>>>
>>>It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.

>>
>>Right, they are all equal, therefore every one is significant. The only
>>option is that they are all insigificant, and that is clearly wrong.

>
>
> No. They are examples of insignificant cause.


Ipse dixit and incoherent.

> An election is won based
> on a variety of factors.


No. An election is won based on ONE factor only: the
winners getting enough votes to be declared the winners
under whatever formula is used in that jurisdiction to
decide the winner.

>
>
>> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're

>>
>>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
>>>
>>>I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
>>>attach to it is your issue.

>>
>>You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating points,
>>so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in years.

>
>
> I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity.


You have not. Quite the contrary, Ron. You repeatedly
trot out bizarre interpretations of words and ideas
just to stake out a strange position, and then you
dogmatically refuse to consider any evidence that
demonstrates your errors of reasoning and definition.
You are the antithesis of curiosity.

> In fact, I have started
> several posts with that phrase.


As if that proves anything. It's nothing but a
rhetorical trick. In fact, we have come to learn that
when you begin a passage "I'm curious...", what follows
will invariably demonstrate rigid belief in dogma and
misdefinition; in other words, the exact opposite of
genuine curiosity. You are not curious.

  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:42:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > Derek > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> >In article >,
> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is no such thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >> >
> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >>
> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough.

> >
> >Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >
> >I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
> >situation. I have choice of enduring your actions, risking a broken arm
> >and seeing you prosecuted for assault. I have the option of matching
> >your force to free myself. I have the option of escalating my forcing to
> >counter act your force. I have the option of calling out for help. I
> >also have legal options and illegal options to counter your act of
> >aggression such carrying a knife, gun, pepper spray. I have the option
> >of disabling you by attacking your kneecap, striking your nose with an
> >upward thrust, gouging your eyes, or crushing your testicles.

>
> All that, for friendly half Nelson? A bit rough. Seriously though,
> despite any struggles, if Tyson decided you should stand with
> your arm up your back, I'm sure he could force both of us to
> comply and stand with our arms up our backs for however
> long he wanted. In physical terms, then, forced complicity does
> exist, but that's being a little unfair on my part because I'm sure
> you were actually referring to our choices, and whether we can
> be forced to comply with someone else's choices regardless of
> our own. Enter free will. Do we really have it, or could it be that
> we are compelled to act according to external influences and
> antecedents?
>
> I've often argued that the act of acting indicates free will cannot
> exist. I believe that if our will to act was truly free, set like a
> balance scale in equilibrium with no external forces or antecedents
> acting upon it, we would not act. We would remain at rest, and,
> as I'm sure you're already aware, if something is at rest it cannot
> be moved unless an external force acts upon it.


You could have saved us both time, by simply stating this.

If I were a ball, or a rock then, I might agree with you. While I can
think of examples where a human acts in response to external forces,
there are examples where humans act into their environment.

For example, I just returned to my chair after making a cup of coffee.
For your theory to hold true, we would need to identify what external
force that causing me to respond. I listen to a particular type of music
daily. Again, I cannot see the external force that I am responding to in
this case either.

This is at least causes me to wonder how you are using the term force.
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:38:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>
> >I've spent enough time on this. But I'll leave it on this note. What is
> >the dilemma in posing the question, are you an ass or an idiot?

>
> That's not a false dilemma, since no other alternatives
> can possibly exist in the real World.


lol


  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article .com>,
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >>>>
> >>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >>>>running your mouth about it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
> >>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> >>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >>
> >>Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
> >>decisive and significant.

> >
> >
> > It is not significant.

>
> It is significant. You don't understand the concept of
> significance.
>
> > That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.

>
> Its place among the many votes has nothing to do with
> its significance.
>
> >
> >
> >>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >>clever, when you so plainly aren't?

> >
> >
> > I think I have a tendency to be curious.

>
> No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.


Rudy could be doing something masculine and heterosexual. But he
continues to engage me. Hmmm.
  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article .com>,
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >>>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >>>>
> >>>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >>>>running your mouth about it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
> >>>vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> >>>my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
> >>
> >>Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
> >>decisive and significant.

> >
> >
> > It is not significant.

>
> It is significant. You don't understand the concept of
> significance.
>
> > That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.

>
> Its place among the many votes has nothing to do with
> its significance.
>
> >
> >
> >>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> >>clever, when you so plainly aren't?

> >
> >
> > I think I have a tendency to be curious.

>
> No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.


Rudy could be doing something masculine and heterosexual. But he
continues to engage me. Hmmm.
  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>It is significant. You don't understand the concept of
>>significance.
>>
>>
>>>That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.

>>
>>Its place among the many votes has nothing to do with
>>its significance.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
>>>>clever, when you so plainly aren't?
>>>
>>>
>>>I think I have a tendency to be curious.

>>
>>No, you really don't exhibit curiosity in the least.

>
>
> Rudy could be doing something masculine and heterosexual. But he
> continues to engage me. Hmmm.


More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest
adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing.

  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
> >>>>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
> >>>>>>>production,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
> >>>>>>and I
> >>>>>>agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
> >>>>>>rice
> >>>>>>production.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
> >>>>>fallacy of insignificant cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is not an example of insignificant cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory
> >>>>government
> >>>>because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
> >>>>vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
> >>>>See the following link..
> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php
> >>>
> >>>What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is
> >>>likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create
> >>>situations where this would be viewed this way.
> >>>
> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat
> >>>of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted
> >>>reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the
> >>>centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to
> >>>feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc.
> >>
> >>Your ranting is becoming increasing incoherent. One does not have to be at
> >>the centre of the universe to be responsible. If you voted Tory and they
> >>got
> >>in, you were responsible, as responsible as everyone else who voted Tory.
> >>The alternative is NOBODY was responsible, and that makes no sense.

> >
> >
> > More either/or thinking.

>
> It's appropriate here. Your irrational dislike for
> dilemmas, without really understanding what they are,
> leads you into serious error.
>
> >
> > If the tories win it happens for a variety of reasons.
> > More people voted tory than other options.

>
> That is the ONLY reason.
>
> > Other people didn't vote for other any of the choices.
> >
> > But let's leave it that you are the centre of the universe.

>
> No, we won't. That's your stupid, snide, juvenilely
> sarcastic outburst, intended to PREVENT adult
> engagement. It's also a deliberately dishonest view of
> how he sees himself: you know he doesn't see himself
> as the center of the universe.
>
> > Everything
> > that happens can be connected back to you.
> >
> >
> >>You can have your own personal reality if you want, knock yourself out.
> >>
> >>Likewise, the man who eats a burger is responsible for the death of the
> >>steer.

> >
> >
> > From the perspective of the eating disordered.

>
> No, from the perspective of thoughtful philosophy.
>
> >
> > The rest of us see things differently.

>
> No, most see it as we see it.
>
> > The rest of us see the death of
> > the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
> > support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
> > daily life and so on.

>
> You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same
> immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested
> development.


Indeed. Children have difficulty when presented with a "no" and then
begin to act out in all sorts of ways. Scented and myself have refused
to act in accordance with your requests and demands. Who is acting
consistent with arrested development?

Children, often times those with passive aggressive mental health issues
will often act out by swearing and using language in appropriate to
social circumstance. Scented and myself seem to be able to moderate our
use of language to be consistent with a public and social forum. Who is
acting consistent with arrested development?
  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
> >>>>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
> >>>>>>>production,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
> >>>>>>and I
> >>>>>>agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
> >>>>>>rice
> >>>>>>production.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
> >>>>>fallacy of insignificant cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is not an example of insignificant cause.
> >>>>
> >>>>The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory
> >>>>government
> >>>>because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
> >>>>vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
> >>>>See the following link..
> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php
> >>>
> >>>What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is
> >>>likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create
> >>>situations where this would be viewed this way.
> >>>
> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat
> >>>of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted
> >>>reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the
> >>>centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to
> >>>feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc.
> >>
> >>Your ranting is becoming increasing incoherent. One does not have to be at
> >>the centre of the universe to be responsible. If you voted Tory and they
> >>got
> >>in, you were responsible, as responsible as everyone else who voted Tory.
> >>The alternative is NOBODY was responsible, and that makes no sense.

> >
> >
> > More either/or thinking.

>
> It's appropriate here. Your irrational dislike for
> dilemmas, without really understanding what they are,
> leads you into serious error.
>
> >
> > If the tories win it happens for a variety of reasons.
> > More people voted tory than other options.

>
> That is the ONLY reason.
>
> > Other people didn't vote for other any of the choices.
> >
> > But let's leave it that you are the centre of the universe.

>
> No, we won't. That's your stupid, snide, juvenilely
> sarcastic outburst, intended to PREVENT adult
> engagement. It's also a deliberately dishonest view of
> how he sees himself: you know he doesn't see himself
> as the center of the universe.
>
> > Everything
> > that happens can be connected back to you.
> >
> >
> >>You can have your own personal reality if you want, knock yourself out.
> >>
> >>Likewise, the man who eats a burger is responsible for the death of the
> >>steer.

> >
> >
> > From the perspective of the eating disordered.

>
> No, from the perspective of thoughtful philosophy.
>
> >
> > The rest of us see things differently.

>
> No, most see it as we see it.
>
> > The rest of us see the death of
> > the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to
> > support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his
> > daily life and so on.

>
> You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same
> immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested
> development.


Indeed. Children have difficulty when presented with a "no" and then
begin to act out in all sorts of ways. Scented and myself have refused
to act in accordance with your requests and demands. Who is acting
consistent with arrested development?

Children, often times those with passive aggressive mental health issues
will often act out by swearing and using language in appropriate to
social circumstance. Scented and myself seem to be able to moderate our
use of language to be consistent with a public and social forum. Who is
acting consistent with arrested development?
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder usual suspect Vegan 0 14-08-2005 02:37 PM
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water Jay Santos Vegan 0 31-12-2004 06:36 AM
dreck nash is a crybaby liar usual suspect Vegan 6 23-05-2004 07:16 PM
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 Jonathan Ball Vegan 1 11-05-2004 08:30 AM
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context Jonathan Ball Vegan 31 03-11-2003 08:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"