 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article > , > >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> > > >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >> >> engagement and wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > In article >, > >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >> >> >>engagement and wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>>>>Look it up. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>>I did already but here it is again... > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >> >> >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause 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." > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of > >> >> >>>logic > >> >> >>>or logical fallacies. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>The author of the material contained at their site IS > >> >> >>an authority. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. > >> >> > >> >> Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. > >> > > >> > Sorry, Rudy, you lose. > >> > >> No, you lose by virtue of being WRONG, and refusing to admit it and move > >> on. > > > > You continue to have a hard time with my "no" > > I don't give up on people easily. > > > and your desire to stay > > connected to me in some way. > > There are usually two explanations for that, I think the other person has > something learn from me, or I think I have something to learn from them. > > Were you implying that my interest in our discussion is unhealthy? No, I just think it's cute when so-called straight men make such an effort to stay connected to me. It's particularly fun when it happens at dinner parties and social functions. Oh, the stories I could tell. I always think it funny when a man holds his wife or girlfriend's hand while investigating my crotch. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article et>, >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> > >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> >> engagement and wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article t>, >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> >> >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no >> >> >>>>>>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am >> >> >>>>>>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is >> >> >>>>>>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>Nope. No fear. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>Personally, I find your nature abusive. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>I doubt that. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>You found me out. >> >> >> >> >> >>It wasn't hard. You're a pretty lousy liar. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Are you a good liar, or bad liar? >> >> >> >> Fallacy of complex question. >> >> >> >> I understand logical fallacies. You do not. >> > >> > It was only a question Rudy. >> >> No, it was a false dilemma, one of those fallacies you don't understand. > > I stand corrected, Dutch. Excellent! > Rudy, do you prefer to be a good liar, or a > bad liar? Who would want to be bad at something? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:33:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:04:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things >>>>> >>>>>that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>are entirely or wholly within their control. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of >>>>>>it describes Skunky to a T! >>>>> >>>>>Are you still trying to claim I'm the one >>>>>who's responsible for cds the farmers >>>>>cause? >>>> >>>> >>>> You can't be responsible since they would happen >>>>even if you didn't exist. >>> >>>No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. >> >> >> Sure it is. > >It's not an effective means. LOL! Okay, I get it, you're just kidding. We agree that it is a very effective means. >>>See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and >>>shared responsibility. >> >> >> Do they explain how a person can be responsible for >> the death of an animal that happened before the person >> was born? > >That's not the issue here. LOL. >>>>But you do contribute to them, >>>>regardless of the significance of your contribution. >>> >>>In other words, she shares responsibility. >> >> >> She/we deliberately become part of groups which are >> responsible as a group, but since the deaths would take >> place without our participation we're not personally >> responsible. > >You are responsible: the deaths would not take place >if everyone withdrew. That doesn't in any way make me responsible. >Matheny's paper deals with this well. Why, does he have a singing pig or something like that? Let's see it Gonad. Just post whatever it is you're so worked up about, or I'll know that you know it's just more garbage and it isn't worth posting. >You cannot claim >no responsibility. Well, I can for the things I'm not responsible for, like the deaths of the animals I eat. I am in absolutely no way responsible for them, though I have contributed to some of them. I'll soon be eating some chicken Gonad, and will never in any way be responsible for the death of that bird, or any other bird which has lived its life in the same chicken house, or on the same chicken farm, or been raised by the same chicken company, even if I eat some of them too. Even if I eat 5 out of 30000 birds from a particular flock I would not in any way be responsible for their deaths, and nothing Matheny has ever said can change that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:33:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > wrote: >> >> >>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:04:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things >>>>>> >>>>>>that >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>are entirely or wholly within their control. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of >>>>>>>it describes Skunky to a T! >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you still trying to claim I'm the one >>>>>>who's responsible for cds the farmers >>>>>>cause? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You can't be responsible since they would happen >>>>>even if you didn't exist. >>>> >>>>No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. >>> >>> >>> Sure it is. >> >>It's not an effective means. > > > We agree that > it is a very effective means. It is not an effective means at all. > > >>>>See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and >>>>shared responsibility. >>> >>> >>> Do they explain how a person can be responsible for >>>the death of an animal that happened before the person >>>was born? >> >>That's not the issue here. > >>>>>But you do contribute to them, >>>>>regardless of the significance of your contribution. >>>> >>>>In other words, she shares responsibility. >>> >>> >>> She/we deliberately become part of groups which are >>>responsible as a group, but since the deaths would take >>>place without our participation we're not personally >>>responsible. >> >>You are responsible: the deaths would not take place >>if everyone withdrew. > > > That doesn't in any way make me responsible. Yes, it does: shared responsibility for an outcome resulting from a process in which you and other play an integral part. > > >>Matheny's paper deals with this well. You cannot claim >>no responsibility. > > > Well, I can for the things I'm not responsible for, like the > deaths of the animals I eat. I am in absolutely no way > responsible for them, though I have contributed to some > of them. You just contradicted yourself. You bear responsibility because without consumers like you, there would be no animal industry at all. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:46:52 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>****wit wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:33:11 GMT, the Gonad wrote: >> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:04:16 GMT, the Gonad wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things >>>>>>> >>>>>>>that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>are entirely or wholly within their control. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of >>>>>>>>it describes Skunky to a T! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Are you still trying to claim I'm the one >>>>>>>who's responsible for cds the farmers >>>>>>>cause? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You can't be responsible since they would happen >>>>>>even if you didn't exist. >>>>> >>>>>No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sure it is. >>> >>>It's not an effective means. >> >> >> We agree that >> it is a very effective means. > >It is not an effective means at all. We agree that it is, so shut up. >>>>>See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and >>>>>shared responsibility. >>>> >>>> >>>> Do they explain how a person can be responsible for >>>>the death of an animal that happened before the person >>>>was born? >>> >>>That's not the issue here. LOL! What a Gonad. >>>>>>But you do contribute to them, >>>>>>regardless of the significance of your contribution. >>>>> >>>>>In other words, she shares responsibility. >>>> >>>> >>>> She/we deliberately become part of groups which are >>>>responsible as a group, but since the deaths would take >>>>place without our participation we're not personally >>>>responsible. >>> >>>You are responsible: the deaths would not take place >>>if everyone withdrew. >> >> >> That doesn't in any way make me responsible. > >Yes, it does: shared responsibility for an outcome >resulting from a process in which you and other play an >integral part. > >> >> >>>Matheny's paper deals with this well. It doesn't deal with it at all, as you have proven. >>>You cannot claim >>>no responsibility. >> >> >> Well, I can for the things I'm not responsible for, like the >> deaths of the animals I eat. I am in absolutely no way >> responsible for them, though I have contributed to some >> of them. > >You just contradicted yourself. No. I would have been very surprised if you were capable of understanding that a person can contribute to something, without being responsible for whether or not it takes place. You're just too stupid to understand things like that. >You bear >responsibility because without consumers like you, >there would be no animal industry at all. Without me, the animals would still be dead, so I'm not responsible. But you're just too stupid to understand things like that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:46:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: > > >>****wit wrote: >> >> >>> >>>>>>> You can't be responsible since they would happen >>>>>>>even if you didn't exist. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure it is. >>>> >>>>It's not an effective means. >>> >>> >>> We agree that >>>it is a very effective means. >> >>It is not an effective means at all. > > > We agree that it is We don't agree. It is not an effective means of denying responsibility. It doesn't hold up to basic philsophical scrutiny. >>>>>>See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and >>>>>>shared responsibility. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do they explain how a person can be responsible for >>>>>the death of an animal that happened before the person >>>>>was born? >>>> >>>>That's not the issue here. > >>>>>>>But you do contribute to them, >>>>>>>regardless of the significance of your contribution. >>>>>> >>>>>>In other words, she shares responsibility. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> She/we deliberately become part of groups which are >>>>>responsible as a group, but since the deaths would take >>>>>place without our participation we're not personally >>>>>responsible. >>>> >>>>You are responsible: the deaths would not take place >>>>if everyone withdrew. >>> >>> >>> That doesn't in any way make me responsible. >> >>Yes, it does: shared responsibility for an outcome >>resulting from a process in which you and other play an >>integral part. >> >> >>> >>>>Matheny's paper deals with this well. > > > It doesn't deal with it at all It does deal with it, and very well. The claim that "it would happen without me" doesn't hold water. > > >>>>You cannot claim >>>>no responsibility. >>> >>> >>> Well, I can for the things I'm not responsible for, like the >>>deaths of the animals I eat. I am in absolutely no way >>>responsible for them, though I have contributed to some >>>of them. >> >>You just contradicted yourself. > > > No. Yes. You contradicted yourself. > >>You bear >>responsibility because without consumers like you, >>there would be no animal industry at all. > > > Without me, the animals would still be dead, so I'm not > responsible. You are responsible. Without you and all others like you, there would be no animals. You and all others who participate, no matter how "atomically", are responsible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >> >> >> >> >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause 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." >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> > logic >> >> >> >> > or logical fallacies. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then try any one of the dozens of other similiar references. >> >> > >> >> > Then you acknowledge that the logical fallacy of an appeal to >> >> > authority >> >> > is being used. >> >> >> >> You were wrong about the "insignificant cause" fallacy and you will >> >> continue >> >> to be wrong about virtually everything until you alter your approach. >> >> >> >> Beating your chest and proclaiming, "I am Ron and nobody can tell me >> >> anything" is not a useful strategy. >> > >> > Dutch, it is considered socially unacceptable and the mark of passive >> > aggressiveness to teach those who are not asking to be taught. >> >> I can live with that. >> >> But that begs the question, when did you stop pursuing intellectual >> development and why? > > LOL. Okay, your credentials to teach me anything would be...? A predictable reaction from someone who wishes to maintain a closed mind. >> > I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is again >> > a >> > case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. >> >> Your sexual preferences are immaterial to me. Are you looking for >> clemency >> because of them? > > Clemency? Immaterial? Moral arbiter? A frustrated judge who just fell > short of the mark. I respond to you because you are making commentary to a forum I watch and I find your contributions raise interesting opportunities for response. It has nothing to do with your sexual preferences. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article > , >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> >> >> engagement and wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article >, >> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> >> >> >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Look it up. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>I did already but here it is again... >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >> >> >> >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause 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." >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject >> >> >> >>>of >> >> >> >>>logic >> >> >> >>>or logical fallacies. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>The author of the material contained at their site IS >> >> >> >>an authority. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. >> >> >> >> >> >> Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. >> >> > >> >> > Sorry, Rudy, you lose. >> >> >> >> No, you lose by virtue of being WRONG, and refusing to admit it and >> >> move >> >> on. >> > >> > You continue to have a hard time with my "no" >> >> I don't give up on people easily. >> >> > and your desire to stay >> > connected to me in some way. >> >> There are usually two explanations for that, I think the other person has >> something learn from me, or I think I have something to learn from them. >> >> Were you implying that my interest in our discussion is unhealthy? > > No, I just think it's cute when so-called straight men make such an > effort to stay connected to me. It's particularly fun when it happens at > dinner parties and social functions. Oh, the stories I could tell. I > always think it funny when a man holds his wife or girlfriend's hand > while investigating my crotch. You keep raising the issue of sexual motivation. I have considered the idea that you keep these conversations going primarily as a way to have connections with straight men. It certainly isn't for the usual intellectual pursuits. In any case, true or not, I choose to ignore it. I also choose to ignore the possibility that you are playing another sort of game, just a form of trolling. I choose to believe that you are seeking intellectual stimulation of some kind. I'm not saying these are wise or accurate assumptions, but they'll do for now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 >, "Dutch" > >> >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >> >> >> >> >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause 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." > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject > >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> > logic > >> >> >> >> > or logical fallacies. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Then try any one of the dozens of other similiar references. > >> >> > > >> >> > Then you acknowledge that the logical fallacy of an appeal to > >> >> > authority > >> >> > is being used. > >> >> > >> >> You were wrong about the "insignificant cause" fallacy and you will > >> >> continue > >> >> to be wrong about virtually everything until you alter your approach. > >> >> > >> >> Beating your chest and proclaiming, "I am Ron and nobody can tell me > >> >> anything" is not a useful strategy. > >> > > >> > Dutch, it is considered socially unacceptable and the mark of passive > >> > aggressiveness to teach those who are not asking to be taught. > >> > >> I can live with that. > >> > >> But that begs the question, when did you stop pursuing intellectual > >> development and why? > > > > LOL. Okay, your credentials to teach me anything would be...? > > A predictable reaction from someone who wishes to maintain a closed mind. > > >> > I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is again > >> > a > >> > case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. > >> > >> Your sexual preferences are immaterial to me. Are you looking for > >> clemency > >> because of them? > > > > Clemency? Immaterial? Moral arbiter? A frustrated judge who just fell > > short of the mark. > > I respond to you because you are making commentary to a forum I watch and I > find your contributions raise interesting opportunities for response. It has > nothing to do with your sexual preferences. You avoided the point. I find based on your comments that you exhibit many of the qualities that would make a judge. Whether that would make you a good judge or any other type of judge is unknown. I find it curious though that you would apply such legalese (my fascination with sociolinguistics) to sexuality. Sexuality is a human endeavour with many reasons driving the behaviour. Yet, in a culture sexually repressed and religiously influenced you would apply legal terms to what many people do on a fairly frequent basis -- engage in sexual relationships. Sorry for raising the same issue, but repressed notions of sexuality are consistent with what I've mentioned and what others have theorized on the difficulties associated with eating disorders. To deem sex as criminal or requiring leniency or clemency is, well, it's the first time in all my years that i"ve heard the term applied to sexuality. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 > , > >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >> >> >> engagement and wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In article >, > >> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >> >> >> >>engagement and wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>>Look it up. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>I did already but here it is again... > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >> >> >> >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause 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." > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject > >> >> >> >>>of > >> >> >> >>>logic > >> >> >> >>>or logical fallacies. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>The author of the material contained at their site IS > >> >> >> >>an authority. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. > >> >> > > >> >> > Sorry, Rudy, you lose. > >> >> > >> >> No, you lose by virtue of being WRONG, and refusing to admit it and > >> >> move > >> >> on. > >> > > >> > You continue to have a hard time with my "no" > >> > >> I don't give up on people easily. > >> > >> > and your desire to stay > >> > connected to me in some way. > >> > >> There are usually two explanations for that, I think the other person has > >> something learn from me, or I think I have something to learn from them. > >> > >> Were you implying that my interest in our discussion is unhealthy? > > > > No, I just think it's cute when so-called straight men make such an > > effort to stay connected to me. It's particularly fun when it happens at > > dinner parties and social functions. Oh, the stories I could tell. I > > always think it funny when a man holds his wife or girlfriend's hand > > while investigating my crotch. > > You keep raising the issue of sexual motivation. I have considered the idea > that you keep these conversations going primarily as a way to have > connections with straight men. It certainly isn't for the usual intellectual > pursuits. In any case, true or not, I choose to ignore it. I also choose to > ignore the possibility that you are playing another sort of game, just a > form of trolling. I choose to believe that you are seeking intellectual > stimulation of some kind. I'm not saying these are wise or accurate > assumptions, but they'll do for now. Since I've already commented on this, there is nothing new here. I've already stated that I consider those who are abusive towards homosexual men to be harbouring aggression for their own tendencies that they resist. Pearl commented on this by supplying a snipet on projection. The illusion of heterosexuality as a cover for homosexuality is know to us. My only real surprise is that heterosexual women tolerate this. for example, I remember one day on the subway when a "straight" man holding his girlfriend's hand was flirting with me. She seemed to notice and tolerated it -- although she did get angry and push his hand away eventually. I would be foolish to think this was the first time that it happened. Given I live in a largely heterosexual world, there are certain patterns of behaviour that do become obvious. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: >> >> > I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is >> >> > again >> >> > a >> >> > case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. >> >> >> >> Your sexual preferences are immaterial to me. Are you looking for >> >> clemency >> >> because of them? >> > >> > Clemency? Immaterial? Moral arbiter? A frustrated judge who just fell >> > short of the mark. >> >> I respond to you because you are making commentary to a forum I watch and >> I >> find your contributions raise interesting opportunities for response. It >> has >> nothing to do with your sexual preferences. > > You avoided the point. I find based on your comments that you exhibit > many of the qualities that would make a judge. Whether that would make > you a good judge or any other type of judge is unknown. I take your meaning. > I find it > curious though that you would apply such legalese (my fascination with > sociolinguistics) to sexuality. Sexuality is a human endeavour with many > reasons driving the behaviour. Yet, in a culture sexually repressed and > religiously influenced you would apply legal terms to what many people > do on a fairly frequent basis -- engage in sexual relationships. I'm not referring anything to sexuality, you're the one thinks everything is related to repressed homosexuality. > Sorry for raising the same issue, but repressed notions of sexuality are > consistent with what I've mentioned and what others have theorized on > the difficulties associated with eating disorders. Of course you embrace such theories like gospel since they reinforce your obsession with sexual dysfunction. > To deem sex as criminal or requiring leniency or clemency is, well, it's > the first time in all my years that i"ve heard the term applied to > sexuality. I'm simply trying to ascertain why you keep harping on sexual identity problems. Could this be projection perhaps? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: >> You keep raising the issue of sexual motivation. I have considered the >> idea >> that you keep these conversations going primarily as a way to have >> connections with straight men. It certainly isn't for the usual >> intellectual >> pursuits. In any case, true or not, I choose to ignore it. I also choose >> to >> ignore the possibility that you are playing another sort of game, just a >> form of trolling. I choose to believe that you are seeking intellectual >> stimulation of some kind. I'm not saying these are wise or accurate >> assumptions, but they'll do for now. > > Since I've already commented on this, there is nothing new here. Good, because I don't care. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > >> >> > I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is > >> >> > again > >> >> > a > >> >> > case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. > >> >> > >> >> Your sexual preferences are immaterial to me. Are you looking for > >> >> clemency > >> >> because of them? > >> > > >> > Clemency? Immaterial? Moral arbiter? A frustrated judge who just fell > >> > short of the mark. > >> > >> I respond to you because you are making commentary to a forum I watch and > >> I > >> find your contributions raise interesting opportunities for response. It > >> has > >> nothing to do with your sexual preferences. > > > > You avoided the point. I find based on your comments that you exhibit > > many of the qualities that would make a judge. Whether that would make > > you a good judge or any other type of judge is unknown. > > I take your meaning. > > > I find it > > curious though that you would apply such legalese (my fascination with > > sociolinguistics) to sexuality. Sexuality is a human endeavour with many > > reasons driving the behaviour. Yet, in a culture sexually repressed and > > religiously influenced you would apply legal terms to what many people > > do on a fairly frequent basis -- engage in sexual relationships. > > I'm not referring anything to sexuality, you're the one thinks everything is > related to repressed homosexuality. Sorry. I didn't realize that adult discussions about human sexuality caused you distress. > > Sorry for raising the same issue, but repressed notions of sexuality are > > consistent with what I've mentioned and what others have theorized on > > the difficulties associated with eating disorders. > > Of course you embrace such theories like gospel since they reinforce your > obsession with sexual dysfunction. Dysfunction? Some are clingy when it comes to traditional notions of human sexuality. If the topic of human sexuality is that distressing, please state that and I'll move on. > > To deem sex as criminal or requiring leniency or clemency is, well, it's > > the first time in all my years that i"ve heard the term applied to > > sexuality. > > I'm simply trying to ascertain why you keep harping on sexual identity > problems. Could this be projection perhaps? Let's see. I'm openly *** and have been so for more than 20 years. Family, friends, all know and social and professional contacts generally know. So I would have to say no. To return to what I stated several times, when I encounter so-called heterosexual males who exhibit this behaviour it is usually that they in fact are ***, but just need encouragement to make their disclosure. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > >> You keep raising the issue of sexual motivation. I have considered the > >> idea > >> that you keep these conversations going primarily as a way to have > >> connections with straight men. It certainly isn't for the usual > >> intellectual > >> pursuits. In any case, true or not, I choose to ignore it. I also choose > >> to > >> ignore the possibility that you are playing another sort of game, just a > >> form of trolling. I choose to believe that you are seeking intellectual > >> stimulation of some kind. I'm not saying these are wise or accurate > >> assumptions, but they'll do for now. > > > > Since I've already commented on this, there is nothing new here. > > Good, because I don't care. So you've typed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is >> >> >> > again >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. >> >> >> >> >> >> Your sexual preferences are immaterial to me. Are you looking for >> >> >> clemency >> >> >> because of them? >> >> > >> >> > Clemency? Immaterial? Moral arbiter? A frustrated judge who just >> >> > fell >> >> > short of the mark. >> >> >> >> I respond to you because you are making commentary to a forum I watch >> >> and >> >> I >> >> find your contributions raise interesting opportunities for response. >> >> It >> >> has >> >> nothing to do with your sexual preferences. >> > >> > You avoided the point. I find based on your comments that you exhibit >> > many of the qualities that would make a judge. Whether that would make >> > you a good judge or any other type of judge is unknown. >> >> I take your meaning. >> >> > I find it >> > curious though that you would apply such legalese (my fascination with >> > sociolinguistics) to sexuality. Sexuality is a human endeavour with >> > many >> > reasons driving the behaviour. Yet, in a culture sexually repressed and >> > religiously influenced you would apply legal terms to what many people >> > do on a fairly frequent basis -- engage in sexual relationships. >> >> I'm not referring anything to sexuality, you're the one thinks everything >> is >> related to repressed homosexuality. > > Sorry. I didn't realize that adult discussions about human sexuality > caused you distress. They don't. It's off-topic. >> > Sorry for raising the same issue, but repressed notions of sexuality >> > are >> > consistent with what I've mentioned and what others have theorized on >> > the difficulties associated with eating disorders. >> >> Of course you embrace such theories like gospel since they reinforce your >> obsession with sexual dysfunction. > > Dysfunction? Some are clingy when it comes to traditional notions of > human sexuality. If the topic of human sexuality is that distressing, > please state that and I'll move on. False dilemma. >> > To deem sex as criminal or requiring leniency or clemency is, well, it's >> > the first time in all my years that i"ve heard the term applied to >> > sexuality. >> >> I'm simply trying to ascertain why you keep harping on sexual identity >> problems. Could this be projection perhaps? > > Let's see. I'm openly *** and have been so for more than 20 years. > Family, friends, all know and social and professional contacts generally > know. So I would have to say no. > > To return to what I stated several times, when I encounter so-called > heterosexual males who exhibit this behaviour it is usually that they in > fact are ***, but just need encouragement to make their disclosure. Do most homosexuals think that everyone else is *** and just don't know it? I have noted that homosexuals in general are obsessed with making a show of their sexuality. Really though, let's get off this topic, it has nothing to do with animals or food. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article >, "Dutch" > > >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> >> > I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is > >> >> >> > again > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Your sexual preferences are immaterial to me. Are you looking for > >> >> >> clemency > >> >> >> because of them? > >> >> > > >> >> > Clemency? Immaterial? Moral arbiter? A frustrated judge who just > >> >> > fell > >> >> > short of the mark. > >> >> > >> >> I respond to you because you are making commentary to a forum I watch > >> >> and > >> >> I > >> >> find your contributions raise interesting opportunities for response. > >> >> It > >> >> has > >> >> nothing to do with your sexual preferences. > >> > > >> > You avoided the point. I find based on your comments that you exhibit > >> > many of the qualities that would make a judge. Whether that would make > >> > you a good judge or any other type of judge is unknown. > >> > >> I take your meaning. > >> > >> > I find it > >> > curious though that you would apply such legalese (my fascination with > >> > sociolinguistics) to sexuality. Sexuality is a human endeavour with > >> > many > >> > reasons driving the behaviour. Yet, in a culture sexually repressed and > >> > religiously influenced you would apply legal terms to what many people > >> > do on a fairly frequent basis -- engage in sexual relationships. > >> > >> I'm not referring anything to sexuality, you're the one thinks everything > >> is > >> related to repressed homosexuality. > > > > Sorry. I didn't realize that adult discussions about human sexuality > > caused you distress. > > They don't. It's off-topic. > > >> > Sorry for raising the same issue, but repressed notions of sexuality > >> > are > >> > consistent with what I've mentioned and what others have theorized on > >> > the difficulties associated with eating disorders. > >> > >> Of course you embrace such theories like gospel since they reinforce your > >> obsession with sexual dysfunction. > > > > Dysfunction? Some are clingy when it comes to traditional notions of > > human sexuality. If the topic of human sexuality is that distressing, > > please state that and I'll move on. > > False dilemma. > > >> > To deem sex as criminal or requiring leniency or clemency is, well, > it's > >> > the first time in all my years that i"ve heard the term applied to > >> > sexuality. > >> > >> I'm simply trying to ascertain why you keep harping on sexual identity > >> problems. Could this be projection perhaps? > > > > Let's see. I'm openly *** and have been so for more than 20 years. > > Family, friends, all know and social and professional contacts generally > > know. So I would have to say no. > > > > To return to what I stated several times, when I encounter so-called > > heterosexual males who exhibit this behaviour it is usually that they in > > fact are ***, but just need encouragement to make their disclosure. > > Do most homosexuals think that everyone else is *** and just don't know it? > I have noted that homosexuals in general are obsessed with making a show of > their sexuality. > > Really though, let's get off this topic, it has nothing to do with animals > or food. What about Rudy's quiz? How pertinent is that? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote
>> Really though, let's get off this topic, it has nothing to do with >> animals >> or food. > > What about Rudy's quiz? How pertinent is that? Not very. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
To continue this debate, would you mind if we do
it under the more wholesome subject title "Free will Vs Forced Complicity" I've started in a.a.e.v.? On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:01:46 -0500, Ron > wrote: >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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:01:46 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>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. By stating what; what I wrote above your line, or what you write below this one? >If I were a ball, or a rock then, I might agree with you. I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. >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. The forces that motivate our will to act may be anything, ranging from desires to fears and even time, but before acting on those forces we reason with them to resolve any conflicts between them so that we can act according to own laws quickly. I might have the desire to smoke right now, but carry a fear of cancer and heart disease, plus the antecedent of going through a hard quit since last April. Reasoning with these desires, fears and antecedents then drives my will not to smoke. If, on the other hand I'm found in a position of choosing between two choices, and picking either carries the same gain or loss, without the motivation of time I would dither and not choose between either. Without a desire or fear for either choice and no pressure to choose, I would not act at all. I might act randomly and pick one object, but that indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will was the originator of that unintentional choice. Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that motivates our will to act by resolving conflicts between our fears, desires and antecedent events quickly. Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude we cannot have free will. For my assertion to gain any support, all that's required on my part is to somehow prove that the act of acting proves free will cannot exist. 1) If our will to act is in equilibrium and free from external influences, time and antecedents, then we would not act. 2) We act therefore 3) our will is not in equilibrium and free from external influences, time and antecedents. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 Jan 2005 14:55:13 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:55:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza >wrote: >> >>> Derek wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>No, I didn't. I wrote >> >>>>> >> >>>>> His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem >> >>>>> with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however, >> >>>>> is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral >> >>>>> deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis". >> >> >> >> You cannot lie >> > >> >I didn't. >> >> As is usual with you, >As usual with you, I don't tolerate your deliberate lying. > >**** off. You categorically stated that, "it (Matheny's analysis) also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.", and when I pressed you on this issue you finally admitted that it was an extension of YOUR OWN making which made the link rather than Matheny's analysis itself, "Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it. ...... Matheny didn't need to cover it; I took care of it for him." Your so-called "extension" doesn't link vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by autonomous farmers. Rather, you've asserted it does without even explaining how this "extension" of YOURS does it. You've got to do better than that, Jon. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:19:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "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. >> >> No. It only links the consumer the death of his rice. >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production >> of rice, not antecedent to it. > >There is no meaningful difference. That's a meaningless response and doesn't address what I wrote above it. Matheny's article shows that meatarians cannot rely on act utilitarianism to avoid moral responsibility for the deaths they vicariously cause. Unlike the contingent collateral deaths associated in crop farming, the target deaths associated with meat eating are antecedent to it. Matheny does not link collateral deaths in crop farming to vegetarians. He links meatarians to the deaths they cause. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "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. > > No. It only links the consumer the death of his rice. > Collateral deaths are contingent to the production > of rice, not antecedent to it. **** you and your big words that you don't really understand (but I do). The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to the deaths of animals of the field that they don't eat by exactly the same mechanism that meat eaters - not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the deaths of the animals they do eat. You share responsibility for the deaths caused by the production of the food you eat. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 31 Jan 2005 08:32:22 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "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. >> >> No. It only links the consumer to the death of his rice. >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production >> of rice, not antecedent to it. > >**** you and your big words that you don't really understand Ad hominem. >The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to the deaths of animals >of the field that they don't eat by exactly the same mechanism that >meat eaters - not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the deaths >of the animals they do eat. Matheny's article is to show that meatarians cannot rely on act utilitarianism to avoid moral responsibility for the deaths they vicariously cause. Unlike the contingent collateral deaths associated in crop farming, the target deaths associated with meat eating are antecedent to it. Matheny does not link collateral deaths in crop farming to vegetarians. He links meatarians to the deaths they cause. That's all. >You share responsibility for the deaths caused by the production of the >food you eat. Ipse dixit and false. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 08:32:22 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater 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. > >> > >> No. It only links the consumer to the death of his rice. > >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production > >> of rice, not antecedent to it. > > > >**** you and your big words that you don't really understand > > Ad hominem. Nope. You didn't learn those words in school, nor in the course of your employment. You don't naturally speak like that. You're only using them in a futile attempt to make yourself sound more erudite than a carpenter/car spark really is. > > >The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to the deaths of animals > >of the field that they don't eat by exactly the same mechanism that > >meat eaters - not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the deaths > >of the animals they do eat. > > Matheny's article is to show that meatarians No such word as "meatarian". Matheny's article lays out a kind of logical thinking about act utilitarianism and contributory causation. It extends perfectly well to "vegans" and the deaths of animals of the field in the course of the production and distribution of the foods they eat. The linkage is identical. > > >You share responsibility for the deaths caused by the production of the > >food you eat. > > Ipse dixit and false. No, true. Matheny's logic extends perfectly to cover "vegans" and their linkage to animal death. Once again, you lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:53:44 GMT, Gonad wrote:
>****wit David Harrison wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:46:52 GMT, Gonad wrote: >> >> >>>****wit wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>>> You can't be responsible since they would happen >>>>>>>>even if you didn't exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure it is. >>>>> >>>>>It's not an effective means. >>>> >>>> >>>> We agree that >>>>it is a very effective means. >>> >>>It is not an effective means at all. >> >> >> We agree that it is > >We don't agree. It is not an effective means of >denying responsibility. It proves that we're not responsible for things that we're not responsible for. >It doesn't hold up to basic >philsophical scrutiny. > > >>>>>>>See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and >>>>>>>shared responsibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do they explain how a person can be responsible for >>>>>>the death of an animal that happened before the person >>>>>>was born? >>>>> >>>>>That's not the issue here. >> >>>>>>>>But you do contribute to them, >>>>>>>>regardless of the significance of your contribution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In other words, she shares responsibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> She/we deliberately become part of groups which are >>>>>>responsible as a group, but since the deaths would take >>>>>>place without our participation we're not personally >>>>>>responsible. >>>>> >>>>>You are responsible: the deaths would not take place >>>>>if everyone withdrew. >>>> >>>> >>>> That doesn't in any way make me responsible. >>> >>>Yes, it does: shared responsibility for an outcome >>>resulting from a process in which you and other play an >>>integral part. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>Matheny's paper deals with this well. >> >> >> It doesn't deal with it at all > >It does deal with it, and very well. > >The claim that "it would happen without me" doesn't >hold water. > >> >> >>>>>You cannot claim >>>>>no responsibility. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, I can for the things I'm not responsible for, like the >>>>deaths of the animals I eat. I am in absolutely no way >>>>responsible for them, though I have contributed to some >>>>of them. >>> >>>You just contradicted yourself. >> >> >> No. > >Yes. You contradicted yourself. I would have been very surprised if you were capable of understanding that a person can contribute to something, without being responsible for whether or not it takes place. You're just too stupid to understand things like that. >>>You bear >>>responsibility because without consumers like you, >>>there would be no animal industry at all. >> >> >> Without me, the animals would still be dead, so I'm not >> responsible. > >You are responsible. Without you Things would be as they are. >and all others like >you, there would be no animals. > >You and all others who participate, no matter how >"atomically", are responsible. The group is responsible, and a person is responsible for joining the group, but that doesn't make a person responsible for something that he had nothing to do with, and neither does anything else. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:53:44 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: > > >****wit David Harrison wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:46:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> > >> > >>>****wit wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>> You can't be responsible since they would happen > >>>>>>>>even if you didn't exist. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure it is. > >>>>> > >>>>>It's not an effective means. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We agree that > >>>>it is a very effective means. > >>> > >>>It is not an effective means at all. > >> > >> > >> We agree that it is > > > >We don't agree. It is not an effective means of > >denying responsibility. > > It proves that we're not responsible for things > that we're not responsible for. Empty tautology. It doesn't prove anything of the kind, ****wit. Matheny clearly demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me" excuse falls apart. > > >It doesn't hold up to basic > >philsophical scrutiny. > > > > > >>>>>>>See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and > >>>>>>>shared responsibility. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do they explain how a person can be responsible for > >>>>>>the death of an animal that happened before the person > >>>>>>was born? > >>>>> > >>>>>That's not the issue here. > >> > >>>>>>>>But you do contribute to them, > >>>>>>>>regardless of the significance of your contribution. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>In other words, she shares responsibility. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> She/we deliberately become part of groups which are > >>>>>>responsible as a group, but since the deaths would take > >>>>>>place without our participation we're not personally > >>>>>>responsible. > >>>>> > >>>>>You are responsible: the deaths would not take place > >>>>>if everyone withdrew. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> That doesn't in any way make me responsible. > >>> > >>>Yes, it does: shared responsibility for an outcome > >>>resulting from a process in which you and other play an > >>>integral part. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>Matheny's paper deals with this well. > >> > >> > >> It doesn't deal with it at all > > > >It does deal with it, and very well. > > > >The claim that "it would happen without me" doesn't > >hold water. > > > >> > >> > >>>>>You cannot claim > >>>>>no responsibility. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Well, I can for the things I'm not responsible for, like the > >>>>deaths of the animals I eat. I am in absolutely no way > >>>>responsible for them, though I have contributed to some > >>>>of them. > >>> > >>>You just contradicted yourself. > >> > >> > >> No. > > > >Yes. You contradicted yourself. > > I would have been very You contradicted yourself, ****wit. You said you were a contributor to a process that leads to an outcome but then disclaimed any responsibility. That's absurd. You are responsible. > > >>>You bear > >>>responsibility because without consumers like you, > >>>there would be no animal industry at all. > >> > >> > >> Without me, the animals would still be dead, so I'm not > >> responsible. > > > >You are responsible. Without you and all others like > >you, there would be no animals. This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as responsible for the deaths of whole animals. > > > >You and all others who participate, no matter how > >"atomically", are responsible. > > The group is responsible Groups cannot be responsible, only individuals. ALL the individuals in the group are responsible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 31 Jan 2005 09:01:04 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 31 Jan 2005 08:32:22 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >> >Derek wrote >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "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. >> >> >> >> No. It only links the consumer to the death of his rice. >> >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production >> >> of rice, not antecedent to it. >> > >> >**** you and your big words that you don't really understand >> >> Ad hominem. > >Nope. [Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties. The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.] http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem It's apparent that you've refused to accept my statement and justified that refusal by criticizing me and my ability to understand certain terms rather than the statement itself. >> >The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to >> >the deaths of animals of the field that they don't eat >> >by exactly the same mechanism that meat eaters - >> >not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the >> >deaths of the animals they do eat. >> >> Matheny's article is to show that meatarians > >No such word as "meatarian". From here on, the term "meatarian" refers to a meat eating person. >Matheny's article lays out a kind of logical thinking about act >utilitarianism and contributory causation. Matheny's article merely shows that the meatarian cannot rely on act utilitarianism to avoid moral responsibility for the deaths he vicariously causes. Unlike the contingent collateral deaths associated in crop farming, the target deaths associated with meat eating are antecedent to it. Matheny does not link collateral deaths in crop farming to vegetarians. He links meatarians to the deaths they cause. That's all. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 09:01:04 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: > >> On 31 Jan 2005 08:32:22 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: > >> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote > >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater 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. > >> >> > >> >> No. It only links the consumer to the death of his rice. > >> >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production > >> >> of rice, not antecedent to it. > >> > > >> >**** you and your big words that you don't really understand > >> > >> Ad hominem. > > > >Nope. > > [Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument > directed at the man"; there are two varieties. That's nice. Also inapplicable, as I didn't make any "argument" concerning your ostentatious misuse of two big words you don't naturally use. > >> >The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to > >> >the deaths of animals of the field that they don't eat > >> >by exactly the same mechanism that meat eaters - > >> >not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the > >> >deaths of the animals they do eat. > >> > >> Matheny's article is to show that meatarians > > > >No such word as "meatarian". > > From here on, the term "meatarian" refers to a meat eating > person. There is no such word. It's nothing but a mean-spirited pejorative used by a certain category of food nazis. > > >Matheny's article lays out a kind of logical thinking about act > >utilitarianism and contributory causation. > > Matheny's article merely shows that We're not interested only in Matheny's *article*, Uncle Dog-beater. We're interested in the LOGIC. The logic extends perfectly well to cover the linkage between "vegans" and the deaths of animals of the field incurred in the course of producing vegetable crops. Once again, you lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:19:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "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. >>> >>> No. It only links the consumer the death of his rice. >>> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production >>> of rice, not antecedent to it. >> >>There is no meaningful difference. > > That's a meaningless response and doesn't address what > I wrote above it. What you wrote is not meaningful. > Matheny's article shows that meatarians > cannot rely on act utilitarianism to avoid moral responsibility > for the deaths they vicariously cause. In the Abstract he proposes that the argument that one serving of meat is insignificant and that the animal would have died anyway does not hold up, I agree with this. This is quite similiar to the conversion we had recently where saying that if one votes for George Bush and he gets elected, one is not responsible for his election because one vote is insignificant. > Unlike the contingent > collateral deaths associated in crop farming, the target > deaths associated with meat eating are antecedent to it. You can't show how that makes any difference in the moral outcome. > Matheny does not link collateral deaths in crop farming to > vegetarians. He links meatarians to the deaths they cause. This line of reasoning also quashes the vegan complaint that their consumption of rice may not be a significant enough cause for animal death to be morally relevant. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 31 Jan 2005 10:28:50 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> No. It only links the consumer to the death of his rice. >> >> >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production >> >> >> of rice, not antecedent to it. >> >> > >> >> >**** you and your big words that you don't really understand >> >> >> >> Ad hominem. >> > >> >Nope. >> >> [Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument >> directed at the man"; there are two varieties. > >That's nice. No, it's a failure on your part to address the issues. >> >> >The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to >> >> >the deaths of animals of the field that they don't eat >> >> >by exactly the same mechanism that meat eaters - >> >> >not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the >> >> >deaths of the animals they do eat. >> >> >> >> Matheny's article is to show that meatarians >> > >> >No such word as "meatarian". >> >> From here on, the term "meatarian" refers to a meat eating >> person. > >There is no such word. There is now, so whenever it gets used again, try not to feign surprise and use that act of being surprised as a dodge. >> >Matheny's article lays out a kind of logical thinking about act >> >utilitarianism and contributory causation. >> >> Matheny's article merely shows that > >We're not interested only in Matheny's *article* Says he, after being shown that it doesn't link the collateral deaths in crop production to vegetarians. Bad effort, Jon. Throw again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 10:28:50 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > 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. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No. It only links the consumer to the death of his rice. > >> >> >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production > >> >> >> of rice, not antecedent to it. > >> >> > > >> >> >**** you and your big words that you don't really understand > >> >> > >> >> Ad hominem. > >> > > >> >Nope. > >> > >> [Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument > >> directed at the man"; there are two varieties. > > > >That's nice. I didn't commit ad hominem. > > >> >> >The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to > >> >> >the deaths of animals of the field that they don't eat > >> >> >by exactly the same mechanism that meat eaters - > >> >> >not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the > >> >> >deaths of the animals they do eat. > >> >> > >> >> Matheny's article is to show that meatarians > >> > > >> >No such word as "meatarian". > >> > >> From here on, the term "meatarian" refers to a meat eating > >> person. > > > >There is no such word. > > There is now There is no such word. > > >> >Matheny's article lays out a kind of logical thinking about act > >> >utilitarianism and contributory causation. > >> > >> Matheny's article merely shows that > > > >We're not interested only in Matheny's *article* > > Says he, after being shown that it doesn't link the > collateral deaths in crop production to vegetarians. The logic Matheny explained easily extends to perform that linkage. The linkage is established. Time for you to move on to some new wastage of time, Dreck. ****ing cuckolded dog-beater. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 31 Jan 2005 13:41:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. It only links the consumer to the death of his rice. >> >> >> >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production >> >> >> >> of rice, not antecedent to it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >**** you and your big words that you don't really understand >> >> >> >> >> >> Ad hominem. >> >> > >> >> >Nope. >> >> >> >> [Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument >> >> directed at the man"; there are two varieties. >> > >> >That's nice. I didn't commit ad hominem. You've edited that above sentence without noting it, hoping that the reader would believe I left your comment unchallenged. Poor effort, Jon. >> >> >> >The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to >> >> >> >the deaths of animals of the field that they don't eat >> >> >> >by exactly the same mechanism that meat eaters - >> >> >> >not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the >> >> >> >deaths of the animals they do eat. >> >> >> >> >> >> Matheny's article is to show that meatarians >> >> > >> >> >No such word as "meatarian". >> >> >> >> From here on, the term "meatarian" refers to a meat eating >> >> person. >> > >> >There is no such word. >> >> There is now > >There is no such word. Whenever I use the term "meatarian", expect it to identify a person who eats meat. Feigning ignorance of what the term is intended to identify will henceforth be seen as a dodge. >> >> >Matheny's article lays out a kind of logical thinking about act >> >> >utilitarianism and contributory causation. >> >> >> >> Matheny's article merely shows that >> > >> >We're not interested only in Matheny's *article* >> >> Says he, after being shown that it doesn't link the >> collateral deaths in crop production to vegetarians. > >The logic Matheny explained easily extends to perform that linkage. Ipse dixit and false. >The linkage is established. Ipse dixit and false. Matheny's article has nothing to do with collateral deaths, and you've yet to show that it does, so until you do any claims that you make asserting it does remain unsupported. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 13:41:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > 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. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> No. It only links the consumer to the death of his rice. > >> >> >> >> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production > >> >> >> >> of rice, not antecedent to it. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >**** you and your big words that you don't really understand > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Ad hominem. > >> >> > > >> >> >Nope. > >> >> > >> >> [Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument > >> >> directed at the man"; there are two varieties. > >> > > >> >That's nice. I didn't commit ad hominem. > > You've edited that above sentence No. That's the sentence I wrote. > > >> >> >> >The logic expounded by Matheny links "vegans" to > >> >> >> >the deaths of animals of the field that they don't eat > >> >> >> >by exactly the same mechanism that meat eaters - > >> >> >> >not "meatarians"; no such word - are linked to the > >> >> >> >deaths of the animals they do eat. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Matheny's article is to show that meatarians > >> >> > > >> >> >No such word as "meatarian". > >> >> > >> >> From here on, the term "meatarian" refers to a meat eating > >> >> person. > >> > > >> >There is no such word. > >> > >> There is now > > > >There is no such word. > > Whenever I use the term "meatarian you are using a pejorative non-word. > > >> >> >Matheny's article lays out a kind of logical thinking about act > >> >> >utilitarianism and contributory causation. > >> >> > >> >> Matheny's article merely shows that > >> > > >> >We're not interested only in Matheny's *article* > >> > >> Says he, after being shown that it doesn't link the > >> collateral deaths in crop production to vegetarians. > > > >The logic Matheny explained easily extends to perform that linkage. > > Ipse dixit and false. Demonstrated, and true. > > >The linkage is established. > > Ipse dixit and false. Established and true. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:01:46 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >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. > > By stating what; what I wrote above your line, or what you > write below this one? > > >If I were a ball, or a rock then, I might agree with you. > > I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. > > >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. > > The forces that motivate our will to act may be anything, > ranging from desires to fears and even time, but before > acting on those forces we reason with them to resolve > any conflicts between them so that we can act according > to own laws quickly. I might have the desire to smoke right > now, but carry a fear of cancer and heart disease, plus the > antecedent of going through a hard quit since last April. > Reasoning with these desires, fears and antecedents then > drives my will not to smoke. > > If, on the other hand I'm found in a position of choosing > between two choices, and picking either carries the same > gain or loss, without the motivation of time I would dither > and not choose between either. Without a desire or fear > for either choice and no pressure to choose, I would not > act at all. I might act randomly and pick one object, but > that indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, > so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will was > the originator of that unintentional choice. > > Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that motivates our > will to act by resolving conflicts between our fears, desires > and antecedent events quickly. > > Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative > not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third > alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude > we cannot have free will. > > For my assertion to gain any support, all that's required on > my part is to somehow prove that the act of acting proves > free will cannot exist. > > 1) If our will to act is in equilibrium and free from external > influences, time and antecedents, then we would not act. > 2) We act > therefore > 3) our will is not in equilibrium and free from external influences, > time and antecedents. There is a fourth option that will is an exchange or balancing of internal and external forces. In the example that you used of smoking, what is the external force where the desire to smoke begins and where is the external force or internal force that allows you to resist the external force or internal force to smoke. In one respect, the idea of Id, Ego and Superego can be utilized here. In that there is an external pressure and internal pressure and were they meet is the boundary between the two. Worded differently, your desired to smoke is met by the external knowledge of cancer and heart disease. Where these two things collide is the creation of the boundary between what you want and what you should do. I did find a false dilemma in that there was an either or scenario. It is also possible that two opposing forces work in conjunction. It is also possible that two opposing forcing work in harmony. Resistance and its polar equivalent are balance in the centre with a boundary between the two. The desire to smoke (an internal force) is met by the knowledge of X (an external force) -- or vice versa. Interestingly, you have described a "will" to smoke, or a "will" to resist smoking as a force. I find the term energy is more useful and likely more accurate. I'm not sure though, how you chose the term "force" to describe an interest or desire in smoking to begin with. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > > > I presented 2, homesteading and death. > > > I forgot about getting a farmer to grow > > > veganic for one or more. Both homesteading > > > and hiring a farmer are not in most > > > people's budget, that leaves only death > > > or buying commercial. Have I left > > > anything out? (keep in mind that eating > > > meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death) > > > > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options > were > > eating meat and death? Just curious... > > I'd have to break down and eat the meat, > which I consider unhealthy Yet you have no evidence to support that consideration. but healthier > than starving. That's a last resort to me. > As long as veg food is available, that's > what I'll choose. Even when shown low > deaths meats, which are rare (no pun) > enough to NOT be able to supply all > meat eaters, I will still choose a veg > food. Some veg foods are 0 death, Name one and then prove it. > but meats always have at least 1. False. If I kill one deer, that's anywhere from 100-200 servings. The death toll per servng is then .005 to .01 animsls. Stop lying. > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat > meat. Prove it. > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Matheny said your wife was a good ride.
Derek wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility, >>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the >>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF >>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf >>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader). >>>> >>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the >>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he >>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his >>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat >>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny >>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in >>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they >>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations. >>>> >>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem >>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however, >>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral >>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat. >>> >>>No, it does not. >> >>Yes, it does. > > > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop > production, and after you've done that show where his > article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for > them. His article doesn't explicitly do that. Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it. The expected utility argument extends perfectly well to cover "vegans" purchases of commercially grown produce, and the deaths of animals in the field. Matheny didn't need to cover it; I took care of it for him. > > >>>The paper sets out to prove that, while >>>some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an >>>adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a >>>single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm >>>animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians >>>cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and >>>must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions. >> >>Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER > > > I have read it, You did not. You did cut-and-paste from the abstract. You only read the abstract. > >>>that such a mechanism >>>links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in >>>crop production. >> >>Irrelevant. > > > No, it is not. Yes, it is irrelevant. > Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism > links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by farmers > in crop production. It doesn't matter. He let the "expected utility" cat out of the bag, and it ran right up and scratched your claim of no responsibility to shreds. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two
> options > > were > > > eating meat and death? Just curious... > > > > I'd have to break down and eat the meat, > > which I consider unhealthy > > Yet you have no evidence to support that consideration. I have years and years of research and personal experience. You don't have to agree with me. > but healthier > > than starving. That's a last resort to me. > > As long as veg food is available, that's > > what I'll choose. Even when shown low > > deaths meats, which are rare (no pun) > > enough to NOT be able to supply all > > meat eaters, I will still choose a veg > > food. Some veg foods are 0 death, > > Name one and then prove it. The zuchhinis and other produce I receive each summer from friends with gardens. The wild blueberries I picked on a camping trip. The giant puffball mushroom that made a huge meal for us at my mother's place. The tomatoes and hot peppers from a coworker's garden. It goes on and on. > > but meats always have at least 1. > > False. If I kill one deer, that's anywhere from 100-200 servings. The > death toll per servng is then .005 to .01 animsls. Stop lying. Even if you only eat 1 serving the animal still has to die (unless it's an amputation). > > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat > > meat. > > Prove it. No. That's for each to decide on their own. I'm sure you can google stuff on both sides of the debate. I'm not trying to talk you into believing me, so I could care less about going to all the work to prove it. Are you Rudy's new name? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:22:11 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, > Derek > wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:01:46 -0500, Ron > wrote: >> >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. >> >> By stating what; what I wrote above your line, or what you >> write below this one? >> >> >If I were a ball, or a rock then, I might agree with you. >> >> I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. >> >> >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. >> >> The forces that motivate our will to act may be anything, >> ranging from desires to fears and even time, but before >> acting on those forces we reason with them to resolve >> any conflicts between them so that we can act according >> to own laws quickly. I might have the desire to smoke right >> now, but carry a fear of cancer and heart disease, plus the >> antecedent of going through a hard quit since last April. >> Reasoning with these desires, fears and antecedents then >> drives my will not to smoke. >> >> If, on the other hand I'm found in a position of choosing >> between two choices, and picking either carries the same >> gain or loss, without the motivation of time I would dither >> and not choose between either. Without a desire or fear >> for either choice and no pressure to choose, I would not >> act at all. I might act randomly and pick one object, but >> that indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, >> so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will was >> the originator of that unintentional choice. >> >> Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that motivates our >> will to act by resolving conflicts between our fears, desires >> and antecedent events quickly. >> >> Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative >> not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third >> alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude >> we cannot have free will. >> >> For my assertion to gain any support, all that's required on >> my part is to somehow prove that the act of acting proves >> free will cannot exist. >> >> 1) If our will to act is in equilibrium and free from external >> influences, time and antecedents, then we would not act. >> 2) We act >> therefore >> 3) our will is not in equilibrium and free from external influences, >> time and antecedents. > >There is a fourth option that will is an exchange or balancing of >internal and external forces. I did imply this option and described it as our reasoning when writing, "Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that motivates our will to act by resolving conflicts between our fears, desires and antecedent events quickly." >In the example that you used of smoking, >what is the external force It may be any one of a number of forces which carry "A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=force Watching someone light up still provokes me to do the same, for example, so there's one external force to be considered. Antecedent events such as a long history of smoking could qualify as a valid weighting factor as well. >where the desire to smoke begins After you stop, naturally, but a desire to start would depend on that antecedent event I mentioned above. Surely, if such an antecedent never existed, then the desire to smoke, such as it is, would never arise within me. >and where is the external force or internal force that allows >you to resist the external force or internal force to smoke. The force to resist rests in ourselves as reasoning. It cannot come from anywhere else. "Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that motivates our will to act by resolving conflicts between our fears, desires and antecedent events quickly." >In one respect, the idea of Id, Ego and Superego can be utilized here. >In that there is an external pressure and internal pressure and were >they meet is the boundary between the two. Worded differently, your >desired to smoke is met by the external knowledge of cancer and heart >disease. Where these two things collide is the creation of the boundary >between what you want and what you should do. And that boundary is what I refer to as our reasoning. It's the loud voice of our reason that motivates us to put our desires to one side and do what we believe is right, rather than what would be expedient under the circumstances. Though these external pressures or forces act upon us in all directions and manifestations, it's our reasoning that resolves the conflicts associated with them that ultimately motivates our will to act. That being so, and because our capacity for reason exists, our will cannot be free to act outside of it, and that's why I conclude free will does not exist. Rather, I tend to think that we are slaves to our reason instead. >I did find a false dilemma in that there was an either or scenario. I'm sorry, but I did mention; "Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude we cannot have free will." Now, you may want to argue that since I've asserted that that third alternative to dither doesn't exist in the real World, I've posed a false dilemma, but that isn't the case in my scenario because I did include it. I even included a fourth; "I might act randomly and pick one object, but that indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will was the originator of that unintentional choice." >It is also possible that two opposing forces work in conjunction. >It is also possible that two opposing forcing work in harmony. > >Resistance and its polar equivalent are balance in the centre with a >boundary between the two. The desire to smoke (an internal force) is met >by the knowledge of X (an external force) -- or vice versa. > >Interestingly, you have described a "will" to smoke, or a "will" to >resist smoking as a force. I find the term energy is more useful and >likely more accurate. I'm not sure though, how you chose the term >"force" to describe an interest or desire in smoking to begin with. I'm sure you've used the expressions, "*force* of habit" and "will *power*" before now, Ron. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 06:14:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> >>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility, >>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the >>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF >>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf >>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader). >>>>> >>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the >>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he >>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his >>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat >>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny >>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in >>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they >>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations. >>>>> >>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem >>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however, >>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral >>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat. >>>> >>>>No, it does not. >>> >>>Yes, it does. >> >> Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links >> vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop >> production, and after you've done that show where his >> article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for >> them. > >His article doesn't explicitly do that. Based on my >extension of his mechanism, *I* did it. QEF, but you've failed to do so. >>>>The paper sets out to prove that, while >>>>some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an >>>>adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a >>>>single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm >>>>animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians >>>>cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and >>>>must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions. >>> >>>Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER >> >> I have read it, > >You did not. I did, and your so-called extension of it doesn't link vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by others in crop farming. You've merely asserted it does without even describing how your so-called extension of it makes that link. Throw again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:22:11 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >In article >, > > Derek > wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:01:46 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >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. > >> > >> By stating what; what I wrote above your line, or what you > >> write below this one? > >> > >> >If I were a ball, or a rock then, I might agree with you. > >> > >> I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. > >> > >> >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. > >> > >> The forces that motivate our will to act may be anything, > >> ranging from desires to fears and even time, but before > >> acting on those forces we reason with them to resolve > >> any conflicts between them so that we can act according > >> to own laws quickly. I might have the desire to smoke right > >> now, but carry a fear of cancer and heart disease, plus the > >> antecedent of going through a hard quit since last April. > >> Reasoning with these desires, fears and antecedents then > >> drives my will not to smoke. > >> > >> If, on the other hand I'm found in a position of choosing > >> between two choices, and picking either carries the same > >> gain or loss, without the motivation of time I would dither > >> and not choose between either. Without a desire or fear > >> for either choice and no pressure to choose, I would not > >> act at all. I might act randomly and pick one object, but > >> that indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, > >> so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will was > >> the originator of that unintentional choice. > >> > >> Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that motivates our > >> will to act by resolving conflicts between our fears, desires > >> and antecedent events quickly. > >> > >> Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative > >> not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third > >> alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude > >> we cannot have free will. > >> > >> For my assertion to gain any support, all that's required on > >> my part is to somehow prove that the act of acting proves > >> free will cannot exist. > >> > >> 1) If our will to act is in equilibrium and free from external > >> influences, time and antecedents, then we would not act. > >> 2) We act > >> therefore > >> 3) our will is not in equilibrium and free from external influences, > >> time and antecedents. > > > >There is a fourth option that will is an exchange or balancing of > >internal and external forces. > > I did imply this option and described it as our reasoning > when writing, "Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that > motivates our will to act by resolving conflicts between > our fears, desires and antecedent events quickly." > > >In the example that you used of smoking, > >what is the external force > > It may be any one of a number of forces which carry > "A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior" > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=force > > Watching someone light up still provokes me to do the > same, for example, so there's one external force to be > considered. Antecedent events such as a long history > of smoking could qualify as a valid weighting factor as > well. > > >where the desire to smoke begins > > After you stop, naturally, but a desire to start would > depend on that antecedent event I mentioned above. > Surely, if such an antecedent never existed, then the > desire to smoke, such as it is, would never arise within > me. > > >and where is the external force or internal force that allows > >you to resist the external force or internal force to smoke. > > The force to resist rests in ourselves as reasoning. It > cannot come from anywhere else. "Reasoning, then, > is the ultimate force that motivates our will to act by > resolving conflicts between our fears, desires and > antecedent events quickly." > > >In one respect, the idea of Id, Ego and Superego can be utilized here. > >In that there is an external pressure and internal pressure and were > >they meet is the boundary between the two. Worded differently, your > >desired to smoke is met by the external knowledge of cancer and heart > >disease. Where these two things collide is the creation of the boundary > >between what you want and what you should do. > > And that boundary is what I refer to as our reasoning. It's > the loud voice of our reason that motivates us to put our > desires to one side and do what we believe is right, rather > than what would be expedient under the circumstances. > Though these external pressures or forces act upon us in > all directions and manifestations, it's our reasoning that > resolves the conflicts associated with them that ultimately > motivates our will to act. That being so, and because our > capacity for reason exists, our will cannot be free to act > outside of it, and that's why I conclude free will does not > exist. Rather, I tend to think that we are slaves to our > reason instead. > > >I did find a false dilemma in that there was an either or scenario. > > I'm sorry, but I did mention; > > "Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative > not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third > alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude > we cannot have free will." > > Now, you may want to argue that since I've asserted > that that third alternative to dither doesn't exist in the > real World, I've posed a false dilemma, but that isn't > the case in my scenario because I did include it. I even > included a fourth; > > "I might act randomly and pick one object, but that > indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, > so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will > was the originator of that unintentional choice." > > >It is also possible that two opposing forces work in conjunction. > >It is also possible that two opposing forcing work in harmony. > > > >Resistance and its polar equivalent are balance in the centre with a > >boundary between the two. The desire to smoke (an internal force) is met > >by the knowledge of X (an external force) -- or vice versa. > > > >Interestingly, you have described a "will" to smoke, or a "will" to > >resist smoking as a force. I find the term energy is more useful and > >likely more accurate. I'm not sure though, how you chose the term > >"force" to describe an interest or desire in smoking to begin with. > > I'm sure you've used the expressions, "*force* of habit" > and "will *power*" before now, Ron. Actually, I use expressions like exercising will or control, or just plain old habit. I think I need some definition to understand your perspective of forces. For example, when I have smoked, I am not necessarily directing forces or responding to them. I am controling or manipulating various part of my body through energy. Smoking is a label, like most things, that we use describe a series of actions and processes. The act of smoking is actually a series of smaller actions that are conglomerated into label, likely for efficiency and time management. When I have smoked, I am actually causing muscles to move, tendons to reacts, bones to bend at joins, causing movement towards an object grasping it, inhaling, exhaling, thinking, feeling, experiencing, etc. and then the requisite internal "actions" or uses of energy that are required to accomplish the task of "smoking". Learning a new task with a new label is difficult for this reason. The smaller steps that must be learned and repeated become part of the pattern and habit. Learning a new task usually feels awkward for this reason. One must 'master' each of the segments or smaller actions to achieve the larger action that is labeled "smoking". I think where we differ is that you are focused on "why" we do what we do where my response above seems to be "how" we do what we do. Maybe my corresponding question is how to detect those forces and how do your respond to them. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder | Vegan | |||
| Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water | Vegan | |||
| dreck nash is a crybaby liar | Vegan | |||
| Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 | Vegan | |||
| Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
