Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:23:34 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:33:01 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
To have a good value system is not knocking down people who don't.

I'm a member of Phi Delta Theta fraternity. During rush week once one
of the Freshmen who came to one of our rush parties (The ones where we
decide who we want to add to our fraternity.) and he put a cigarette out
by throwing it on the floor of the fraternity house den and stomping it
with his foot. After he did that, it was out of the question for him to
become a member of our fraternity. It told us that his value system was
not any good.

It did not make any of us feel any glory, but we felt sorry for him as
we would anyone who was so depraved.

Your value system puts people down because of their skin color and
other physical features.

Wrong. The rushee mentioned above was white.

The above is irrelevant. I'm speaking of your more common posts.

Your value system considers differences in
pronunciation of words to be a moral failing.

It's not a moral failing, but to mispronounce words damages a person's
ability to get a good job that's not just a laboring job.

You put them down for it. That indicates your value system.

You do not have a good value system.

If you think that isn't a putdown, well I assure you that it is.

Tell us what you consider to be a good value system. I think it would
be very interesting.

I don't have a definition of a good value system and I'm not sure
there is such a thing.

Well, it would help you immensely if you learned what a good sense of
values is and lived by it. Without one, you have no foundation to build
your life on.

Of course, a house or anything else without a good foundation will not
stand.

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:26:24 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:

It did not make any of us feel any glory, but we felt sorry for him as
we would anyone who was so depraved.

Your value system puts people down because of their skin color and
other physical features. Your value system considers differences in
pronunciation of words to be a moral failing.

You do not have a good value system.

Hey Bob, do go-with-the-statz Insurance_Companies have
a good value system? Or are they morally depraved?

Corporations are not human beings and are amoral. It is not clear
that a corporation has a "value system" in any meaningful sense. It
has "policies", which may or may not reflect the values of the owners
or managers of the corporation.

The policies are made by the board members and management and most
definitely reflect their values and morals, etc.

lojbab

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

Holger Dansk wrote:
Well, it would help you immensely if you learned what a good sense of
values is and lived by it. Without one, you have no foundation to build
your life on.

I've done reasonably well with my life, which suggests that I have
pretty good values. On the other hand, I would not claim to have any
"system" of values. Nor for that matter could I make much of a list
of values.

The Golden Rule is a principle I tried to abide by, but I'm not sure
one would call that a "value".

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Holger Dansk wrote:
Hey Bob, do go-with-the-statz Insurance_Companies have
a good value system? Or are they morally depraved?

Corporations are not human beings and are amoral. It is not clear
that a corporation has a "value system" in any meaningful sense. It
has "policies", which may or may not reflect the values of the owners
or managers of the corporation.

The policies are made by the board members and management and most
definitely reflect their values and morals, etc.

Probably, but not necessarily, especially since the individual board
members and the individuals in management may have conflicting values.
But in any event, those are the values of the board members and
management, not of the corporations.

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

TheNIGHTCRAWLER wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

ivy_mike wrote:

Jasper my boy, you're just feeding the trolls. This clown Walz
and his buddy LeChevwhatever are nothing more than that.
Ignore 'em.
---------------------
You haven't been sufficiently brainwashed in your life, so you
have to even delude yourself, eh?
Steve

I'll take a moment to remind all that a "troll" is an arguable and often
contentious post on opinions that are guaranteed to provoke angst about
mainstream ideology on life, the universe, or anything.
---------------
Wrong, it is a spoiler that the poster then stands back from to watch
the firworks. I neither initiate threads, nor stand back, and I stick
around to fight. Thus I'm not a troll.
Steve

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Okay, I presume that means 'yes' to the large scale question.
How do you know it is actual human nature?
---------------------
Do you want to be stolen from, or do you think people should be
equal? Steve

I don't think that 'should be' enters into it. People are not
equal.
----------------------
Right, and becaause they are not, they need protection of the
State to cause them to be before the law and moral fairness.


Whatever the metric, some are better than others. Whether this
inequality is fair or unfair is arbitrary, but it is reality
nonetheless.
-------------------------
Actually, since these "some" don't constitute any majority, there
is no supposed "authority" to declare some minority to be
"better" than anyone else. The Majority can indeed resolve to
make the compensation of everyone equal per labor hour, and to
believe in the requirement of fairness in the economic life of
the nation. That any one group or any other bunch of people might
think that some minority of people are more fulfilled in their
promise than another, is totally and entirely irrelevant to that,
however it is understood. We all appreciate geniuses as well, but
we don't elect them dictator or make them the slave-master over
everyone else.


Your belief that every person is entitled to his fair share is as
valid as any other belief, but I don't think it comports well
with the competitive nature of our species, at least not on a
large scale. Fletch
-------------------------------------------
It is the ONLY reasonable belief for a majority of people to have
and to demand politically, because it is most in each individual
person's interest, as opposed to the option of each person
deciding to vote to give their life's labor and all power away to
one king, slave-master, dictator, or other minority!
Steve

I must say that I agree with none of your conclusions.
-------------------------
Meaning you can't fault them logically anymore.

Not at all. Meaning that they don't seem logical to me,
----------------
"Seem" doesn't count, you have to specify why and allow me to
make it self-destruct before your eyes, if I can, and I CAN!


and you really seem to have your heels dug in on them.
----------------
Only because they defend themselves perfectly for me.


To be honest, on this issue, you seem
like an outlier, almost to the point of being a loon.
---------------
Such an opinion without logic is merely prating bull****
to distract people from the fact that you're making no sense
and cannot actually bring any cricism to bear of my concepts.

Make logical sense about an issue, or admit defeat.


Of course, in some
posts, you seem very reasonable. But, I see no point in arguing
this issue further with you. I am getting nothing from it.
-----------------
You certainly won't win or lose without playing your hand.

You have managed never to make even one single argument
of the form: "I think this is true and why, and I think
your idea here is wrong and why.", and then deal with the
result. You don't because you sense quite correctly what
WILL HAPPEN! I will wipe the ****ing floor with you.

You're a ****ing coward, and you know you'll LOSE BIG TIME,
so you're just trying to distract people from that fact.
Steve

I have read your posts for a while now and the only thing you have convinced
me of is that you are very angry.
---------------
Naw, that's all pretend.
I can kill on mere principle without being angry at all.
I can even joke with you while you die.
Steve

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Not at all. Meaning that they don't seem logical to me,
----------------
"Seem" doesn't count, you have to specify why and allow me to
make it self-destruct before your eyes, if I can, and I CAN!

It's real simple, Steve, and it applies to any who argue from any
ideological basis. Your ideology requires certain assumptions, as do
all ideologies. Fletch rejects those assumptions, possibly without
even definitely knowing what they are. Thus, though your logic may be
flawless based on those assumptions, your results are meaningless to
him.

You have managed never to make even one single argument
of the form: "I think this is true and why, and I think
your idea here is wrong and why.", and then deal with the
result. You don't because you sense quite correctly what
WILL HAPPEN! I will wipe the ****ing floor with you.

You're a ****ing coward, and you know you'll LOSE BIG TIME,

One cannot win an argument with an ideologist, unless on the off
chance the ideologist manages to be inconsistent. You haven't been
inconsistent.

But an ideologist cannot win an argument with someone who rejects the
assumptions necessary for the ideology to apply.

lojbab

Steve does not believe in assumptions. This much I have gleaned from his
hate.
---------------
Not WRONG ONES!
Steve

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

As I said, one can always be an asshole who will finally need killing
because his assertions are based on his sickness and not upon reason.

See the irony here?
----------------------
The irony is that you imagine I'm not reasonable,
when that's ALL I am.
Steve

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:05:56 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:
Well, it would help you immensely if you learned what a good sense of
values is and lived by it. Without one, you have no foundation to build
your life on.

I've done reasonably well with my life, which suggests that I have
pretty good values. On the other hand, I would not claim to have any
"system" of values. Nor for that matter could I make much of a list
of values.

The Golden Rule is a principle I tried to abide by, but I'm not sure
one would call that a "value".

It is very definitely an important value. Cherish it.

If you like that one you might like the remaining ones.

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:08:08 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:
Hey Bob, do go-with-the-statz Insurance_Companies have
a good value system? Or are they morally depraved?

Corporations are not human beings and are amoral. It is not clear
that a corporation has a "value system" in any meaningful sense. It
has "policies", which may or may not reflect the values of the owners
or managers of the corporation.

The policies are made by the board members and management and most
definitely reflect their values and morals, etc.

Probably, but not necessarily, especially since the individual board
members and the individuals in management may have conflicting values.
But in any event, those are the values of the board members and
management, not of the corporations.

They are the corporation.

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm