If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#811
|
|||
|
|||
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. You tend to rant, and seem to sway no one. If you have some strong logical arguments, go ahead and make them if you wish. I will not blow them off. I will read them, think about them, and respond. That is the best I can do with you, because the whole 'coward', 'wipe the ****ing floor' thing is getting increasingly boring. You seem to be under the impression that you are scaring me. Disabuse yourself of that. Slainte, Fletch |
#813
|
|||
|
|||
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. "One seldom meets a true believer worth knowing." Slainte, Fletch |
#814
|
|||
|
|||
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? Slainte, Fletch |
#815
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 09:04:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:40:45 -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: You post to Usenet in the manner of a troll, to several unrelated newsgroups. You knock down people who are different from you. And, I'm supposed to obtain glory by doing that? You must think that you get something out of it, or you wouldn't continue to do so. You must be talking about my saying that some individuals do not have a good value system. 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. Holger http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm |
#816
|
|||
|
|||
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. Your value system considers differences in pronunciation of words to be a moral failing. You do not have a good value system. If you think that isn't a putdown, well I assure you that it is. 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 |
#817
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 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. Holger http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm |
#818
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#819
|
|||
|
|||
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. I know that any racist value is a bad 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 |
#820
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A first 'Parker Jensen' bill advances | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 04 07:29 PM |