Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian

R. Steve Walz wrote:
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 hope so. It's not good to be angry all the time.

I can kill on mere principle without being angry at all.
I can even joke with you while you die.

Yawn.

Slainte,
Fletch

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.

Alright. Since insurance companies all do it the same way, i.e., go
with the statz, are the combined values of all their board members
"good"?? Or morally depraved?? Recognizing that such policy is
no different than the way the values you call "racist" are formed...

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:

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.

I'll bet Bob has auto insurance, health insurance, life inssurance,
and homeowners insurance. Thus Bob voluntarily enters into nusiness
dealings with folks whose values (go with the statz) are no different
the the values of those he calls "idiot racist scum" whose values are
clearly supported by virtually every DAFN statistic available.

Why does Bob do this? Ans: Go-with-the-stats insurance company
values (a) work, and (b) provide him protection. It works for
the insurance companies, and it works for "idiot racist scum."
These values provide *protection*: Keep your distance from DAFNz.

wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
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.

Alright. Since insurance companies all do it the same way, i.e., go
with the statz, are the combined values of all their board members
"good"??

Values can't be judged in combination, since they likely conflict.

Or morally depraved??

That's you.

Recognizing that such policy is
no different than the way the values you call "racist" are formed...

I reject that contention, since policy and values are not formed the
same way, and indeed policy may not reflect any one person's values.

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

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
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.

Alright. Since insurance companies all do it the same way, i.e., go
with the statz, are the combined values of all their board members
"good"??

Values can't be judged in combination, since they likely conflict.

Or morally depraved??

That's you.

Recognizing that such policy is
no different than the way the values you call "racist" are formed...

I reject that contention, since policy and values are not formed the
same way, and indeed policy may not reflect any one person's values.

Did you help Bill Clinton re-define "is" and "have sex" ??

wrote:
I reject that contention, since policy and values are not formed the
same way, and indeed policy may not reflect any one person's values.

Did you help Bill Clinton re-define "is" and "have sex" ??

Bill Clinton did neither. Both "weasels" relied on well-documented
usage: the multiple meanings of "is" are supported by the theories of
General Semantics ("the map is not the territory"); it is quite
believable that Clinton did not believe that he had "had sex" - the
same reasoning is used by countless teenagers who preserve their
"virginity" by engaging in blow jobs and other forms of "making out"
that involve no direct coupling of genetic organs.

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

wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
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.

Alright. Since insurance companies all do it the same way, i.e., go
with the statz, are the combined values of all their board members
"good"??

Values can't be judged in combination, since they likely conflict.

Or morally depraved??

That's you.

Recognizing that such policy is
no different than the way the values you call "racist" are formed...

I reject that contention, since policy and values are not formed the
same way, and indeed policy may not reflect any one person's values.

Did you help Bill Clinton re-define "is" and "have sex" ??
---------------
Bill Clinton didn't inhale, I did!
Steve

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:21:30 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

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

Which is why you've stopped reponding to my posts in the named Subject: Bill
Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian. LOL

Info Junkie wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:21:30 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

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

Which is why you've stopped reponding to my posts in the named Subject: Bill
Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian. LOL
-----------
That thread wandered off into realms unknown, a totally different
subject matter that doesn't interest me, and *I* did NOT start that
thread, which is the requirement for trolling.
Steve

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:17:38 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Info Junkie wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:21:30 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

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

Which is why you've stopped reponding to my posts in the named Subject: Bill
Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian. LOL
-----------
That thread wandered off into realms unknown, a totally different
subject matter that doesn't interest me, and *I* did NOT start that
thread, which is the requirement for trolling.

Your posts to me "wandered into" philosophy and other irrelevent "realms
unknown" Mr Walz, not mine I attempted to keep you on-track wrt your claim
vis-a-vis "reparations"....in this I failed and you stopped posting.

Wrt "trolling", one should consider its definition:
"troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames."

whereas; "The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several
areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common
knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a
broad request for trivial follow-up postings."
(http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html)

It may be argued that trolls start threads Mr Walz, but nowhere does the word as
defined show it is a "requirement", ergo, your claim is false.