Oh cut the sanctimonuous bullcrap Adam. My comment about a flamethrower
wasn't a threat. What did you just get internet access or are you totally
unfamiliar with such things as flame wars? Sheesh.
With regards to proving a negative....again, you had what two or three
people point out that you were in error and yet you still refuse to even
admit the possibility of you being in error! Hell, I provided you with
links, which obviously you didn't read, and still you sit there smug in
your condecension.
Now let me quote myself, and I must say I have studied this for years.
Bah!
Steve
--- Adam Gottschalk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> on 10/30/00 11:02, Steven Bissell at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your condescending reply.
>
> Steven
>
> I, sincerely, only matched the level of your condescension. You proposed
> to
> give a brief rundown on the 2nd law that you simply copy-pasted from the
> web? Not knowing anything about my own understanding of it, you don't
> call
> that condescending? It is constantly amazing to me how the mere process
> of
> argumentation is so hard for folks to do without taking it personally.
>
> Here's the way someone on another list signs their posts:
>
> > You wouldn't worry about what people think about you
> > If you'd realize how seldom they do.
>
> I'm not here trying to condescend to Steven Bissell. I don't know you. I
> don't even really care who you are. I am here trying to argue concepts;
> that
> is all. As I see it you are forming your own opinions of some most
> radically
> important concepts with insufficient information. You tried to put me in
> my
> place with some little snippets you captured. I am arguing back the way
> I
> see things. Disagreement, even suggestions as to things to look into, is
> not
> condescension.
>
> > If you want to look up something, try
> > the difference between a law, a theory, a hypothesis,...
>
> The 2nd law is law. No 2 ways about it. It is _not_ like the "law" of
> gravity which has clearly been shaken from its former place as law. Any
> theory, or moral framework for that matter, that contradicts the 2nd law
> is
> doomed to obsolescence or worse, as others have said.
>
> Recently on this list I said frankly to someone that I thought their
> view
> was an aberration. A clear statement, aberration meaning "not the norm."
> What I got back was threats of a flame thrower and assertions that I was
> name calling. I'm over here doing my best to argue points. I could care
> less
> who you all are in the sense that I couldn't care less to call you names
> or
> condescend to you. I make no statement out of condescension or the
> desire to
> name-call. I try to argue for what I see as the truth.
>
> As to proving whether or not animals have ethical systems. It's not that
> a
> negative proposition cannot be proved. One mustn't conflate legality
> with
> morality. The statement "Animals have no ethical systems" is as positive
> as
> "Animals have ethical systems," especially if the latter is the norm.
>
> Guess I'll just lurk for a while and see what other sorts of petty
> fights
> break out because someone took offense at a tone or a term or a word.
>
> Adam
>
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|