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



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%