Prev: rupie's new shag
Next: Dutch's reply to the argument
From: Rupert on 12 Jul 2008 04:05
Sorry, I forgot to include one premise. We need the premise that
Jonathan Ball is a moral agent. This would be formalised as M(j). Dave
Harrison would perhaps question this premise, he has suggested that
Jonathan Ball might be less intelligent than an ape. Perhaps he will
help to save Ball this way.
From: Rupert on 12 Jul 2008 20:09
On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
>
> You are not competent to hold this discussion.

That's very funny, Ball, but just tell me which premise is wrong,
there's a good boy now.
From: Mr.Smartypants on 13 Jul 2008 18:04
On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
> >> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
>
> > That's very funny
>
> No, it's a serious statement.


actually it's quite funny as it's another of your PROJECTIONS.
From: Rupert on 13 Jul 2008 20:44
On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
> >> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
>
> > That's very funny
>
> No, it's a serious statement.

You may very well be serious in making it, but it's very funny to me,
and to quite a few others too, I would imagine. Of course I'm
competent to judge whether an inference is valid in first-order logic.
There isn't any subject related to this argument which I'm less
competent to discuss than you. If you reject the conclusion it's your
job to tell me which premise is wrong. Your "response" is lame and
evasive.
From: Rupert on 14 Jul 2008 01:22
On Jul 14, 12:13 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 13, 1:32 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> (p1) If a moral agent A believes that
> >>>> You are not competent to hold this discussion.
> >>> That's very funny
> >> No, it's a serious statement.
>
> > You may very well be serious
>
> I am.  You should try it some time.

You really are quite pitiful, aren't you, Ball?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: rupie's new shag
Next: Dutch's reply to the argument