Prev: rupie, the sleazy cynical "new welfarist", continues to whiffoff
Next: Invitation to Derek: show me the true path
From: Rupert on 22 Aug 2008 23:48
On Aug 23, 1:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> rupie the clown prince:
> "when I say 'It is better that they live that life [pleasant
> experiences] than that they not live at all...', I am saying that the
> outcome is better. "
>
> Rudy Canoza:
> "What are the criteria, rupie? Explain."
>
> rupie the clown prince:
> "It is better in that there are more pleasant experiences."
>
> Rudy Canoza:
> "Why is that better, rupie?"
>
> rupie the clown prince:
> "I don't have an answer to that question."

What's your point?
From: Rupert on 23 Aug 2008 03:44
On Aug 23, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 1:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> rupie the clown prince:
> >> "when I say 'It is better that they live that life [pleasant
> >> experiences] than that they not live at all...', I am saying that the
> >> outcome is better. "
>
> >> Rudy Canoza:
> >> "What are the criteria, rupie? Explain."
>
> >> rupie the clown prince:
> >> "It is better in that there are more pleasant experiences."
>
> >> Rudy Canoza:
> >> "Why is that better, rupie?"
>
> >> rupie the clown prince:
> >> "I don't have an answer to that question."
>
> > What's your point?
>
> That you're a self-contradicting fuckwit.

Where's the self-contradiction?
From: Rupert on 25 Aug 2008 02:08
On Aug 23, 12:55 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 23, 1:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> >>>> "when I say 'It is better that they live that life [pleasant
> >>>> experiences] than that they not live at all...', I am saying that the
> >>>> outcome is better. "
> >>>> Rudy Canoza:
> >>>> "What are the criteria, rupie?  Explain."
> >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> >>>> "It is better in that there are more pleasant experiences."
> >>>> Rudy Canoza:
> >>>> "Why is that better, rupie?"
> >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> >>>> "I don't have an answer to that question."
> >>> What's your point?
> >> That you're a self-contradicting fuckwit.
>
> > Where's the self-contradiction?
>
> Saying there's no answer to something after having given an answer.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I didn't do that.
From: Rudy Canoza on 27 Aug 2008 07:36
On Aug 24, 11:08 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 12:55 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Aug 23, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Aug 23, 1:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> > >>>> "when I say 'It is better that they live that life [pleasant
> > >>>> experiences] than that they not live at all...', I am saying that the
> > >>>> outcome is better. "
> > >>>> Rudy Canoza:
> > >>>> "What are the criteria, rupie? Explain."
> > >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> > >>>> "It is better in that there are more pleasant experiences."
> > >>>> Rudy Canoza:
> > >>>> "Why is that better, rupie?"
> > >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> > >>>> "I don't have an answer to that question."
> > >>> What's your point?
> > >> That you're a self-contradicting fuckwit.
>
> > > Where's the self-contradiction?
>
> > Saying there's no answer to something after having given an answer.
>
> I didn't do that.

That's *exactly* what you did. I produced the dialogue _in toto_.
You gave an answer, and then when asked to give meaning to your
answer, you said you had no answer. If you say that something is
"better", you must have some sense of the meaning of "better", or else
it's just a meaningless expletive; something to pad the text.

You cannot give any sense to what you wrote. Being "better" should
mean something to you, and you used it as if it does, but you actually
were equivocating on the word, and you can't give any *real* sense to
it at all. What you *want* people to take out of it is that it is a
morally superior outcome, but you can't give any sense in which it is.

You're fucked, rupie.
From: Rudy Canoza on 27 Aug 2008 07:50
On Aug 27, 4:39 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 4:36 am, Rudy Canoza <notgen...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 11:08 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 23, 12:55 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
> > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 23, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > >>> On Aug 23, 1:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > > > >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> > > > >>>> "when I say 'It is better that they live that life [pleasant
> > > > >>>> experiences] than that they not live at all...', I am saying that the
> > > > >>>> outcome is better. "
> > > > >>>> Rudy Canoza:
> > > > >>>> "What are the criteria, rupie? Explain."
> > > > >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> > > > >>>> "It is better in that there are more pleasant experiences."
> > > > >>>> Rudy Canoza:
> > > > >>>> "Why is that better, rupie?"
> > > > >>>> rupie the clown prince:
> > > > >>>> "I don't have an answer to that question."
> > > > >>> What's your point?
> > > > >> That you're a self-contradicting fuckwit.
>
> > > > > Where's the self-contradiction?
>
> > > > Saying there's no answer to something after having given an answer.
>
> > > I didn't do that.
>
> > That's *exactly* what you did. I produced the dialogue _in toto_.
> > You gave an answer, and then when asked to give meaning to your
> > answer, you said you had no answer.
>
> I gave an answer to one question and denied that there was an answer
> to a different question.

No, you denied that there was an answer to the question you had
already answered. Twice I asked you what was better - or what made
the outcome better, functionally the same question - and the first
time you merely repeated the outcome, then you said you had no answer.

You *don't* have an answer, of course, even though your dishonest
equivocation is supposed to lead people to think you do. You can't
say what's morally superior - because that's what you mean by "better"
- about the outcome of more rather than fewer animals living happy
lives.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: rupie, the sleazy cynical "new welfarist", continues to whiffoff
Next: Invitation to Derek: show me the true path