If your stacks show all those things you claim, you might want to explain how so. I don't see that the MOQ as contradicting itself or being abused by anyone's ideas, so those seem to be straw men. But, as pointed out a number of times, no one here is obligated to answer anyone's questions. This is not a teacher-student arena where failure to respond results in a low grade.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Magnus Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > It doesn't solve the ethical problem. It just shows what the problem really > is in terms of the MoQ. It shows that the MoQ does not contradict itself, > and that it can't be abused by your right-wing individualistic ideas. > > Magnus > > > > > On 2010-09-14 16:52, Platt Holden wrote: > >> Magnus, >> >> If you say stacks solve the ethical problem described by the two >> scientists, >> could you tell us what the solution is? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Magnus Berg<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Platt >>> >>> As I hope you remember, I've resolved your seemingly right-wing arguments >>> within the MoQ before, and this time it's even easier. >>> >>> This time, I have stacks. I had them in the past as well but now we both >>> know what the term means, more or less anyway. >>> >>> A human is made in one stack, bones, flesh, cells, nerve signals and >>> brain. >>> All four levels wrapped in a small package. >>> >>> Our society however, doesn't have intellect on its own. The society stack >>> consists of houses, humans, language and government. It uses the >>> intellect >>> of its human inhabitants. >>> >>> That's why the MoQ *seems* to have the problem you see, but if we dig >>> deeper and use the stacks, we see it doesn't. >>> >>> Mystery solved, next question. >>> >>> Magnus >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2010-09-14 01:44, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Horse, >>>> Thanks for the further explanation. If you don't want me to use the term >>>> "death >>>> panel" in referring to a government body that decides who lives and who >>>> dies, >>>> I'll comply. I think it's an accurate description, but if you find it >>>> contrary >>>> to fact and unduly "provocative," so be it. There's no doubt in my mind >>>> that >>>> the content of this site is your province to run as you see fit. >>>> >>>> I was hoping there could be a discussion based on what two distinguished >>>> scientists agreed was "the most difficult ethical question facing >>>> science >>>> today." I thought the question was particularly relevant to this group >>>> because >>>> Pirsig said that SOM science has "no provision for morals." But, here >>>> are >>>> two >>>> scientists who apparently believe it's a question science has some >>>> authority in >>>> answering, contradicting the thrust of the MOQ. >>>> >>>> So far only Ian has offered to debate "how much 'rights' (to health >>>> care) >>>> an >>>> MOQ argument would support." That's OK by me, but why not go further and >>>> explored the MOQ in terms of who decides who lives and who dies under a >>>> government funded health system? That seems to me to be the crux of the >>>> issue >>>> posed by the two scientists, and an issue an "Inquiry in Morals" should >>>> address. >>>> >>>> Platt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Sep 2010 at 23:02, Horse wrote: >>>> >>>> Platt >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For your information I am the main person objecting to use of the term >>>>> death panels for the reasons I gave earlier. Do you have a problem with >>>>> that? >>>>> I'm sure others also object to it but that's not altogether relevant. >>>>> Your use of this term now and in the past has been purely provocative >>>>> and, as I said earlier, is for propaganda and emotive purposes. >>>>> Stupidly, I actually expect better from members of this forum than >>>>> childish attempts to provoke and aggravate other members with comments >>>>> like this. I'm not singling you out deliberately Platt because there >>>>> are >>>>> other members of this forum who continually do exactly the same. >>>>> This forum is intended for intelligent people who wish to discuss, >>>>> rationally and reasonably, what many consider to be an important and >>>>> worthwhile philosophical position but is increasingly becoming like a >>>>> junior school playground. Cheap shots and snide remarks are more >>>>> prevalent recently than intelligent comment and debate. >>>>> I don't like it and will make it known in future if members are not >>>>> prepared to act and contribute in a reasonable manner. >>>>> For Christ's sake I'm not expecting you to all kiss each others arse's, >>>>> just behave like human beings that possess brains!! >>>>> >>>>> Remember this: >>>>> "And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, >>>>> 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Horse >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13/09/2010 22:33, Platt Holden wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When one judges the validity of argument, particularly regarding a >>>>>> matter of >>>>>> interpretation, do you not consider the source? I do. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Ian<[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Platt, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Who cares "who" was making the objection, so long as the argument >>>>>>> remains >>>>>>> valid ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13 Sep 2010, at 21:50, Platt Holden<[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the reference. I shall do as you suggest to see who was >>>>>>> raising >>>>>>> >>>>>>> objections to the term, "death panel.". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Horse<[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Platt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm saying that your use of the term is both propaganda and emotive >>>>>>>>> nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>>>>>> Archives: >>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>>>>> Archives: >>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring >>>>> production >>>>> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." >>>>> - Frank Zappa >>>>> >>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>>>> Archives: >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>>> Archives: >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>>> >>>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
