On 2010-09-14 20:56, Platt Holden wrote:
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.
Yeah right. So you've never before tried to raise the individual's right
to freedom above society's right to control it? You're not fooling
anybody. And the term "straw man", what a joke. Every time it is
uttered, it means the one saying it is striking the ostrich pose.
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.
Just connect the dots. When you focus on the individual's right to
freedom, or life, or whatever, you use the intellectual patterns of each
human's brain to claim intellectual supremacy over the social patterns
of the society in which that human is a part. But when you do that,
you're comparing apples and pear trees. (Note! "apples" vs "pear trees"
not "apple trees" vs "pear trees") Do you understand the difference?
You can't use the MoQ to assert that one human's intellectual patterns
are more moral than a society's social patterns, because the society is
composed of *many* humans' intellectual patterns.
Magnus
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
