Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [Platt]
> Answering your questions will not indicate my position is the absurd one...
>
> [Arlo]
> Then answer them... if you can. Otherwise, its quite obvious your position is
> absurd. But... prove me wrong. Answer.
>
> [Platt]
> ... but your failure to provide a scintilla of evidence for your postion
> suggests your position won't even meet the basic requirement for a cogent
> argument.
>
> [Arlo]
> I can understand your need to roll out a few Pee Wees here. Great distraction.
> I have presented not only evidence, but demonstrated that my position is
> coherent, logical and sound. You, on the other hand, continue only to
> demonstrate that rather than address the absurdities of your position, you
> prefer to play games of rhetoric. I bet no one is surprised.
>
> DQ is, most simply, "it's better here". It is experienced by atoms and humans.
> Patterns are able to respond to DQ by the repertoire of actions made possible
> by their level.
That is not evidence, merely assertions.
> Animals never "lost" the ability to respond to DQ. They continue to respond to
> DQ today as they always have, from the biological level. Your cat and all
> animals from all time respond to "it's better here". They do not respond via a
> social and intellectual repertoire as do humans, but they respond nonetheless.
Again, mere assertions. No evidence.
> All humans respond to DQ from the biological level. Only humans that are
> participate in social patterns (and subsequently intellectual patterns) are
> able to respond to DQ on these levels.
>
> Sound. Coherent. MOQ.
Just words. Where is the evidence?
> Your position? So absurd you can't even answer basic questions about it. But
> like all good talk-radio blowhards, you'd descend into the classic web of
> rhetoric in an attempt to distract away from this. So what's it gonna be,
> Platt? Another round of talk-show crap, or tryto answer some simple questions?
When in doubt, bring on the insults and abuse. Typical.
> Let's take just one...
>
> Give me one example of how an animal in the past, an animal that could respond
> to DQ, behaved any differently from any animal today?
> Your answers to date continue to demonstrate the absurdity of your position,
> something I'm sure you recognize but will obviously never admit to. Or are
> "die" and "stare at its tail in wonder" the best you can come up with? Sad,
> isn't it?
What's sad is your inability to provide a scintilla of evidence for your
position. The fact homo sapiens evolved some millions of years ago, as you
admit, is evidence of some animal responding to the creative power of DQ
sometime in the past. The specifics even Darwinians cannot say. The closest
they've managed to identify the recepient of the DQ response is a creature
called "Lucy."
"In the wake of this cutting edge (DQ) are static patterns
of value. These are memories, customs and patterns of nature." (SODV) In other
words, patterns of nature don't change, any more than the patterns of your
cat.
If you want to continue with your absurd notion that every time the wind
shifts it's because of a mystic reponse to the moral force of DQ, please
do. It gives us all moments of high humor.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
