On Jul 6, 9:51=A0am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 8:42 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 6, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 6, 6:38 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 1:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> These quotations from David Harrison are certainly very
interes=
ting.
> >>>>>>>>> Engaging in an activity which is like to cause injury or death
=
to
> >>>>>>>>> humans, or for that matter any sentient being, is not an
ethica=
lly
> >>>>>>>>> justifiable way to behave
> >>>>>>>> So, I guess you never operate - hell, never even use - motor
veh=
icles,
> >>>>>>>> right?
> >>>>>>>> You stupid ****witted prig. =A0You have *ZERO* standing to be
le=
cturing
> >>>>>>>> anyone on ethical behavior. =A0You're a pompous, egotistical
****=
k.
> >>>>>>> You really are a bit weird, Rudy.
> >>>>>> No, you pompous egotistical ****.
> >>>>> I'm afraid you'll find that a large number of people who read your
> >>>>> posts would regard you as pretty weird.
> >>>> You have no way of knowing that.
> >>> Yes, I do. I can read.
> >>>>>>> I wasn't lecturing anyone about
> >>>>>>> ethical behaviour,
> >>>>>> You were lecturing people about ethical behavior, you lying
****wi=
t. =A0You
> >>>>>> just told people that "engaging in an activity which is like
[sic]=
to
> >>>>>> cause injury or death to humans, or for that matter any sentient
b=
eing,
> >>>>>> is not an ethically justifiable way to behave." =A0That was
lectur=
ing
> >>>>>> people about ethical behavior. =A0What the **** is wrong with
you?
> >>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lecture
> >>>> You were lecturing about ethics. =A0Cut the bull****.
> >>> I was making a perfectly reasonable comment.
> >>>>>>> I made a comment, the main point of which was that
> >>>>>>> I don't morally approve of the use of violent tactics in
politica=
l
> >>>>>>> activism,
> >>>>>> That's not what you said. =A0You said "engaging in an activity
whi=
ch is
> >>>>>> like [sic] to cause injury or death to humans, or for that matter
=
any
> >>>>>> sentient being, is not an ethically justifiable way to behave." =
=A0Driving
> >>>>>> a motor vehicle is such an activity.
> >>>>> The statement needs considerable qualification, it's not
satisfacto=
ry
> >>>>> as it stands,
> >>>> You ****ed up, then. =A0You were slovenly, as rash amateurs in
ethic=
al
> >>>> pontificating usually are.
> >>> The post wasn't intended for publication in peer-reviewed journal,
> >>> Rudy.
> >> Irrelevant.
>
> > It was a perfectly reasonable statement to make.
>
> No, it wasn't. =A0It was a bit of bull**** and a non sequitur.
>
As usual, your opinion on the matter is completely worthless.
> >>> Also, you ****ed up much more egregiously when you said that driving
=
a
> >>> motor vehicle is "likely" to cause injury or death. It's not,
> >>> otherwise cars would be banned.
> >> There is a non-zero likelihood that the operation of a motor vehicle
> >> will cause the death or injury of someone. =A0That means "likely".
>
> > That's *really* classic, Rudy.
>
> Not really.
>
It's one of your more egregiously stupid moments.
> >>>>>>> I wasn't anticipating that this stance would be
> >>>>>>> controversial. I've certainly got as much right to offer my
thoug=
hts
> >>>>>>> about morality as anyone else.
> >>>>>> You do more than that. =A0You pompously set yourself up as some
ki=
nd of
> >>>>>> ethical philosopher.
> >>>>> I wasn't doing that simply by making the statement
> >>>> You were.
> >>> Well, in that case there's nothing wrong with it.
> >> Self-serving redefinition.
>
> > Not following you. How am I "redefining" myself?
>
> Not yourself, ****wit.
Okay, pardon my stupidity, how am I "redefining" anything?
|
