- Dec 29, 2004
- Basic Beliefs
- Dogs rule
You are making positive claim - prove it or STFU.The distinctions you've made is special pleading. The distress caused is the same.Your 2nd sentence rebuts your claim of understanding - the situations are different. You clearly don't understand the difference which means you didn't understand the bolded part regardles of your belief to the contrary.
You are being illogical. If I am forgetful, that may have a negative effect on others, but it does not have a moral dimension. If I am clumsy, it may have a negative effect on others, but it does not have a moral dimension. If I choose to drive my car to the store that is 2 blocks away, that may have a negative effect on others, but it has no moral dimension.You no doubt want to win this semantic argument, but you are indeed claiming it is undesirable for people to behave like assholes and they ought not do it. Avoiding undesirable behaviour because of its negative effect on others is a choice with a moral dimension but if you don't want to call it that, obviously I'm not going to force you.Whether an outcome is desirable or undesirable does not necessarily entail a moral dimension - as anyone remotely capable of reason understands,
You certainly feel the need to interject some sort of "moral dimension " into this discussion. But no one is compelled to accept your "reasoning" or your rhetoric.
Yes, and anyone who is familiar with sports understands that what you wrote is ignorance driven silliness.Anyone who can read can see I wrote playing the best you can entails scoring points.Anyone who is not inept in reason understands that reasoning does not logically lead to "Playing effectively as you can" means "Scoring the most points possible".