XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.fun   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d, talk.politics.guns   
   From: f00@0f0.00f   
      
   Jerry Buchanan wrote:   
   > On 11/21/2025 11:19 AM, jojo wrote:   
   >> Jerry Buchanan wrote:   
   >>> On 11/21/2025 10:57 AM, jojo wrote:   
   >>>> Clave wrote:   
   >>>>> If a storm breaks off a tree limb, and the limb hits the   
   >>>>> corner of your roof and takes off some of the eave and   
   >>>>> gutter, that's bad. If the limb crashes entirely through   
   >>>>> your roof and lands in the living room, that's worse.   
   >>>>> Goodness and badness – as practical consequences, not   
   >>>>> morality — occur along a spectrum. If you get an estimate   
   >>>>> for an automotive repair of $500, and it only ends up   
   >>>>> costing you $400, that's good. If it only ends up costing   
   >>>>> you $200, that's better, i.e. "more good."   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Morality is not like that. If you steal one tool (rake,   
   >>>>> shovel) from the side of your neighbor's house, that's   
   >>>>> wrong. If you steal all the tools, that's wrong, and it is   
   >>>>> not "more wrong" than stealing only one. Stealing all of   
   >>>>> them is a worse *practical* outcome for the neighbor, but   
   >>>>> either action is just wrong.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> so you're saying mortality is independent of goodness or   
   >>>> badness?   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm not saying anything about mortality, idiot.   
   >>>   
   >>> You attempted to equivocate on goodness/badness. I stopped you.   
   >>   
   >> so it is dependent on goodness and badness?   
   >   
   > You're attempting to equivocate again. It won't work again.   
      
   i see, too bad.. or good??   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)