XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.fun   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d, talk.politics.guns   
   From: notgenx32@yahoo.com   
      
   On 11/21/2025 1:04 PM, jojo wrote:   
   > Jerry Buchanan wrote:   
   >> On 11/21/2025 12:23 PM, jojo wrote:   
   >>> Jerry Buchanan wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/21/2025 12:07 PM, jojo wrote:   
   >>>>> 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??   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You don't see that your equivocation game collapsed.   
   >>>   
   >>> so was that a good thing or a bad thing?   
   >>   
   >> It's a very good (high quality) thing.   
   >   
   > that was nice of you to decide.   
      
   I didn't decide anything. It is an objective fact that it is good (high   
   quality)   
   that your equivocation game collapsed, and that you realize it.   
      
   Are you aware that you're a really bad (low quality) troll? Or, is there a   
   Dunning-Kruger analogue here, in which you are too stupid to see that you're a   
   bad troll?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)