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 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?   
      
   i dont know what you are expecting or see? i will say that   
   morality is binary to the extent where causing suffering to   
   others is immoral. but life is never that simple and one dimensional.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)