| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > I know that you've been gone. I think that's a good decision for you. But
> > > what I still don't get is why, given that you had the opportunity to leave
> > > .debate alone, the existence of it is problematic for you personally.
> >
> > I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've
> > stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > B needs to *show* X is infringing on B, that is, that X cannot just be
> > ignored, or in the second case, that X is such a bad thing that it has to be
> > banned apriori.
>
> Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an
> appeal?
Not sure of the answers to either of those, at least not in an idealised
society.
> Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do
> you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?)
I think my threshold is somewhere around large tanks and fighter jets. Any
sort of nukes just sort of "feel wrong" to me. It's a fuzzy argument.
> > Further, they don't even get that
> > they are *taking* this worldview, they prattle about society taking
> > decisions and unconstrained majority rule being fundamentally just.
>
> Bad! Bad Larry! Go sit in the corner. Prattle is not a constructive word to
> use. It would have done your argument no harm to use 'talk' instead and then
> it wouldn't be a thinly veiled insult. (But other than that, I'm still in
> agreement.)
Prattle may have been a bad choice but "talk" is not specific enough.
Meander? Babble? It was meant to be pejorative.
> But the whole reason for responding to this note is to wonder if maybe Larry
> has outlined one of the meta-debates. Are there others like this? Are there
> common idea-threads that cross individual debates that can be expressed like
> this?
I think there are which is one of the reasons I brought it up.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an appeal? Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?) (...) I think that this (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
