Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:52:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2013 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:32:22 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> But right now we're bouncing around on too many different threads.
I think you could well be right.
> All I can suggest there is an analogy, and not a very good one. When a
> defense lawyer makes his argument, he may well say "my client didn't do
> it.. first, he wasn't there that day, second he doesn't have a gun, and
> third, actually it was someone else that pulled the trigger although he
> was in the room and it was his gun."...
I guess that's why I don't have much respect for lawyers ;=>
> So when I say something is flawed on a utilitarian basis, it doesn't
> mean that utilitarianism is my preferred refutatory, it merely means
> (perhaps, regrettably, I am jumping around too much) that I am trying to
> work at the level of the person who advanced the argument. If I can both
> defeat it on a utilitarian basis AND show that rights are being violated
> that don't need to be, it's a stronger counter. Although I admit it is
> more confusing to the drive by reader.
Drive-by isn't the word. Running around "Clue" manor with guns and
trying to have a duel, more like.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
