From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:25:28 GMT

In article <106934@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan13.030405.24535@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <106899@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>>>Would you also agree that drinking poison is, by definition,
>>>in your self-interest if you genuinely want to drink it,
>>>for any reason, and you act voluntarily?
>>
>>given all the usual assumptions (i.e. no children, mentally
>>"challenged" people, intoxication, etc.), then yes.
>
>So for you, any voluntary action is "by definition", in your
>own interest. This is trivially false, and so boringly so
>that it really isn't worth debating.

translation: "it was non-trivial when i asked the question, but
i thought he would answer 'no'. he answered 'yes', and i don't
like that answer, so i'm going to dismiss his position as 'trivially
false' and 'boring' to try to cover the fact that i have no
arguments to counter his calling my bluff on that 'poison'
challenge".

>>>Of course, drinking poison is generally a bad thing to do
>>
>>"generally"? if by that you mean "most of the time", fine.
>>but there are times when drinking poison is the best course of
>>action. i'm sure you don't need examples.
>
>You really do seem to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking,
>and incompetently so, at that.

your opinion, again? there are *many* circumstances where taking
poison is a very rational act. sorry for not answering "no" to
make your life easier.

>You might reflect on why you
>feel compelled to act this way in public.

this, from a man who appends "(FLAME)" to his posts?

>>>helping others is generally a good thing to do.
>>
>>only if the person who is doing it thinks so (am i getting through
>>here?)
>
>Of course you're getting through, Charles. Whatever you choose
>to do is "right for you". Classic freshman ethical relativism.

gee, i'll say it for the Nth time, so you can ignore it again.
if i have the choice between two actions, and neither one violates
anyone else's rights, the choice is mine. also, the word "good"
is subjective, which means the person doing the "good thing"
has to think it is good. if you disagree, state why, and
BACK IT UP. insulting me does not advance your position. neither
does repeating your unsubstantiated claims 20 times.

>>>My point is that
>>>calling it "in your self-interest by definition" is quite false,
>>
>>why? prove it is false.
>
>Look, if you wanted to call your ass your elbow "by definition",
>I would be hard pressed to "prove" you wrong.

then you are "intellectually incompetent". i could.

>Appeal to truth
>"by definition" is, for this reason, a notoriously cheap and
>ineffective form of argument. And one which you seem to be
>especially fond of.

translation: "he's right, i can't refute his argument, nor can
i admit i might be wrong about *anything*, 
so instead i'll get frustrated and try
to say that 'no-one can prove it wrong' in the false hope
that no-one will realize i have absolutely *nothing* to back
up my position".

and this from a person who claims i am "intellectually incompetent".
sheesh. 

i am not "appealing" to anything. if you bothered to think about
that, you'd realize that. i am saying that humans who are acting
voluntarily do what they feel is in their best-interest naturally.
because there is no other choice, if the action is voluntary.

if you disagree, say why and back it up, otherwise it is just
more very ignorable loudly-expressed opinion.
i am not saying that it is impossible that i am wrong. that is
never the case. i am saying that if you think i am wrong,
you have to explain *why*. not just flame me.

--
charles