flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/06/83)
uokvax!andree (mike) says: I agree with Laura: People are better off if other people (including you and me) don't try and run their lives for them. So by your views, I am obligated to prevent you from spreading your views. I hate to state the obvious, but I guess I have to when someone is so dense. By my views, you should encourage the spread of my views. It would certainly be strange if someone's views were anti-his-own-views! But I suppose the writer meant that if he accepts PART of my views, he would have to prevent me from spreading the rest of my views. Still mistaken though, since if I succesfully spread my views, fewer people would have other people running their lives. So it would seem that "mike" is left no objections to my views; but then that's never stopped a wishy-washyist from objecting... --Paul "George Will is my favorite conservative" Torek, ..umcp-cs!flink
andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/14/83)
#R:umcp-cs:-426600:uokvax:5000040:000:2149 uokvax!andree Dec 12 14:44:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.politics / umcp-cs!flink / 6:33 am Dec 7, 1983 */ I hate to state the obvious, but I guess I have to when someone is so dense. By my views, you should encourage the spread of my views. It would certainly be strange if someone's views were anti-his-own-views! But I suppose the writer meant that if he accepts PART of my views, he would have to prevent me from spreading the rest of my views. Still mistaken though, since if I succesfully spread my views, fewer people would have other people running their lives. So it would seem that "mike" is left no objections to my views; but then that's never stopped a wishy-washyist from objecting... --Paul "George Will is my favorite conservative" Torek, ..umcp-cs!flink /* ---------- */ Huh: "... since if I succesfully spread my views, fewer people would have other people running their lives."?!? Very, VERY debatable. You may stop person A from running person B's life, but you have just started running person A's life. Heil Paul! It's amazing that he can find the hole in my (and laura's) argument, but fail to see the flip side of that hole in his. But when somebody can't think logically enough to realize he just made a self-contradictory statement, I guess you have to expect such. Having dispersed my anger, let's move on to something (very) slightly more constructive. Paul (and anyone else out there who cares), I would truly like to see a system of ethics (or whatever you call what we've been discussing) that: 1) Cover's our views on non-interference in others lives. (This is effectively to prevent an ethical system composed of "I AM RIGHT!"). 2) Is consistent. (To prevent statements like the one paul just made). 3) Is complete; it should cover EVERY situation. (This is where my ethics fall down. I guess this is what paul refers to as "wishy-washy"). My suspicion is that such just doesn't exist. The best you can do is be incomplete. But I'd dearly love to see a counterexample to that. < good ol' "wishy-washy" mike Wishy-washy!!!! I've been called a lot of things, but nothing even close to wishy-washy! It just ain't so, folks!