"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
>> >>
>> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>> >
>> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
>> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
>> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name
>> > of
>> > the person who was killed as a result.
>>
>> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.
>
> Unfortunately, you edited my statements.

I did not.

> I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
> in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
> objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.

Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:

>> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
>> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
>>
>> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
>> which
>> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
>> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.
>
> Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.

No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
argument seems to be a diversion.

It's
> difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
> disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
> other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
> that this is NOT hardwired.

Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
they will actually suffer serious harm.

> Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
> read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
> Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.

You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
consistent with hard-wiring for survival.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:

>> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
>> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
>>
>> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
>> which
>> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
>> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.
>
> Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.

No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
argument seems to be a diversion.

It's
> difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
> disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
> other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
> that this is NOT hardwired.

Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
they will actually suffer serious harm.

> Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
> read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
> Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.

You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
consistent with hard-wiring for survival.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >> >
> >> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> >> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> >> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name
> >> > of
> >> > the person who was killed as a result.
> >>
> >> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you edited my statements.
>
> I did not.
>
> > I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
> > in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
> > objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.
>
> Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.

To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then there
are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
unacceptable to hypocritical.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
> >> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
> >>
> >> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
> >> which
> >> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
> >> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.
>
> No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
> argument seems to be a diversion.

I've stated this at least twice. It is difficult to proceed in a
discussion with you when we disagree on the original premise.

> It's
> > difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
> > disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
> > other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
> > that this is NOT hardwired.
>
> Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
> it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
> usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
> generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
> they will actually suffer serious harm.

Then the "instinct" is not that powerful. I would argue that the level
of fear that one experiences related to perceptions of possible harm is
proportionate to the level of belief that the harm will happen.

We disagree on the original premise. Calling it intrinsic, normal,
instinct, innate, hardwiring, etc. is where we disagree. In my view,
these are learned responses based on prior experience and that which can
be observed in the world.

I live in a society that socializes males to be fearless not fearful.
Most men are even unable to use the term "fear" when referring to
themselves. This is an example of black and white thinking in my view
and leads to all sorts of interesting results.

Rather than acknowledge that I am human, I am male, I experience
emotions and from time to time I experience fear, this socialization
process results and the threat to perceptions of masculinity results in
irrational conclusions. Conclusions such as harm-avoidance is hardwired.
Most fears are irrational and can be be logically demonstrated as such.

I consider the paradoxical theory of change to be fairly consistent in
that one cannot change their fears until they can acknowledge them.
further, it can be reasoned and it has been researched that fears are
often self-fulfilling prophecies in that the individual will seek out
what they fear and even create X in the absence of it.

So, no. We disagree on the the largely heterosexual male perspective of
what is harm-avoidance, the inability to state fears and rationally
assess them.

I am rarely afraid that I will be murdered, but that is the reason I
appreciate the moral code and law against murder -- fear. Rationally,
the chances and situations where this _might_ or _could_ happen are so
remote that I can function. Others can't.

As a result of fear based responses and entire theory of morality
evolves.

> > Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
> > read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
> > Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.
>
> You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
> rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
> consistent with hard-wiring for survival.

See above.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
> >> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
> >>
> >> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
> >> which
> >> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
> >> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.
>
> No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
> argument seems to be a diversion.

I've stated this at least twice. It is difficult to proceed in a
discussion with you when we disagree on the original premise.

> It's
> > difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
> > disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
> > other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
> > that this is NOT hardwired.
>
> Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
> it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
> usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
> generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
> they will actually suffer serious harm.

Then the "instinct" is not that powerful. I would argue that the level
of fear that one experiences related to perceptions of possible harm is
proportionate to the level of belief that the harm will happen.

We disagree on the original premise. Calling it intrinsic, normal,
instinct, innate, hardwiring, etc. is where we disagree. In my view,
these are learned responses based on prior experience and that which can
be observed in the world.

I live in a society that socializes males to be fearless not fearful.
Most men are even unable to use the term "fear" when referring to
themselves. This is an example of black and white thinking in my view
and leads to all sorts of interesting results.

Rather than acknowledge that I am human, I am male, I experience
emotions and from time to time I experience fear, this socialization
process results and the threat to perceptions of masculinity results in
irrational conclusions. Conclusions such as harm-avoidance is hardwired.
Most fears are irrational and can be be logically demonstrated as such.

I consider the paradoxical theory of change to be fairly consistent in
that one cannot change their fears until they can acknowledge them.
further, it can be reasoned and it has been researched that fears are
often self-fulfilling prophecies in that the individual will seek out
what they fear and even create X in the absence of it.

So, no. We disagree on the the largely heterosexual male perspective of
what is harm-avoidance, the inability to state fears and rationally
assess them.

I am rarely afraid that I will be murdered, but that is the reason I
appreciate the moral code and law against murder -- fear. Rationally,
the chances and situations where this _might_ or _could_ happen are so
remote that I can function. Others can't.

As a result of fear based responses and entire theory of morality
evolves.

> > Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
> > read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
> > Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.
>
> You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
> rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
> consistent with hard-wiring for survival.

See above.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>anal leakage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
>>>>>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
>>>>>>consider immoral.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's apply this thinking to another example.
>>>>
>>>>No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
>>>>then maybe you can try again.
>>>
>>>
>>>All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
>>>we remove this feature from our laws.
>>
>>No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
>>getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
>>be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
>>robbery that does not result in a death.
>
>
> Typically,

Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>anal leakage wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>anal leakage wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
> >>>>>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
> >>>>>>consider immoral.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let's apply this thinking to another example.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
> >>>>then maybe you can try again.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
> >>>we remove this feature from our laws.
> >>
> >>No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
> >>getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
> >>be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
> >>robbery that does not result in a death.
> >
> >
> > Typically,
>
> Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.

You consistently demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty. I'll check in
from time to time to see if you have evolved any.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>anal leakage wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>anal leakage wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
> >>>>>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
> >>>>>>consider immoral.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let's apply this thinking to another example.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
> >>>>then maybe you can try again.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
> >>>we remove this feature from our laws.
> >>
> >>No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
> >>getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
> >>be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
> >>robbery that does not result in a death.
> >
> >
> > Typically,
>
> Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.

You consistently demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty. I'll check in
from time to time to see if you have evolved any.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
>>>>>>>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
>>>>>>>>consider immoral.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let's apply this thinking to another example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
>>>>>>then maybe you can try again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
>>>>>we remove this feature from our laws.
>>>>
>>>>No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
>>>>getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
>>>>be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
>>>>robbery that does not result in a death.
>>>
>>>
>>>Typically,
>>
>>Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.
>
>
> You consistently demonstrate your intellectual

superiority to skanky little homo sophists.

Yes, I know.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
>>>>>>>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
>>>>>>>>consider immoral.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let's apply this thinking to another example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
>>>>>>then maybe you can try again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
>>>>>we remove this feature from our laws.
>>>>
>>>>No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
>>>>getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
>>>>be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
>>>>robbery that does not result in a death.
>>>
>>>
>>>Typically,
>>
>>Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.
>
>
> You consistently demonstrate your intellectual

superiority to skanky little homo sophists.

Yes, I know.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
>> >> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is
>> >> >> stop
>> >> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>> >> >
>> >> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do
>> >> > that
>> >> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME
>> >> > evidence
>> >> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the
>> >> > name
>> >> > of
>> >> > the person who was killed as a result.
>> >>
>> >> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, you edited my statements.
>>
>> I did not.
>>
>> > I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
>> > in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
>> > objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.
>>
>> Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.
>
> To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
> When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then there
> are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
> unacceptable to hypocritical.

That's not it, the circumstances are different. In a court of law one is
required to provide substantial evidence to the court before a person is
convicted of a crime and punished. In everyday moral calculations there is
no need to know such details as the name of the person who sold you the
watch, it's sufficient that you *knew* it was stolen and bought it because
you want to wear a Rolex and don't care if it required a B&E to get it. As
usual, your objections have no substance, they show no effort to grasp the
issues. You appear to have a particular outcome in mind and are just
shooting from the hip hoping to score a hit.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
> >> >> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is
> >> >> >> stop
> >> >> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME
> >> >> > evidence
> >> >> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the
> >> >> > name
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > the person who was killed as a result.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately, you edited my statements.
> >>
> >> I did not.
> >>
> >> > I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
> >> > in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
> >> > objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.
> >>
> >> Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.
> >
> > To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
> > When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then there
> > are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
> > unacceptable to hypocritical.
>
> That's not it, the circumstances are different. In a court of law one is
> required to provide substantial evidence to the court before a person is
> convicted of a crime and punished. In everyday moral calculations there is
> no need to know such details as the name of the person who sold you the
> watch, it's sufficient that you *knew* it was stolen and bought it because
> you want to wear a Rolex and don't care if it required a B&E to get it. As
> usual, your objections have no substance, they show no effort to grasp the
> issues. You appear to have a particular outcome in mind and are just
> shooting from the hip hoping to score a hit.

I give you a watch, or sell it to you. After the fact, I tell you it is
stolen. You now feel morally culpable for an act that didn't happen. I
lied to you, I'm bad, it wasn't really stolen. It was a prank.

Grasp the issues? Give it a rest, Dutch. I was raised in this culture.
I've been familiar with these concepts for decades. The difficulty is
that you cannot get me to think as you do on these issues. The
difficulty is that I don't buy into your harm-aversion and morality
viewpoint.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> [..]
>> >> >> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is
>> >> >> >> stop
>> >> >> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to
>> >> >> > do
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME
>> >> >> > evidence
>> >> >> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the
>> >> >> > name
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > the person who was killed as a result.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately, you edited my statements.
>> >>
>> >> I did not.
>> >>
>> >> > I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would
>> >> > use
>> >> > in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have
>> >> > an
>> >> > objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.
>> >>
>> >> Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.
>> >
>> > To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
>> > When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then
>> > there
>> > are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
>> > unacceptable to hypocritical.
>>
>> That's not it, the circumstances are different. In a court of law one is
>> required to provide substantial evidence to the court before a person is
>> convicted of a crime and punished. In everyday moral calculations there
>> is
>> no need to know such details as the name of the person who sold you the
>> watch, it's sufficient that you *knew* it was stolen and bought it
>> because
>> you want to wear a Rolex and don't care if it required a B&E to get it.
>> As
>> usual, your objections have no substance, they show no effort to grasp
>> the
>> issues. You appear to have a particular outcome in mind and are just
>> shooting from the hip hoping to score a hit.
>
> I give you a watch, or sell it to you. After the fact, I tell you it is
> stolen. You now feel morally culpable for an act that didn't happen. I
> lied to you, I'm bad, it wasn't really stolen. It was a prank.
>
> Grasp the issues? Give it a rest, Dutch. I was raised in this culture.
> I've been familiar with these concepts for decades. The difficulty is
> that you cannot get me to think as you do on these issues. The
> difficulty is that I don't buy into your harm-aversion and morality
> viewpoint.
==============================
Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they pansy-boy? There is
no comparision here. The vegan buys his veggies knowing full well that
they come with the baggage of animals death and suffering. They aren't
ignorant of the fact going into the transaction. too bad you haven't made
a demand for your money back from where ever the second rate school was you
went to? Just because you went somewhere with a name like Monarch Park
Collegiate doesn't mean you were highly educated, pansy-boy. A high school
is still just a high school....

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> >> >> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is
> >> >> >> >> stop
> >> >> >> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to
> >> >> >> > do
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME
> >> >> >> > evidence
> >> >> >> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the
> >> >> >> > name
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > the person who was killed as a result.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unfortunately, you edited my statements.
> >> >>
> >> >> I did not.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would
> >> >> > use
> >> >> > in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have
> >> >> > an
> >> >> > objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.
> >> >>
> >> >> Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.
> >> >
> >> > To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
> >> > When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then
> >> > there
> >> > are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
> >> > unacceptable to hypocritical.
> >>
> >> That's not it, the circumstances are different. In a court of law one is
> >> required to provide substantial evidence to the court before a person is
> >> convicted of a crime and punished. In everyday moral calculations there
> >> is
> >> no need to know such details as the name of the person who sold you the
> >> watch, it's sufficient that you *knew* it was stolen and bought it
> >> because
> >> you want to wear a Rolex and don't care if it required a B&E to get it.
> >> As
> >> usual, your objections have no substance, they show no effort to grasp
> >> the
> >> issues. You appear to have a particular outcome in mind and are just
> >> shooting from the hip hoping to score a hit.
> >
> > I give you a watch, or sell it to you. After the fact, I tell you it is
> > stolen. You now feel morally culpable for an act that didn't happen. I
> > lied to you, I'm bad, it wasn't really stolen. It was a prank.
> >
> > Grasp the issues? Give it a rest, Dutch. I was raised in this culture.
> > I've been familiar with these concepts for decades. The difficulty is
> > that you cannot get me to think as you do on these issues. The
> > difficulty is that I don't buy into your harm-aversion and morality
> > viewpoint.
> ==============================
> Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they pansy-boy? There is
> no comparision here. The vegan buys his veggies knowing full well that
> they come with the baggage of animals death and suffering. They aren't
> ignorant of the fact going into the transaction. too bad you haven't made
> a demand for your money back from where ever the second rate school was you
> went to? Just because you went somewhere with a name like Monarch Park
> Collegiate doesn't mean you were highly educated, pansy-boy. A high school
> is still just a high school....

Baggage? That's just too easy.

At any rate, it seems you continue to confuse me with someone else.
Monarch what? Then there was Rudy and the childhood friend. Me thinks
some folks are in desperate need of their meds.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> [..]
>> >> >> >> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> stop
>> >> >> >> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > do
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME
>> >> >> >> > evidence
>> >> >> >> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > name
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > the person who was killed as a result.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling
>> >> >> >> around.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Unfortunately, you edited my statements.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I
>> >> >> > would
>> >> >> > use
>> >> >> > in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.
>> >> >
>> >> > To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a
>> >> > principle.
>> >> > When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then
>> >> > there
>> >> > are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it
>> >> > is
>> >> > unacceptable to hypocritical.
>> >>
>> >> That's not it, the circumstances are different. In a court of law one
>> >> is
>> >> required to provide substantial evidence to the court before a person
>> >> is
>> >> convicted of a crime and punished. In everyday moral calculations
>> >> there
>> >> is
>> >> no need to know such details as the name of the person who sold you
>> >> the
>> >> watch, it's sufficient that you *knew* it was stolen and bought it
>> >> because
>> >> you want to wear a Rolex and don't care if it required a B&E to get
>> >> it.
>> >> As
>> >> usual, your objections have no substance, they show no effort to grasp
>> >> the
>> >> issues. You appear to have a particular outcome in mind and are just
>> >> shooting from the hip hoping to score a hit.
>> >
>> > I give you a watch, or sell it to you. After the fact, I tell you it is
>> > stolen. You now feel morally culpable for an act that didn't happen. I
>> > lied to you, I'm bad, it wasn't really stolen. It was a prank.
>> >
>> > Grasp the issues? Give it a rest, Dutch. I was raised in this culture.
>> > I've been familiar with these concepts for decades. The difficulty is
>> > that you cannot get me to think as you do on these issues. The
>> > difficulty is that I don't buy into your harm-aversion and morality
>> > viewpoint.
>> ==============================
>> Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they pansy-boy? There
>> is
>> no comparision here. The vegan buys his veggies knowing full well that
>> they come with the baggage of animals death and suffering. They aren't
>> ignorant of the fact going into the transaction. too bad you haven't
>> made
>> a demand for your money back from where ever the second rate school was
>> you
>> went to? Just because you went somewhere with a name like Monarch Park
>> Collegiate doesn't mean you were highly educated, pansy-boy. A high
>> school
>> is still just a high school....
>
> Baggage? That's just too easy.
>
> At any rate, it seems you continue to confuse me with someone else.
> Monarch what? Then there was Rudy and the childhood friend. Me thinks
> some folks are in desperate need of their meds.
==================
Thanks for proving you have nothing, and can't really discuss the issue at
hand, vegan hypocrisy. I thought you were in toronto.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived
>> >> > risk.
>> >> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
>> >>
>> >> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
>> >> which
>> >> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
>> >> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.
>> >
>> > Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
>> argument seems to be a diversion.
>
> I've stated this at least twice. It is difficult to proceed in a
> discussion with you when we disagree on the original premise.

"risk versus perceived risk" does not seem like the original premise to me.
I am hard pressed to see how it is even relevant.

>> It's
>> > difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
>> > disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
>> > other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to
>> > me
>> > that this is NOT hardwired.
>>
>> Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
>> it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
>> usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take
>> risks
>> generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe
>> that
>> they will actually suffer serious harm.
>
> Then the "instinct" is not that powerful.

That might a subjective assessment. I think it is extremely powerful.

> I would argue that the level
> of fear that one experiences related to perceptions of possible harm is
> proportionate to the level of belief that the harm will happen.

Yes, that doesn't refute the existence of the instinct, in fact it
reinforces the idea.

> We disagree on the original premise. Calling it intrinsic, normal,
> instinct, innate, hardwiring, etc. is where we disagree. In my view,
> these are learned responses based on prior experience and that which can
> be observed in the world.

That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive release
of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.

> I live in a society that socializes males to be fearless not fearful.
> Most men are even unable to use the term "fear" when referring to
> themselves. This is an example of black and white thinking in my view
> and leads to all sorts of interesting results.

This is getting into gender politics, a diversion I don't wish to pursue.

> Rather than acknowledge that I am human, I am male, I experience
> emotions and from time to time I experience fear, this socialization
> process results and the threat to perceptions of masculinity results in
> irrational conclusions. Conclusions such as harm-avoidance is hardwired.

That was a non-sequitor, nothing you positied in the first part of the
paragraph leads to the conclusion you arrived at.

> Most fears are irrational and can be be logically demonstrated as such.

Such as?

> I consider the paradoxical theory of change to be fairly consistent in
> that one cannot change their fears until they can acknowledge them.
> further, it can be reasoned and it has been researched that fears are
> often self-fulfilling prophecies in that the individual will seek out
> what they fear and even create X in the absence of it.
>
> So, no. We disagree on the the largely heterosexual male perspective of
> what is harm-avoidance, the inability to state fears and rationally
> assess them.
>
> I am rarely afraid that I will be murdered, but that is the reason I
> appreciate the moral code and law against murder -- fear. Rationally,
> the chances and situations where this _might_ or _could_ happen are so
> remote that I can function. Others can't.

I have never know a person in my entire life who suffered from the fear of
being murdered.

> As a result of fear based responses and entire theory of morality
> evolves.

None of that makes a lick of sense.

>> > Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
>> > read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
>> > Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.
>>
>> You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of
>> relatively
>> rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
>> consistent with hard-wiring for survival.
>
> See above.

It's garbage. There are some elements of truth in there regarding the modern
fear-based society, media, etc.. but it's not an essential or compelling
feature of basic morality. You have jumped to an irrational conclusion.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived
>> >> > risk.
>> >> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
>> >>
>> >> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
>> >> which
>> >> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
>> >> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.
>> >
>> > Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
>> argument seems to be a diversion.
>
> I've stated this at least twice. It is difficult to proceed in a
> discussion with you when we disagree on the original premise.

"risk versus perceived risk" does not seem like the original premise to me.
I am hard pressed to see how it is even relevant.

>> It's
>> > difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
>> > disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
>> > other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to
>> > me
>> > that this is NOT hardwired.
>>
>> Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
>> it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
>> usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take
>> risks
>> generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe
>> that
>> they will actually suffer serious harm.
>
> Then the "instinct" is not that powerful.

That might a subjective assessment. I think it is extremely powerful.

> I would argue that the level
> of fear that one experiences related to perceptions of possible harm is
> proportionate to the level of belief that the harm will happen.

Yes, that doesn't refute the existence of the instinct, in fact it
reinforces the idea.

> We disagree on the original premise. Calling it intrinsic, normal,
> instinct, innate, hardwiring, etc. is where we disagree. In my view,
> these are learned responses based on prior experience and that which can
> be observed in the world.

That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive release
of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.

> I live in a society that socializes males to be fearless not fearful.
> Most men are even unable to use the term "fear" when referring to
> themselves. This is an example of black and white thinking in my view
> and leads to all sorts of interesting results.

This is getting into gender politics, a diversion I don't wish to pursue.

> Rather than acknowledge that I am human, I am male, I experience
> emotions and from time to time I experience fear, this socialization
> process results and the threat to perceptions of masculinity results in
> irrational conclusions. Conclusions such as harm-avoidance is hardwired.

That was a non-sequitor, nothing you positied in the first part of the
paragraph leads to the conclusion you arrived at.

> Most fears are irrational and can be be logically demonstrated as such.

Such as?

> I consider the paradoxical theory of change to be fairly consistent in
> that one cannot change their fears until they can acknowledge them.
> further, it can be reasoned and it has been researched that fears are
> often self-fulfilling prophecies in that the individual will seek out
> what they fear and even create X in the absence of it.
>
> So, no. We disagree on the the largely heterosexual male perspective of
> what is harm-avoidance, the inability to state fears and rationally
> assess them.
>
> I am rarely afraid that I will be murdered, but that is the reason I
> appreciate the moral code and law against murder -- fear. Rationally,
> the chances and situations where this _might_ or _could_ happen are so
> remote that I can function. Others can't.

I have never know a person in my entire life who suffered from the fear of
being murdered.

> As a result of fear based responses and entire theory of morality
> evolves.

None of that makes a lick of sense.

>> > Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
>> > read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
>> > Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.
>>
>> You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of
>> relatively
>> rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
>> consistent with hard-wiring for survival.
>
> See above.

It's garbage. There are some elements of truth in there regarding the modern
fear-based society, media, etc.. but it's not an essential or compelling
feature of basic morality. You have jumped to an irrational conclusion.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive release
> of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.

Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at how
well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
emotions.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive release
> of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.

Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at how
well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
emotions.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> I have never know a person in my entire life who suffered from the fear of
> being murdered.

Wonderful. Then we have no reason to have a law against murder. If no
one is afraid of being killed (unlawfully) then the law is superfluous.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> I have never know a person in my entire life who suffered from the fear of
> being murdered.

Wonderful. Then we have no reason to have a law against murder. If no
one is afraid of being killed (unlawfully) then the law is superfluous.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>> > To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
>> > When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then
>> > there
>> > are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
>> > unacceptable to hypocritical.
>>
>> That's not it, the circumstances are different. In a court of law one is
>> required to provide substantial evidence to the court before a person is
>> convicted of a crime and punished. In everyday moral calculations there
>> is
>> no need to know such details as the name of the person who sold you the
>> watch, it's sufficient that you *knew* it was stolen and bought it
>> because
>> you want to wear a Rolex and don't care if it required a B&E to get it.
>> As
>> usual, your objections have no substance, they show no effort to grasp
>> the
>> issues. You appear to have a particular outcome in mind and are just
>> shooting from the hip hoping to score a hit.
>
> I give you a watch, or sell it to you. After the fact, I tell you it is
> stolen. You now feel morally culpable for an act that didn't happen. I
> lied to you, I'm bad, it wasn't really stolen. It was a prank.

So what? There never was any moral culpability if the watch wasn't stolen.

> Grasp the issues?

I do grasp them, you do not. Your example meant nothing.

> Give it a rest, Dutch. I was raised in this culture.
> I've been familiar with these concepts for decades.

So you have no excuse for this degree of ignorance.

> The difficulty is
> that you cannot get me to think as you do on these issues.

I doubt that you really know what you think.

> The
> difficulty is that I don't buy into your harm-aversion and morality
> viewpoint.

Too bad, you can be a fool all you like, you still must live by them.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>freaky homo > wrote
>>
>>> "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>>>>I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
>>>>>in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
>>>>>objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.
>>>>
>>>>Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.
>>>
>>>To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.

I did no such thing.

>>>When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites.

They are. I did not justify inconsistent application
of a principle. You lied.

>>>It seems then there
>>>are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
>>>unacceptable to hypocritical.
>>
>>That's not it, the circumstances are different. In a court of law one is
>>required to provide substantial evidence to the court before a person is
>>convicted of a crime and punished. In everyday moral calculations there is
>>no need to know such details as the name of the person who sold you the
>>watch, it's sufficient that you *knew* it was stolen and bought it because
>>you want to wear a Rolex and don't care if it required a B&E to get it. As
>>usual, your objections have no substance, they show no effort to grasp the
>>issues. You appear to have a particular outcome in mind and are just
>>shooting from the hip hoping to score a hit.
>
>
> I give you a watch, or sell it to you. After the fact, I tell you it is
> stolen. You now feel morally culpable for an act that didn't happen. I
> lied to you, I'm bad, it wasn't really stolen. It was a prank.

The actual culpability on the part of the buyer only
exists if the watch is in fact stolen. The culpability
is magnified if he had _ex ante_ reason to believe it
to be stolen at the time of purchase.

Why do you keep wasting time with issues you clearly
don't understand?

>
> Grasp the issues?

You clearly don't.

> Give it a rest, Dutch. I was raised in this culture.

A leaky sieve.

> I've been familiar with these concepts for decades.

You have NEVER been familiar with them. It is
abundantly clear from your comments here that you have
first learned of them here.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
>> release
>> of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
>
> Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
> in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at how
> well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
> emotions.

Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a real
threat?

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> I have never know a person in my entire life who suffered from the fear
>> of
>> being murdered.
>
> Wonderful. Then we have no reason to have a law against murder. If no
> one is afraid of being killed (unlawfully) then the law is superfluous.

No, the logical conclusion is that your rant about irrational fear of harm
was just more of your horseshit.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> I have never know a person in my entire life who suffered from the fear
> >> of
> >> being murdered.
> >
> > Wonderful. Then we have no reason to have a law against murder. If no
> > one is afraid of being killed (unlawfully) then the law is superfluous.
>
> No, the logical conclusion is that your rant about irrational fear of harm
> was just more of your horseshit.

Horseshit. Temper, temper. That sounds like anger.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
> >> release
> >> of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
> >
> > Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
> > in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at how
> > well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
> > emotions.
>
> Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a real
> threat?

I made the point. "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
different than actually being threatened.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> > To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
> >> > When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then
> >> > there
> >> > are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
> >> > unacceptable to hypocritical.
> >>
> >> That's not it, the circumstances are different. In a court of law one is
> >> required to provide substantial evidence to the court before a person is
> >> convicted of a crime and punished. In everyday moral calculations there
> >> is
> >> no need to know such details as the name of the person who sold you the
> >> watch, it's sufficient that you *knew* it was stolen and bought it
> >> because
> >> you want to wear a Rolex and don't care if it required a B&E to get it.
> >> As
> >> usual, your objections have no substance, they show no effort to grasp
> >> the
> >> issues. You appear to have a particular outcome in mind and are just
> >> shooting from the hip hoping to score a hit.
> >
> > I give you a watch, or sell it to you. After the fact, I tell you it is
> > stolen. You now feel morally culpable for an act that didn't happen. I
> > lied to you, I'm bad, it wasn't really stolen. It was a prank.
>
> So what? There never was any moral culpability if the watch wasn't stolen.
>
> > Grasp the issues?
>
> I do grasp them, you do not. Your example meant nothing.
>
> > Give it a rest, Dutch. I was raised in this culture.
> > I've been familiar with these concepts for decades.
>
> So you have no excuse for this degree of ignorance.
>
> > The difficulty is
> > that you cannot get me to think as you do on these issues.
>
> I doubt that you really know what you think.
>
> > The
> > difficulty is that I don't buy into your harm-aversion and morality
> > viewpoint.
>
> Too bad, you can be a fool all you like, you still must live by them.

I argue less with boyfriends. Can we please return to a topic.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
>>>>release
>>>>of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
>>>
>>>Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
>>>in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at how
>>>well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
>>>emotions.
>>
>>Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a real
>>threat?
>
>
> I made the point.

It was horseshit.

> "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
> different than actually being threatened.

Irrelevant. We're only talking about actual
situations, not merely one's feelings about them. If
the watch is stolen and you believe it to be stolen, or
have good reason to think it may be, then you are
complicit in crime by buying it.

If you believe it to be wrong for animals to be killed
by humans other than in self defense, and you knowingly
and voluntarily participate in a process that leads to
non-defensive killing of animals, then you are
deliberately behaving inconsistently with your beliefs,
and we may conclude that you don't really believe what
you claim to believe.

This is how it works. There is no mind reading
involved at all.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have never know a person in my entire life who suffered from the
>> >> fear
>> >> of
>> >> being murdered.
>> >
>> > Wonderful. Then we have no reason to have a law against murder. If no
>> > one is afraid of being killed (unlawfully) then the law is superfluous.
>>
>> No, the logical conclusion is that your rant about irrational fear of
>> harm
>> was just more of your horseshit.
>
> Horseshit. Temper, temper. That sounds like anger.

Mild impatience

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
> >>>>release
> >>>>of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
> >>>
> >>>Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
> >>>in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at how
> >>>well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
> >>>emotions.
> >>
> >>Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a real
> >>threat?
> >
> >
> > I made the point.
>
> It was horseshit.
>
> > "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
> > different than actually being threatened.
>
> Irrelevant. We're only talking about actual
> situations, not merely one's feelings about them. If
> the watch is stolen and you believe it to be stolen, or
> have good reason to think it may be, then you are
> complicit in crime by buying it.

Been there, done that.

If I lie to you and tell you the watch stolen then, it is JUST a feeling.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
>> >> release
>> >> of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
>> >
>> > Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
>> > in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at
>> > how
>> > well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
>> > emotions.
>>
>> Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a
>> real
>> threat?
>
> I made the point. "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
> different than actually being threatened.

I realize that there are irrational fears and fear mongers, but there are
still real threats and animals have an instinctive aversion to threats. The
learned part is learning to identify and differentiate real threats in one's
environment.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
>> >> release
>> >> of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
>> >
>> > Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
>> > in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at
>> > how
>> > well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
>> > emotions.
>>
>> Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a
>> real
>> threat?
>
> I made the point. "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
> different than actually being threatened.

I realize that there are irrational fears and fear mongers, but there are
still real threats and animals have an instinctive aversion to threats. The
learned part is learning to identify and differentiate real threats in one's
environment.

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
>>>>>>release
>>>>>>of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
>>>>>in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at how
>>>>>well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
>>>>>emotions.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a real
>>>>threat?
>>>
>>>
>>>I made the point.
>>
>>It was horseshit.
>>
>>
>>>"feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
>>>different than actually being threatened.
>>
>>Irrelevant. We're only talking about actual
>>situations, not merely one's feelings about them. If
>>the watch is stolen and you believe it to be stolen, or
>>have good reason to think it may be, then you are
>>complicit in crime by buying it.
>
>
> Been there, done that.

**** off, little time-wasting homo.

>
> If I lie to you and tell you the watch stolen then, it is JUST a feeling.

We're never talking about a watch that isn't stolen.
That has no bearing. We are ONLY talking about
complicity if the watch is in fact stolen.

You know this; you're just doing more of your shitty
sophistry.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
> >> >> release
> >> >> of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
> >> >
> >> > Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
> >> > in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at
> >> > how
> >> > well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
> >> > emotions.
> >>
> >> Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a
> >> real
> >> threat?
> >
> > I made the point. "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
> > different than actually being threatened.
>
> I realize that there are irrational fears and fear mongers, but there are
> still real threats and animals have an instinctive aversion to threats. The
> learned part is learning to identify and differentiate real threats in one's
> environment.

Fear is acquired. We learn to fear what we fear. Children are, by
comparison fearless.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
> >> >> release
> >> >> of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
> >> >
> >> > Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
> >> > in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at
> >> > how
> >> > well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
> >> > emotions.
> >>
> >> Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a
> >> real
> >> threat?
> >
> > I made the point. "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
> > different than actually being threatened.
>
> I realize that there are irrational fears and fear mongers, but there are
> still real threats and animals have an instinctive aversion to threats. The
> learned part is learning to identify and differentiate real threats in one's
> environment.

Fear is acquired. We learn to fear what we fear. Children are, by
comparison fearless.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >>>In article >, "Dutch"
>> >
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
>> >>>>release
>> >>>>of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
>> >>>
>> >>>Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
>> >>>in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at
>> >>>how
>> >>>well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
>> >>>emotions.
>> >>
>> >>Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a
>> >>real
>> >>threat?
>> >
>> >
>> > I made the point.
>>
>> It was horseshit.
>>
>> > "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
>> > different than actually being threatened.
>>
>> Irrelevant. We're only talking about actual
>> situations, not merely one's feelings about them. If
>> the watch is stolen and you believe it to be stolen, or
>> have good reason to think it may be, then you are
>> complicit in crime by buying it.
>
> Been there, done that.

You buy stolen property?

> If I lie to you and tell you the watch stolen then, it is JUST a feeling.

If the watch is not stolen then there is nothing wrong to be complicit in.
The feeling of apprehension that was caused by your ruse does not mean
anything, morally, except it was a shitty juvenile trick.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >>>In article >, "Dutch"
>> >
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>That can be refuted by observing animal behaviour, and the massive
>> >>>>release
>> >>>>of fight-or-flight chemicals when an animal is threatened.
>> >>>
>> >>>Yup. It's called fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety can be experienced
>> >>>in perceived threats as well as real ones. Check the stock market at
>> >>>how
>> >>>well the pharmaceutical companies are doing on the remedies to these
>> >>>emotions.
>> >>
>> >>Do you have a salient point here? Perhaps there is no such thing as a
>> >>real
>> >>threat?
>> >
>> >
>> > I made the point.
>>
>> It was horseshit.
>>
>> > "feeling" threatened (being afraid and anxious) is
>> > different than actually being threatened.
>>
>> Irrelevant. We're only talking about actual
>> situations, not merely one's feelings about them. If
>> the watch is stolen and you believe it to be stolen, or
>> have good reason to think it may be, then you are
>> complicit in crime by buying it.
>
> Been there, done that.

You buy stolen property?

> If I lie to you and tell you the watch stolen then, it is JUST a feeling.

If the watch is not stolen then there is nothing wrong to be complicit in.
The feeling of apprehension that was caused by your ruse does not mean
anything, morally, except it was a shitty juvenile trick.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>> I realize that there are irrational fears and fear mongers, but there are
>> still real threats and animals have an instinctive aversion to threats.
>> The
>> learned part is learning to identify and differentiate real threats in
>> one's
>> environment.
>
> Fear is acquired.

By experiencing threats. Threats, when they are recognized as such, cause
instinctive fear (flight/fight), which teaches the animal to react with
avoidance in that situation in the future.

> We learn to fear what we fear.

Right, we learn what to fear, we don't learn fear itself, it already exists
as one our basic emotions.

> Children are, by
> comparison fearless.

Children can't differentiate enough of their environment to recognize
threats. One time with the hand on the stove burner and they will recoil
from it instinctively forever.