In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

A prank that nonetheless demonstrate that the feelings of "guilt" or
"wrongdoing" are only just feelings. If I did that play that trick, I
could allow you to feel guilt endlessly. And the "truth" of the matter
is that it wouldn't be stolen. The feelings would be experienced as
"real", but the guilt would be false. I could allow you to feel like a
bad person. I could even allow you to think that you might have a
problem with the authorities and allow your apprehension to increase 10
fold. Of course, the authorities don't get involved in non-stolen
watches that I might sell to you.

IOW, the emotion of wrongdoing is a theoretical construction of the mind
that is created based on morality which is another theoretical
construction of the mind.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

This is old science. There is a third option and that is "freezing". Its
pretty well documented. The logic fallacy of the false dilemma is
presented. Generalizing that X is harmful and avoiding all X is a
measure of irrationality. The further irrationality is to assume the
same outcome.

> > 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.

From the perspective of adults and people who experience fear, we hope
that this is true. It's much easier to rationalize fear when we can
believe that it is innate versus learned and chosen.

> > 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.

Which demonstrates my point that they don't avoid the "harm". In fact,
most people (the rational ones) will soon realize that a stove element
is only a harm when it is turned on or as it is cooling. It is
completely safe to touch it at other times.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> A prank that nonetheless demonstrate that the feelings of "guilt" or
> "wrongdoing" are only just feelings.

"Feelings" are not the issue, the issue is actual complicity in an immoral
act.

> If I did that play that trick, I
> could allow you to feel guilt endlessly. And the "truth" of the matter
> is that it wouldn't be stolen. The feelings would be experienced as
> "real", but the guilt would be false. I could allow you to feel like a
> bad person. I could even allow you to think that you might have a
> problem with the authorities and allow your apprehension to increase 10
> fold. Of course, the authorities don't get involved in non-stolen
> watches that I might sell to you.
>
> IOW, the emotion of wrongdoing is a theoretical construction of the mind
> that is created based on morality which is another theoretical
> construction of the mind.

In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind, that's
all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your lying.
All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into believing
something false.

"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.
>
> This is old science.

You don't understand any science.

> There is a third option and that is "freezing". Its
> pretty well documented.

Freezing is just an alternate form of harm avoidance, the principle is the
same as flight.

> The logic fallacy of the false dilemma is
> presented. Generalizing that X is harmful and avoiding all X is a
> measure of irrationality. The further irrationality is to assume the
> same outcome.

It sounds like you're smoking pot too.

>> > 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.
>
> From the perspective of adults and people who experience fear, we hope
> that this is true. It's much easier to rationalize fear when we can
> believe that it is innate versus learned and chosen.

Since fear and/or aversion to harm, (aka survival instinct) is observable in
every living organism from a two celled plenarium to a human, it is logical
to conclude that it is part or our biology. The skewed bias in this analysis
is your dogged attachment to this notion that everything is arbitrary and
learned.

>> > 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.
>
> Which demonstrates my point that they don't avoid the "harm".

They don't perceive it as harm until they experience it.

> In fact,
> most people (the rational ones) will soon realize that a stove element
> is only a harm when it is turned on or as it is cooling. It is
> completely safe to touch it at other times.

Irrelevant.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "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.
> >
> > A prank that nonetheless demonstrate that the feelings of "guilt" or
> > "wrongdoing" are only just feelings.
>
> "Feelings" are not the issue, the issue is actual complicity in an immoral
> act.
>
> > If I did that play that trick, I
> > could allow you to feel guilt endlessly. And the "truth" of the matter
> > is that it wouldn't be stolen. The feelings would be experienced as
> > "real", but the guilt would be false. I could allow you to feel like a
> > bad person. I could even allow you to think that you might have a
> > problem with the authorities and allow your apprehension to increase 10
> > fold. Of course, the authorities don't get involved in non-stolen
> > watches that I might sell to you.
> >
> > IOW, the emotion of wrongdoing is a theoretical construction of the mind
> > that is created based on morality which is another theoretical
> > construction of the mind.
>
> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind, that's
> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your lying.
> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into believing
> something false.

Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of complicity.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.
> >
> > This is old science.
>
> You don't understand any science.
>
> > There is a third option and that is "freezing". Its
> > pretty well documented.
>
> Freezing is just an alternate form of harm avoidance, the principle is the
> same as flight.

No. Your theory relies on the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
Flight is not freezing and flight and freezing are not fighting.

> > The logic fallacy of the false dilemma is
> > presented. Generalizing that X is harmful and avoiding all X is a
> > measure of irrationality. The further irrationality is to assume the
> > same outcome.
>
> It sounds like you're smoking pot too.

I guess that is A response.

> >> > 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.
> >
> > From the perspective of adults and people who experience fear, we hope
> > that this is true. It's much easier to rationalize fear when we can
> > believe that it is innate versus learned and chosen.
>
> Since fear and/or aversion to harm, (aka survival instinct) is observable in
> every living organism from a two celled plenarium to a human, it is logical
> to conclude that it is part or our biology. The skewed bias in this analysis
> is your dogged attachment to this notion that everything is arbitrary and
> learned.

Confirmation bias.

> >> > 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.
> >
> > Which demonstrates my point that they don't avoid the "harm".
>
> They don't perceive it as harm until they experience it.
>
> > In fact,
> > most people (the rational ones) will soon realize that a stove element
> > is only a harm when it is turned on or as it is cooling. It is
> > completely safe to touch it at other times.
>
> Irrelevant.

You claimed that they would "recoil from it instinctively forever".
Clearly, by this example most sane humans don't respond this way.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"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.
>>>
>>>This is old science.
>>
>>You don't understand any science.
>>
>>
>>>There is a third option and that is "freezing". Its
>>>pretty well documented.
>>
>>Freezing is just an alternate form of harm avoidance, the principle is the
>>same as flight.
>
>
> No. Your theory relies on the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

No. You learned that expression from me when I
CORRECTLY pointed out your commission of the fallacy,
and now you're misusing it all over the place.

>>>The logic fallacy of the false dilemma is
>>>presented. Generalizing that X is harmful and avoiding all X is a
>>>measure of irrationality.

That is not an instance of false dilemma. You plainly
don't know your ass from your face about the topic.


>>
>>It sounds like you're smoking pot too.
>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>From the perspective of adults and people who experience fear, we hope
>>>that this is true. It's much easier to rationalize fear when we can
>>>believe that it is innate versus learned and chosen.
>>
>>Since fear and/or aversion to harm, (aka survival instinct) is observable in
>>every living organism from a two celled plenarium to a human, it is logical
>>to conclude that it is part or our biology. The skewed bias in this analysis
>>is your dogged attachment to this notion that everything is arbitrary and
>>learned.
>
>
> Confirmation bias.

Nor do you know what that really means.

Give it up, homo

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind,
>> that's
>> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your lying.
>> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into believing
>> something false.
>
> Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of complicity.

You can't just deceive someone then announce that means moral codes and
theories of complicity are false.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind,
>> that's
>> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your lying.
>> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into believing
>> something false.
>
> Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of complicity.

You can't just deceive someone then announce that means moral codes and
theories of complicity are false.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>> >
>> > This is old science.
>>
>> You don't understand any science.
>>
>> > There is a third option and that is "freezing". Its
>> > pretty well documented.
>>
>> Freezing is just an alternate form of harm avoidance, the principle is
>> the
>> same as flight.
>
> No. Your theory relies on the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
> Flight is not freezing and flight and freezing are not fighting.

Nonsense, freezing is just an alternate strategy to avoid harm, there is no
fallacy.

>> > The logic fallacy of the false dilemma is
>> > presented. Generalizing that X is harmful and avoiding all X is a
>> > measure of irrationality. The further irrationality is to assume the
>> > same outcome.
>>
>> It sounds like you're smoking pot too.
>
> I guess that is A response.

A logical one.
>
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > From the perspective of adults and people who experience fear, we hope
>> > that this is true. It's much easier to rationalize fear when we can
>> > believe that it is innate versus learned and chosen.
>>
>> Since fear and/or aversion to harm, (aka survival instinct) is observable
>> in
>> every living organism from a two celled plenarium to a human, it is
>> logical
>> to conclude that it is part or our biology. The skewed bias in this
>> analysis
>> is your dogged attachment to this notion that everything is arbitrary and
>> learned.
>
> Confirmation bias.

You've got convenient labels for everything, and you can't support any of
them.

>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > Which demonstrates my point that they don't avoid the "harm".
>>
>> They don't perceive it as harm until they experience it.
>>
>> > In fact,
>> > most people (the rational ones) will soon realize that a stove element
>> > is only a harm when it is turned on or as it is cooling. It is
>> > completely safe to touch it at other times.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> You claimed that they would "recoil from it instinctively forever".
> Clearly, by this example most sane humans don't respond this way.

Yes they do, then they learn to discriminate between hot and cold. A sane
person approaches a stove burner assuming it is hot until the ascertain
otherwise. Harm avoidance.

You belong to a small distinguished group of people, those who are attracted
to attempting to prove the absurd.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>> >
>> > This is old science.
>>
>> You don't understand any science.
>>
>> > There is a third option and that is "freezing". Its
>> > pretty well documented.
>>
>> Freezing is just an alternate form of harm avoidance, the principle is
>> the
>> same as flight.
>
> No. Your theory relies on the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
> Flight is not freezing and flight and freezing are not fighting.

Nonsense, freezing is just an alternate strategy to avoid harm, there is no
fallacy.

>> > The logic fallacy of the false dilemma is
>> > presented. Generalizing that X is harmful and avoiding all X is a
>> > measure of irrationality. The further irrationality is to assume the
>> > same outcome.
>>
>> It sounds like you're smoking pot too.
>
> I guess that is A response.

A logical one.
>
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > From the perspective of adults and people who experience fear, we hope
>> > that this is true. It's much easier to rationalize fear when we can
>> > believe that it is innate versus learned and chosen.
>>
>> Since fear and/or aversion to harm, (aka survival instinct) is observable
>> in
>> every living organism from a two celled plenarium to a human, it is
>> logical
>> to conclude that it is part or our biology. The skewed bias in this
>> analysis
>> is your dogged attachment to this notion that everything is arbitrary and
>> learned.
>
> Confirmation bias.

You've got convenient labels for everything, and you can't support any of
them.

>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > Which demonstrates my point that they don't avoid the "harm".
>>
>> They don't perceive it as harm until they experience it.
>>
>> > In fact,
>> > most people (the rational ones) will soon realize that a stove element
>> > is only a harm when it is turned on or as it is cooling. It is
>> > completely safe to touch it at other times.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> You claimed that they would "recoil from it instinctively forever".
> Clearly, by this example most sane humans don't respond this way.

Yes they do, then they learn to discriminate between hot and cold. A sane
person approaches a stove burner assuming it is hot until the ascertain
otherwise. Harm avoidance.

You belong to a small distinguished group of people, those who are attracted
to attempting to prove the absurd.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind,
> >> that's
> >> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your lying.
> >> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into believing
> >> something false.
> >
> > Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of complicity.
>
> You can't just deceive someone then announce that means moral codes and
> theories of complicity are false.

Just like the dupe who can experience false beliefs for a watch that was
never stolen, some folks are very receptive or easily convinced of their
accountability for the actions and consequences of others.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind,
> >> that's
> >> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your lying.
> >> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into believing
> >> something false.
> >
> > Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of complicity.
>
> You can't just deceive someone then announce that means moral codes and
> theories of complicity are false.

Just like the dupe who can be easily deceived and falsely believe
something where a watch isn't stolen, there are also people who just as
readily accept the belief that they are responsible for the actions and
outcomes of others.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind,
>> >> that's
>> >> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your
>> >> lying.
>> >> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into
>> >> believing
>> >> something false.
>> >
>> > Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of
>> > complicity.
>>
>> You can't just deceive someone then announce that means moral codes and
>> theories of complicity are false.
>
> Just like the dupe who can experience false beliefs for a watch that was
> never stolen, some folks are very receptive or easily convinced of their
> accountability for the actions and consequences of others.

Non-sequitor, the fact that someone believed your lie does not indicate
anything about the validity of the principle of complicity. You're grasping
again.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind,
>> >> that's
>> >> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your
>> >> lying.
>> >> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into
>> >> believing
>> >> something false.
>> >
>> > Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of
>> > complicity.
>>
>> You can't just deceive someone then announce that means moral codes and
>> theories of complicity are false.
>
> Just like the dupe who can be easily deceived and falsely believe
> something where a watch isn't stolen, there are also people who just as
> readily accept the belief that they are responsible for the actions and
> outcomes of others.

Non-sequitor

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind,
> >> >> that's
> >> >> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your
> >> >> lying.
> >> >> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into
> >> >> believing
> >> >> something false.
> >> >
> >> > Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of
> >> > complicity.
> >>
> >> You can't just deceive someone then announce that means moral codes and
> >> theories of complicity are false.
> >
> > Just like the dupe who can experience false beliefs for a watch that was
> > never stolen, some folks are very receptive or easily convinced of their
> > accountability for the actions and consequences of others.
>
> Non-sequitor, the fact that someone believed your lie does not indicate
> anything about the validity of the principle of complicity. You're grasping
> again.

It think it was PT Barnum who said, "there is one born every minute."

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> In your example you created a false impression in that person's mind,
> >> >> that's
> >> >> all. It has nothing to do with a real immoral act, apart from your
> >> >> lying.
> >> >> All your demonstration shows is that people can be fooled into
> >> >> believing
> >> >> something false.
> >> >
> >> > Believing something false....like moral codes and theories of
> >> > complicity.
> >>
> >> You can't just deceive someone then announce that means moral codes and
> >> theories of complicity are false.
> >
> > Just like the dupe who can be easily deceived and falsely believe
> > something where a watch isn't stolen, there are also people who just as
> > readily accept the belief that they are responsible for the actions and
> > outcomes of others.
>
> Non-sequitor

So much for wanting truth.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> I've recommended that people consume products which cause the fewest
> number of dead animals if they're genuinely interested in causing fewer
> animal deaths.
So, unlike the other propagandists making this claim, why don't YOU
present the results of several honest scientific studies that estimate the
total animal biomass lost per pound of protein produced per acre by various
agricultural systems counting from the virgin ecosystem?

Laurie

Larry Fruity wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I've recommended that people consume products which cause the
fewest
> > number of dead animals if they're genuinely interested in causing
fewer
> > animal deaths.
> So, unlike the other propagandists making this claim, why don't
YOU
> present the results of several honest scientific studies that
estimate the
> total animal biomass lost

Because "biomass" is meaningless.

You never answered my earlier question, Fruity: IF someone is
concerned with the loss of sentient life - and if you're going to play
in this sandbox, Fruity, you simply have to accept that that's an issue
for some people - then should he consider the deaths of 40 chimpanzees
with a total "biomass" of 1800 kg to be less bad than the death of one
hippopotamus of 2200 kg?

"biomass" is meaningless, Fruity. It's just you trying to perpetuate
your imposture of someone who knows real science. You do not know
science.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Because "biomass" is meaningless.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=biomass

Laurie

Larry Fruity wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> > Because "biomass" is meaningless.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=biomass

Cute. Well, not really; just stupid and idiosyncratic.

You STILL haven't explained why someone concerned with sentient life
should be concerned with "biomass", Fruity. And you STILL are whiffing
off from answering the question: should a person who IS concerned with
sentient life - and you have to accept his concerns as legitimate -
consider the deaths of 40 chimpanzees with a total "biomass" of 1800 kg
to be less bad than the death of one hippopotamus of 2200 kg?
Stop dodging and answer the question, Fruity.