From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 03:18:43 BST
Matt,
that is indeed all I'm saying ...
"I'd strongly recommend MoQ-Discuss isn't used for historical,
macro-level (low-quality) political debate, because I believe we're
very unlikely to make any porogress relating it to (any) philosophy"
I already know Platt talks 99% twaddle, and I can't see you changing
his mind. In fact, like Dawkins, by protesting so much you run the
risk of painting yourself into the opposite extreme corner. Which
would be sad.
That's all, just my opinion based on significant experience.
I don't make the rules; I can vote with my feet anytime I choose.
Ian
On 5/1/05, Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Ok, we're making some progress, so let's go again....
>
> On 1 May 2005 at 19:27, ian glendinning wrote:
>
> MSH:
> You said in response to my simple Nuremberg argument...
>
> ian:
> You are reading into facts, even "admissions" of events by
> players involved, actual intentions and motives for reasoning used
> historically.
>
> msh:
> Since every court of law makes similar inferences from evidence,
> testimony, and argument, I wrote...
>
> msh:
> You seem to be saying we can never make value
> judgements regarding the actions of others, that we can't infer
> actual intentions and motives from history. Doesn't this mean the
> Nuremberg defendants should not have been tried at all? In fact,
> that no court of law is legitimate? And you replied...
>
> ian:
> No Mark, that's not at all what I'm saying. We all can, should and do
> make value judgements about and try people in courts for their
> previous intended acts, etc ....
>
> I was talking about MoQ-Discuss - constructive - philsophical debate
> here.
>
> Over a beer in a bar, at an activist meeting, in the jury room, or on
> an impeachment demonstration, I'd agree with nearly everything you've
> said.
>
> msh:
> Well, here's where I get confused. You seem to be saying that there
> is a qualitative difference between the kind of inquiry that goes on
> in most courtrooms and activist meetings (and even some bars :-) ),
> and what you expect to see on MOQ-D, which you say should be
> constructive, philosophical debate. Although low-quality exchanges
> occur here (as everywhere) from time to time, I don't see that the
> low-quality can be correlated with a specific topic of discussion.
>
> Aren't you just re-asserting what you said before, that you prefer
> MOQ-D to be limited to certain kinds of discussion? Your
> preferences are perfectly legitimate, of course; it's just that there
> are others with different preferences.
>
>
> Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
> "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
> We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 02 2005 - 03:22:17 BST