humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On 15 Mar, 17:16, Potroast wrote:
> On Mar 15, 7:28 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
>
> > And my learned friend is quite right, but in my experience Potroast has
> > never been one to let the facts cloud his judgment.
>
> Hey didn't you say you were plonking me Reggie ?

I did, and I did.

>  Why do you keep
> reading my posts if you find me so incredibly lacking?

Sometimes I encounter them via others' replies and sometimes I read
via Google rather than via my newsreader.

>    And If I might be so bold to fire back my own commentary to your
> unprovoked personal shot.... I hear it is incredibly original and
> classy to behave that way towards strangers taking the time to
> rebuttal to someone's posts on the Internet.

[*shrugs*]

I was merely warning Gordon of what he was getting himself into; what
he chooses to do with that information is obviously up to him.

>  I don't have to agree with everything everyone says (and I certainly
> don't expect others to agree with everything I say) but I still do
> appreciate the effort they take to reply back to me and do consider
> their arguments.  If I knew everything (or was always right) I
> wouldn't need to debate anyone about anything right? I know am
> sometimes wrong and as such I try to undercover those wrongs through
> debate. No doubt sometimes debate is not adequate enough and I will go
> to my grave believing foolish things.
>
> This is so unlike you of course.

Yeah, it is unlike me to debate subjects that I lack even a passing
familiarity with. There is a long-established distinction in
international law between pre-emption and prevention. Fact. If you
ever hit on an issue that's genuinely disputed by international
jurists, *that's* when you might get a considered response from me,
but I'm not going to waste my time arguing that black is indeed black.