humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <47C986BC.5090707@cox.net>, vonvegas@cox.net says...

Charles Bell had written:
A man cannot hold to "duty" which does not exist,

Gordon Sollars replied:
Of course he can...

Vonvegas said:
That was your initial point and its completely wrong. Note how your
initial point involves *nonexistence* and then note down below how you
attempt to redefine your point so that involves only existents.

Gordon Sollars:
> Why did you cut the qualifying text that comes right after my "of course
> he can"?

I cut your so called "qualifying text" (it isn't, it's ampliative) cause
it shortened it and makes zero difference to the meaning. But here it is
in full:
"Of course he can - he could be mistaken, thinking that it did exist."

See? Nothing that follows "Of course he can" changes its meaning to "Of
course he cannot".
Did you wrongly think that I cut the part where you tried to redefine
and thereby change the meaning of your initial assertion? Nah. Your
weaseling came about in the next post.

>Look, I simply don't have time for *two* selective quotation
> artists.

Look if you can stomach it, what a hypocrite you've become. You snip out
stuff left and right with nary a word. Yet you know well that I'm one of
the last people on HPO who still tries to answer line by line which
explains in part why my posts are so long. And when I do leave
something out I always make very clear that I've done so, as I had above
with the three dots (...)
So when you whine about having to deal with, as you put it "*two*
selective quotation artists." you disgrace yourself.

(snip Mark Young stuff)

>
> If you want to do something useful, please post the board position for
> your "mate in one". I've lost track of it, and that was charming, at
> least.

Sure, I'll do you that favor, but I expect you to answer a question in
return.
The simplest way for you is to go to Google, Groups, Advanced Group
Search, and in the box entitled "with all of the words" type in Sherlock
Holmes and in the box entitled "Return only messages where the author
is" type in yzerok. That'll take you to it.

You'll remember, of course, that to solve the problem you need to get
the clues from the story. But I never did update the story to say that
the black king just moved from g2, so you'll have to add that to make it
sound.

Now my question is:
Have you ever considered that philosophy just ain't your thaing?


>> I have my differences with Mark but think him truthful. And I can
>> certainly just about 100% guarantee you that he's not gonna sign up to
>> your laughable proposition that nonexisting things can nevertheless
have
>> relations.

>
> That is not my proposition. It is a proposition you have constructed
> from what I wrote.

You're hair splitting but what you say is literally correct because
above, I did reword it to foreshorten/summarize the proposition. So what?


> But no careful reader would have done so,

Baloney! Here again is what Charles said followed by your response:

Charles Bell had written:
A man cannot hold to "duty" which does not exist,

Gordon Sollars replied:
Of course he can...

And I summarized it as the proposition:
'Nonexisting things can nevertheless have relations.'

See? That's a fair summary with no distortion. You are just engaging in
needless hairsplitting, childish whining, and floundering name calling;
all because you can't bring yourself to admit you screwed up, again.

> and I'm
> beginning to think that no honest reader would continue after my further
> clarifications.

Clarifications? Is that your euphemism for your attempted sneaky
redefinition? But that attempted redefinition occurred in a later post
after you had already clearly committed to the gist of the proposition:
'Nonexisting things can nevertheless have relations.'

> But I would probably be mistaking a neurotic fixation
> for dishonesty. Now, I think I'll go eat some of Santa's cookies.

You wasted my time and yours by "responding" with a whole post
containing near zero substance just calumny.


Vonvegas