Re: Damn!

Count 1 wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137423399.860865.262160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1137420345.256903.106410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1137366728.416161.49620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1137353196.057060.196270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > But if the "tribe" mutates its principles to
> match
> > > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > continuing to maintain a (moral) distinction
> between
> > > > > "us"
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "them"
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > most certainly bullshit. Of the highest and
> most
> > > > > fragrant
> > > > > > > > > order.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> So far at least, neither the Israelis nor we
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> (excluding you, of course)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > That seems a bit uncalled for.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> How so? You've often made it pretty clear here that
> you
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > > > > >> yourself to be a member of the political "collective"
> to
> > > > > which I
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > >> referring.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Oh. I read it to say you were including me in those
> who
> > > had
> > > > > > > mutated
> > > > > > > > > > > > quite that far. So, apparently, did Count 1.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You thought I think you intentionally target babies?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I thought that's what you were trying to say, yes.
> Sometimes
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > hard to tell what you actually think.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And you also thought
> > > > > > > > > > > Count 1 thinks I think you do?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think he read what you wrote the same way I did.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Otherwise I don't
> > > > > > > > > > understand his pleasure at you saying I don't consider
> myself
> > > a
> > > > > member
> > > > > > > > > > of the US or Israeli political collective.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually my pleasure was in TCF's identification that you
> have
> > > > > mutuated
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > principles to the point that you can't make moral
> distinctions
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > us and them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And you got this third variant of his meaning from his "So far
> at
> > > > > > > > least, neither the Israelis nor we (excluding you, of course)
> have
> > > > > > > > mutated quite that far." ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Seems like he was either (1) saying I had mutated that far (my
> > > > > reading)
> > > > > > > > or (2) that I was excluded from the mutators (his
> clarification).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm having a little trouble pulling out your third
> interpretation
> > > from
> > > > > > > > what he wrote.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There isn't a third. Its point 1. As I clarified in my previous
> > > post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, so you did read it the same way I did.
> > > > >
> > > > > I answered 'Nope' to the 'intentionally targetting babies' thing. I
> > > > > absolutely did read it as you are someone who has mutated to the
> point
> > > where
> > > > > your principles match the Islamic terrorists who will kill you
> solely
> > > > > because of a nationality you disavow.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. That's what I thought he was trying to say near enough.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And I really don't think that's debateable.
> > > >
> > > > Everything's debateable.
> > >
> > > Not productively. The topic "We are not affected by gravity" wouldn't
> yield
> > > much of an argument, and similarly neither would the topic of the
> mutation
> > > of your principles.
> >
> > Now that we have returned to the topic of mutation of principles which
> > kicked of this subthread, do you feel as strongly about what I wrote:
> >
> > TCF: When one "tribe" has significantly different principles than
> > another does, making a distinction between "us" and "them" may be
> > tribal, but it's not bullshit.
> >
> > Me: But if the "tribe" mutates its principles to match the other then
> > continuing to maintain a (moral) distinction between "us" and "them" is
> > most certainly bullshit. Of the highest and most fragrant order.
>
> I'm rarely impressed when you answer a post by expressing the obvious.

"do you feel as strongly about what I wrote"?

> I was
> impressed at TCF's observation that you, and not the Israelis or the US,
> have mutated their principles to the level of their enemies.

Then you have a sample of these principles pre and post mutation?

>
> Assuming you ever had principles to start with.

I seem to. That's what's so infuriating, eh?

>
>
> > And wouldn't it seem at least logical that one who warns about the
> > deleterious effects of principle mutation might not indulge in it
> > himself? :-)
>
> Not really. I think its a tenuous logical connection at best and certainly
> unworthy of mention.

There may be doctors who smoke these days but they're kinda rare.

> No stronger than its opposite "one who warns of the
> deleterious effects of principle mutation would never indulge in it."

That's not the opposite.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Damn!
    ... I don't think you intentionally target babies, ... secondary effect from mutating principles. ... > Unless of course you've always been that way with no mutation necessary, ... "tribe" mutates its principles to match the other then continuing to ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: Damn!
    ... >>> Now that we have returned to the topic of mutation of principles which ... >> have mutated their principles to the level of their enemies. ... >> No stronger than its opposite "one who warns of the ... > That's not the opposite. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: Damn!
    ... >>> have mutated their principles to the level of their enemies. ... >> Then you have a sample of these principles pre and post mutation? ... That's the opposite. ... not indulge in it himself" ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: Damn!
    ... >>> your principles match the Islamic terrorists who will kill you solely ... and similarly neither would the topic of the mutation ... tribal, but it's not bullshit. ... Of the highest and most fragrant order. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: the gulf between bog-standard and actually good OO?
    ... principles are rather opposite: ... Keep objects behaviour simple ... this is the thing that i'm struggling with -- i'm assuming (which ...
    (comp.object)