Comment below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vogt [mailto:tom@ricardo.de]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:21 AM
> To: James A. Donald
> Cc: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
> Subject: Re: RE: Re: About 5yr. log retention

Tom Vogt:
> >  >  you won't find a "because" that has the structure of, say, a
> >  >  mathematical proof.

James A. Donald:
> > You cannot prove that iron is iron with the structure of a
> mathematical
> > proof, because it is a fact about the world, and empirical
> fact, ultimately
> > resting on the evidence of the senses.  To deduce the
> necessary "because",
> > one must start from the nature of man, and the nature of the world.

Tom Vogt:
> that's why the "say" is there. it's an example, one possibility, a
> counter-point to the ethical argument. it's not all-inclusive.

I disagree. An ethical concept can be proven through rhetoric (though it is a challenge sometimes). Morals, on the other hand, are different. According to your particular side of the debate about the nature of morals, they either cannot be proven at all, or they are proven by widespread internalization and adoption lifespan. But that tends to be a philosopher vs. theologian argument, and that very fact is why I tend to Choate the whole thing and say "bullshit" either way.