~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu further weaseled:
How about hard currency? I prefer Swiss francs (CHF).
Good idea, Phill. But wait; when I wrote:
If Phil really believes he and I are at any credible legal risk for a making such a personal wager, he is a fool. If he really knows better (my best guess), then he is intellectually dishonest and a moral coward.
Phill adroitly responded:
The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws.
[Nice try, Phill.] The moral cowardice to which I was referring had nothing to do with obeying or disobeying a silly law. It had to do with Phill's citing of same as a craven excuse to neither admit he was wrong nor to risk anything on the validity of his pronouncement.
I don't argue against breaking laws which are immoral, indeed I am still refusing to pay a Poll tax bill from the UK despite the fact that the amount outstanding is inconsequential.
Then his only stated objection to taking the bet has been removed. Why do I doubt he will have the 'nads to take my generous wager?
You sound like an 18th century fop challenging someone to a duel.
No, I am challenging Phill to benefit or lose based on his beliefs.
I do not believe that Aristotle listed "challenging to a bet" as one of his modes of reason.
Phill invokes the classic straw man arguement. What the bet does do is to test the courage of one's convictions. I think it is obvious to all where Phill fits into this equation. Phill, can I assume then, that your answer to my proposed wager is "no thank you"? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~