RE: A Libertine Question
Mike McNally <m5@vail.tivoli.com> wrote:
Uhh, "fail to save" isn't a moral judgement; it's an observable phenomenon. Either somebody does save money or they don't. I don't see in Tim's wording any judgement being made. It's a numerical thing.
If you replace "drink too much," with "drink enough that they", you get another observable phenomenon.
As is the observable phenomenon that some people focus on the details and miss the point. You may also consider this to be a moral judgement. To argue that the cited examples - out of the universe of possible examples - did not imply a moral judgement is an argument useful only for its humour. James
jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
As is the observable phenomenon that some people focus on the details and miss the point. You may also consider this to be a moral judgement.
I'm sorry, but this thread is making no sense. You wondered aloud why Tim would make moral judgements; I claim he didn't. What exactly was it you were trying to say?
To argue that the cited examples - out of the universe of possible examples -
- that you clearly have in stock as ready-to-use straw men -
did not imply a moral judgement is an argument useful only for its humour.
So you're saying that you made a response to Tim questioning his use of moral judgements just to introduce your own moral judgement? If you want to issue moral pronouncements ex cathedra, why not just start a new thread instead of couching them in a confusing response? ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * For the time being, m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com * <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * three heads and eight arms.
participants (2)
-
jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca -
Mike McNally