11-22-2007, 01:31 AM
|
 | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,878
Thanks: 464
Thanked 267 Times in 195 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil  Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire
Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.
Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.  |
I doubt I'm overreacting, but I admire your use of hyperbole. 
I think that I have said multiple time that we agree in principle that driving cars is not immoral.
Tom, I am sure that the datum is supportive. I have not the time, nor the inclination to gather it for our hypothetical discussion.
I am sure you are right - besides casting stones , what alternatives have you proposed? Quote: |
I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.
| Problems? Again, with the hyperbole... |
I think you've now been relegated to posting unsubstantial responses. I'll take that as a tacit admission that you can't defend your position other than a wink, wink, "Well, we both agree anyway, and I could show the numbers if I wanted to", nudge, nudge. | And I think you have conceded the conversation, as you have failed to demonstrate alternative methods for consideration. I don't really see any value presenting additional substantiation, since it is clear you are here only to critique.
wink, wink - nudge, nudge  |