Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 14:28:12 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD MOQ in time and space"

    MSH wrote:

    > msh 7-7-05:
    > This is an appeal to authority, not an analysis of my argument.

    I appealed to authority in this case for the obvious reason that the
    Supreme Court is the authority on questions of due process in the U.S..

    > Besides, you're saying that any argument not endorsed by the Supreme
    > Court is without value. Does this mean you are convinced that the
    > recent decision in Kelso v New London was the right decision? That
    > the argument on behalf of Kelso was valueless? How about Roe v Wade?

    No, I'm not saying ANY argument not endorsed by the Supreme Court is
    without value. You're following in Arlo's footsteps of non sequiturs.

    > platt 7-7-05:
    > No. It's answering you assertions by denying the relevancy (not to
    > mention the reliability) of your statistical measurements.
    > msh 7-7-05:
    > I've made no assertions. I've asked for a substantive answer to a
    > few easily understandable hypothetical questions exploring the
    > acceptable limits of ownership. A refusal to answer is evidence of
    > an unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion.

    Apparently your idea of a meaningful discussion is to begin with a
    strawman fallacy and follow up with the slippery slope fallacy. In this
    case, an undefined moral society is the strawman and in infinitude of
    percentages is the slippery slope.
    > msh 7-7-05:
    > I've made no judgement of "moral equivalence," as I don't even know
    > the meaning of the term.

    The term means that there's no moral difference between an Arab terrorist
    fighting to establish a brutal theocracy and a British soldier fighting to
    establish a democracy.

    > msh 7-7-05:
    > Let me preface my comments here with saying that all of this talk
    > about the Great Depression is secondary to my original point, which
    > was that great disparities between wealth, privilage, and power, if
    > unresolved internally, leads to violent unrest which may destabilize and
    > destroy a society. Therefore, according to the Metaphysics of Quality, any
    > actions which permit or encourage such disparities are immoral. This is
    > the idea I'm hoping to explore in this thread.

    You brought up the New Deal and "all this talk about the Great
    Depression." I agree it's secondary to your "great disparities" theory.

    > As for your book recommendation, thanks. The fact that the author,
    > Jim Powell, is a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute (which
    > has been leading the charge against Social Security, one of the many
    > enduring legacies of FDR's New Deal) leads me to suspect motives
    > ulterior in the bashing of a President elected to office four times.
    > Nevertheless...

    Intentions? Ulterior motives? I thought you were dead set against imputing
    such to anybody. I happen to agree with you. Until we can read minds, we
    cannot know someone's motives or intentions. We can only infer them from
    what they say and do, a very muddy business. Anyway, do you know anybody
    who isn't biased?

    Your discussion of the New Deal was interesting. But is that where we
    really want to go in this thread? Are you suggesting the New Deal programs
    are vital to assure a moral society? Are they in your blueprint? If so,
    which ones and why? I'm still waiting for your specifics.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 15:27:53 BST