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.