I'll be brief, promise

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries,

Ted Moffett wrote, "But consider the case of a murder colony . . .
the law in the USA would NOT allow such conduct." Unless, to take
one obvious example, the murder colony is called the bombing of
Dresden.

Ted said:" "He would have to fight against and oppose almost
all wars the USA has conducted or is now conducting!" Why the
exclamation point? Of course I oppose "almost all wars" the US
has been involved in. Not all, but almost all.

Ted also said: "My statement that I wanted "honest debate based
on facts and logic" was not a statement of an ethical 'absolute' but
merely an expression of my belief that this approach gets the best
results." Best results according to whom? By what standard?
Best results according to Zen? Best results according Microsoft? Best
results according to Plato? Without a transcending arche, you are
reduced to saying that you don't know what road we are on, where it goes,
or how much gas we have, but that if we take the next right, in "my
personal opinion," we will get the "best results."

"Let's use facts and logic." Okay, and here is a good place to
start. Why is the invisible logical rule against affirming the consequent
binding on anyone? Why is modus ponens the way in which you and
your descendants after you are commanded to walk? People get what they
want by appealing to logical fallacies all the time. They don't get the
same results by disregarding the law of gravity. And speaking of the
"best results" that obtain through obeying gravity, why should
we even care about these best results? Who died and left the pragmatists
king? Why is the nihilist wrong when he pitches himself off a high
building.

Your relativism is a universal acid, and however you try,l you cannot
keep it from dissolving everything. The unexamined epistemology is not
worth living.