Replies

You are confused. You continually invoke the "insanity" definition. Indeed, it is necessary for you to invoke it so that you can argue that "irrational" precludes "evil."

I believe I have stated and adequately defended the proposition that they meet any definition of "rational" you care to present.

Regarding self-preservation, you continue to ignore -- or fail to comprehend -- the distinction I make between extraneous and fundamental.

There is no such distinction between their acts and our acts in reality, although I can certainly see why you wish to invent one.

My argument with you is a semantic one… and you fail even to see this… As I said, you are arguing with yourself.

I think not.

It is pointless for us to restate our positions ad nauseam.

Indeed.

Someone, I forget who, once noted that it is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. Suggestion: Why not invoke that thesis? If you do so, you will be able to exit this thread with your ego intact….

No ego preservation is necessary - I am content to let the record speak for itself on this. You are still wrong, but I do thank you for a relatively civil discussion ;)

You are confused. You continually invoke the "insanity" definition. Indeed, it is necessary for you to invoke it so that you can argue that "irrational" precludes "evil."--me
I believe I have stated and adequately defended the proposition that they meet any definition of "rational" you care to present.--you

Precisely the problem. The "unsoundness of mind" definition does not apply in this context, but you invoke it selectively to elude the logical inconsistencies that bird-dog your argument.. As I have been trying to get you to understand, your argument with me is semantic. (NB: I am not now discussing, nor have I ever discussed, your argument on this thread with others.)

Regarding self-preservation, you continue to ignore -- or fail to comprehend -- the distinction I make between extraneous and fundamental.--me
There is no such distinction between their acts and our acts in reality, although I can certainly see why you wish to invent one.--you

This distinction is integral to the notion of rational behavior. As I have said before, I can make the argument, but I am not obliged to make you understand it.

Someone, I forget who, once noted that it is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. Suggestion: Why not invoke that thesis? If you do so, you will be able to exit this thread with your ego intact….--me
No ego preservation is necessary - I am content to let the record speak for itself on this. You are still wrong, but I do thank you for a relatively civil discussion ;)--you

Thx… but as I see it, the problem has less to do with letting the record speak for itself than with… who will get the last word. ;)