Leon wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..


So now your level of discourse is reduced to name calling. Yeah, that's a
persuasive argument. NOT.

Name calling is usey to tease ot antagonize. Swingman is not trying to
tease or antagonize.

To do wrong rather than do nothing, out of a sense that you have to do
"something," is wrong.

And who is the judge of wrong? YOU? ;~) Doing nothing about a wrong
situation is always wrong. Doing something always has a 50/50 chance of
being right.


Name calling is also used as a cathersis for the name-caller, when he
runs out of reasoned argument, to make him feel that he is doing
something rather than doing nothing. Which, according to your
argument, gives the name-caller a 50/50 chance of being right. Which
illustrates the fallacy of your argument.

Another example. I see a woman in the mall, yelling at her child,
calling it names and telling it other spiteful things, until the child
breaks into tears. According to you, doing nothing about a wrong
situation is always wrong. So it would be wrong for me to do nothing.
So, I grab the mother's purse and take $500 out as a "fine." OR, I
punch her in the mouth. OR, I grab the child and run out of the mall.
After all, I'm doing something rather than doing nothing, so whatever I
do, according to you, I have a 50/50 chance of being right. Right?
According to you, of course right.