Despairing of EVER getting a coherent ethical justification forwealth redistribution
 

On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:02:55 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Bugster and the mackerel ****, Sheila Bryant, both have in effect said

they can't give such a justification. When they both say, in effect,

that "it's obvious" wealth redistribution is ethical *and* necessary,

then they have conceded they can't ethically justify it.




I am beginning to like Bugster a lot more than Rudy Canoza. I never see any posts by Bugster in RCM , but apparently Rudy adds RCM to everything he posts.

It is obvious to me that Rudy has no ethics. I can not think of any ethical reason that he has to post in a metalworking group. Bugster on the other hand does not post Off Topic stuff in RCM. Therefore I find that Bugster has ethics and Rudy has none. Good on Bugster. I declare him the winner of the arguments.

Dan

Despairing of EVER getting a coherent ethical justification forwealth redistribution
 

On 1/21/2014 2:20 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:02:55 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Bugster and the mackerel ****, Sheila Bryant, both have in effect said

they can't give such a justification. When they both say, in effect,

that "it's obvious" wealth redistribution is ethical *and* necessary,

then they have conceded they can't ethically justify it.




I am beginning to like Bugster a lot more than Rudy Canoza. I never see any posts by Bugster in RCM , but apparently Rudy adds RCM to everything he posts.

It is obvious to me that Rudy has no ethics. I can not think of any ethical reason that he has to post in a metalworking group. Bugster on the other hand does not post Off Topic stuff in RCM. Therefore I find that Bugster has ethics and Rudy has none. Good on Bugster. I declare him the winner of the arguments.

You're wrong, of course.

Despairing of EVER getting a coherent ethical justification forwealth redistribution
 

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:34:45 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:



It is obvious to me that Rudy has no ethics. I can not think of any ethical reason that he has to post in a metalworking group. Bugster on the other hand does not post Off Topic stuff in RCM. Therefore I find that Bugster has ethics and Rudy has none. Good on Bugster. I declare him the winner of the arguments.



You're wrong, of course.

Okay explain to me and the rest of the readers why posting about wealth distribution in a metal working group is ethical.

I expect to have a very long wait before getting a reply.

Dan

Despairing of EVER getting a coherent ethical justification forwealth redistribution
 

On 1/21/2014 2:46 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:34:45 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:



It is obvious to me that Rudy has no ethics. I can not think of any ethical reason that he has to post in a metalworking group. Bugster on the other hand does not post Off Topic stuff in RCM. Therefore I find that Bugster has ethics and Rudy has none. Good on Bugster. I declare him the winner of the arguments.



You're wrong, of course.

Okay explain to me and the rest of the readers why posting about wealth distribution in a metal working group is ethical.

Why don't you ask that question of gummer, aka Mark Wieber (Dwieber)?
He regularly posts non-metalworking content here. So do a lot of other
people whose politics you like. So, your position seems to be that if
one is a "good ol' boy" who once posted some little bit of metalworking
content in r.c.m., and if you like the person's politics, then posting
off-topic material here is ethical, in your view; but if you dislike the
person's politics, or if the person has never posted any metalworking
content, then you see it as unethical. That is not a coherent ethical
position for you to take.

Despairing of EVER getting a coherent ethical justification forwealth redistribution
 

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:57:55 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Okay explain to me and the rest of the readers why posting about wealth distribution in a metal working group is ethical.



Why don't you ask that question of gummer, aka Mark Wieber (Dwieber)?

He regularly posts non-metalworking content here. So do a lot of other

people whose politics you like. So, your position seems to be that if

one is a "good ol' boy" who once posted some little bit of metalworking

content in r.c.m., and if you like the person's politics, then posting

off-topic material here is ethical, in your view; but if you dislike the

person's politics, or if the person has never posted any metalworking

content, then you see it as unethical. That is not a coherent ethical

position for you to take.

You are the one that said I was wrong. So you are the one I am asking about the ethics of posting off topic messages in RCM. And just as I suspected you want to change the subject instead of admitting that you are more unethical than Bugster.

Tough luck. I still want you to explain why you think it is ethical to post OT things in RCM. Quit trying to evade answering.

What others do has nothing to do with what is ethical. I was asking why you say I am wrong when I say you are not ethical.

Dan

Despairing of EVER getting a coherent ethical justification forwealth redistribution
 

On 1/21/2014 5:17 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:57:55 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Okay explain to me and the rest of the readers why posting about wealth distribution in a metal working group is ethical.



Why don't you ask that question of gummer, aka Mark Wieber (Dwieber)?

He regularly posts non-metalworking content here. So do a lot of other

people whose politics you like. So, your position seems to be that if

one is a "good ol' boy" who once posted some little bit of metalworking

content in r.c.m., and if you like the person's politics, then posting

off-topic material here is ethical, in your view; but if you dislike the

person's politics, or if the person has never posted any metalworking

content, then you see it as unethical. That is not a coherent ethical

position for you to take.

You are the one that said I was wrong. So you are the one I am asking about the ethics of posting off topic messages in RCM.

I'm pointing out that you have a disgusting double standard. When your
political buddies post off-topic material here, you don't complain.
That's hypocritical.

Despairing of EVER getting a coherent ethical justification forwealth redistribution
 

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:44:43 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:



I'm pointing out that you have a disgusting double standard. When your

political buddies post off-topic material here, you don't complain.

That's hypocritical.

So is this an admission that you are unethical? Seems like it to me since you do not try to defend posting OT messages in a metal working group. Trying to shift the topic from you to me is the sort of unethical tactic that I expect from you.

You are right, I do not complain about everyone that post OT messages. I only complain about the ones that post a lot of OT messages. People like you that post six replies to a message from Bugster. A Bugster who is nice enough not to post to RCM. But you just have to add RCM and probably a lot of other news groups when you reply. What a douche. Wants a big stage to prance on. Conceited little guy.

So you see I am not hypocritical. I select who I complain about based on the number of OT posts and the ratio of OT to on topic posts.

So Rudy are you going to keep being unethical?

Dan