Re: LIMBAUGH ON TV

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu further weaseled:

> How about hard currency? I prefer Swiss francs (CHF).

Good idea, Phill.  But wait; when I wrote: 
 
> >If Phil really believes he and I are at any credible legal risk 
> >for a making such a personal wager, he is a fool.  If he really
> >knows better (my best guess), then he is intellectually dishonest 
> >and a moral coward.

Phill adroitly responded:
 
> The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it
> is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional
> circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws.

[Nice try, Phill.]  The moral cowardice to which I was referring 
had nothing to do with obeying or disobeying a silly law.  It had 
to do with Phill's citing of same as a craven excuse to neither 
admit he was wrong nor to risk anything on the validity of his 
pronouncement.
 
> I don't argue against breaking laws which are immoral, indeed 
> I am still refusing to pay a Poll tax bill from the UK despite
> the fact that the amount outstanding is inconsequential.

Then his only stated objection to taking the bet has been removed.
Why do I doubt he will have the 'nads to take my generous wager?

> You sound like an 18th century fop challenging someone to a duel.

No, I am challenging Phill to benefit or lose based on his beliefs.
 
> I do not believe that Aristotle listed "challenging to a bet"
> as one of his modes of reason.

Phill invokes the classic straw man arguement.  What the bet does 
do is to test the courage of one's convictions.  I think it is 
obvious to all where Phill fits into this equation.  

Phill, can I assume then, that your answer to my proposed wager
is "no thank you"? 


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~