yeah, but not angry enough to be banned.

also funny. Stef wrote: "I think this thread is no longer about objective logic or a technical critique. Why are the feelings so intense do you think?"
and Greg wrote "Because they're unacknowledged..."

I think they're more right than they think, though not in the way they think

Man...I need to stop hanging out with you guys so I can get some real work done! Clearly your wicked ways have made me utterly incapable of philosophical rigor...and I had so much promise...

So I sent Stefan a message offering to discuss my critique with his site's members as a sort of guest-debater thing; we'll see what he says. In the mean time, it looks like the thread is locked off to non-members and there are quite a few people (20 right now) in the chat room. Now we wait, I guess.

another locked thread eh? for no apparent reason other than that UPB is questioned?

It's not just locked. You cannot view the thread unless you log in. Basically, it's the same as the chat room.

Well I'm not sure why. I mean, it seemed like people were getting a little tense with each other; that could have had something to do with it. Or it could have had to do with the fact that the conversation didn't look like it was proceeding very effectively (which could conceivably have been embarrassing for the community).

In any case, I guess it's their prerogative to handle things however they want. It's just sort of a bummer that there couldn't be an open conversation about it; maybe if Stefan likes my suggestion, that'll change.

Eugene will only be banned if he persists and if he gets angry when people continue to respond in evasive, passive-aggressive ways
He doesn't realize it's pointless.

Word from Stefan arrived: "Thanks, but no." So I guess that's it then.

There was no chance of a debate.

While eating breakfast and thinking of the comments about the opposite meaning I told my roommate I was not stealing. That was what my action, eating, was after all. So it must be a morally good action if stealing is morally bad. But doesn't eating fall under aethetics or something different from stealing?

Lummox made an arguement similar about all other actions being the opposite and not the absence of action. Not stealing is every action that is not itself, stealing. Murder is not stealing so we have a logical contradiction if murder is immoral and not stealing is moral.

Lummox was banned of course soon after making that point. It was one of the last threads he wrote.

Also his rape example of how two people can't rape each other at the same time. By that conclusion then anything done in the 69 position is perfectly moral without consent? Its ok to rape with a broom handle? His example only works because of the position of our anatomy. There are sea creatures that actually do actack and rape eacch other and often similtaneously. oh, same sex love making is not moral because its not universal with more explicit terminology because men cannot do what women do and vis versa. Strange conclusions but must be true if you accept UPB, no?

Haha why do you say that, Conrad?

And yes, Phlogiston, it's true that because the negation of an inflicted behavior does not entail the performance of another inflicted behavior, the non-performance of an inflicted behavior will not fall into the realm of ethics. It's something I didn't really want to focus on in my critique, but the rape vs. murder example is actually very rhetorically effective. I wish I had thought of it!