Well, all of my post that was in direct response to your post. I don't think any of it was properly addressed.

How about this though: Sometimes people write things on internet forums without a great deal of thought going in to the subject, then feel like they have to defend that point even if they are no longer so sure that it is right. Pretty much like may last post. I won't be defending much of what I wrote there as I just banged it out. So if someone demonstrates the naivety of it, I'll feel enlightened rather than defensive. Aka, let it go. we are largely talking at cross purposes. If you go back through my posts (not necessarily the ones that are predominantely replies like the SJ desert island / axe murderer one) you'll see that I set the limits of what I was arguing for and I stuck within them. Hence my stating my assumptions at the end of my argumetn to be clear what I was taking as given within the confines of the discussion, namely (in short) 1. lying is bad, 2. we want to be good. The argument is not incomplete, there is no argument for everything and there never will be (except maybe 'its all relative' which is just funny more than anything).

If you want to have a second discussion about what counts as good or bad, go ahead. I may or may not get involved.


Peace,

kowalski