Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:00:12 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation Message-ID: <20120104160012.GB8500@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20120104061755.4659cdf8@scorpio> References: <20120103173943.5b47afc6@scorpio> <201201040016.q040GUA6013103@mail.r-bonomi.com> <20120104061755.4659cdf8@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 06:17:55AM -0500, Jerry wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:16:30 -0600 (CST) Robert Bonomi articulated:
> >
> > He did *NOT* ask the prior poster to explain "why it _would_be_
> > morally correct..." HE demanded that they explain "why it *IS*
> > morally correct..."
>
> <quote>
> Would you please be so kind as to explain to me why ..."
> </quote>
>
> You consider that a demand?
You just ignored the salient point of what Robert Bonomi said, in favor
of trivialities. If you prefer, pretend he said:
HE asked that they explain "why it *IS* morally correct..."
The point he was making is no less present and clear, and now your
momentary diversion is no longer part of the equation.
>
> I am not bashful, as you may have noticed. I simple asked him to
> explain why such behavior would be morally acceptable. At that point he
> made the accusation that I had attributed such statements, directly or
> indirectly to him. I neither did, nor is there any evidence to support
> the claim that I had. Both of you choose to conveniently sidestep that
> simple fact. Although to his credit, he did explain his feelings on the
> matter.
Saying it doesn't make it so -- and nobody sidestepped it. That was the
very point of what Robert Bonomi said. It is, in fact, you who
sidestepped his point.
>
> Now, if I asked you to explain the moral justification for the
> Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, would I be
> accusing you of actually having written it? You don't think things
> through do you?
No -- you'd just be interjecting a gigantic non-sequitur. Context
matters, and in this case the context suggested your question to me was
meant to imply that I somehow believed that one thing was morally correct
and another was not. After all, there is no reasonable damned purpose to
asking *me* why one thing is morally correct and another is not if you do
not believe, or mean to imply, that I *believe* the one thing is morally
correct and the other is not.
The point, as it should be illustrated in your analogy, is that your
question about the Thirteenth Amendment would not imply Robert Bonomi
*wrote* it; rather, it would imply that he *agrees* with its moral
justification.
If I had to guess, of course, I would think he believes it is morally
justified, but that's a wild-ass speculation, and not enough to induce me
to expect *him* of all people to justify it.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120104160012.GB8500>