Ken wrote:
> 
>   That is poppycock !  If I smash your foot with a large brick one may
> think I have an assumption that you will feel pain when I do so (unless
> of course you are dead when it happens). The truth is that through
> repeated observations and from personal experience I need no assumptions
> to know that you are going to feel pain. Lots and lots of glorious,
> excruciating, deep down to the bone, face whincing, voice screaming,
> oh wonderful, beautiful pain.
>   If I were to set up a demonstration in front of an audience that has
> no idea as to what will happen you can be assured that when I raise the
> brick and bring it down forcefully upon you bare naked foot that everyone
> in attendance will KNOW that you have just experienced pain. There will
> be no presumption on anyone's part where that is concerned. If anyone
> doubts it (which is not the same as an assumption) they are welcome to
> examine the severe distress on your face, your cries of anguish, and may
> even examine the damaged member for evidence of tissue damage. I am not
> assuming this because there is nothing that prevents me from knowing
> otherwise.
> 
> Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
> 

To prove this, first disprove the various "brain-in-a-jar" theories, e.g. the
infamous "Matrix"...

> 
> The definition of evil is easy to explain because it is inextricably
> tied to self preservation. It is in the common interest of everyone
> to define that which may cause us harm and do what is necessary to
> reduce the likelihood that it will do so. That which is harmful is
> most often associated with evil.
> 
> People fear harm much as they do pain, physical or emotional, ergo
> evil is bad, pain is bad, pain = evil, and one still equals one.
> 
> : )
> 

What is evil for one can be good to another.  Dare I ask whose common interests
you are referring to? :)

Margus

Post a reply to this message