"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:20:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Back to the "all or nothing" defense?

My ex-wife's got a goldfish pond in the back yard. They grow fat and
beautiful by eating mosquitoes, among other things. To her (and me),
mosquitoes have far more intrinsic value than a destructive dog.

That you would think such a think is enlightening in its own right.
I'd also be willing to bet that your opinion WRT dogs/mosquitos would
be at odds with the greater majority of people.

Who gives a damn what other people think? Some people spend their weekends
with binoculars, watching birds. I have no problem with that. Others thing
insects are much more valuable than dogs. You pretend to have a problem with
that because it's convenient to your rapidly deflating argument.


Matter of
fact, they have more value than the dog's owner, too, who contributes
nothing of beauty.

The concept of "beauty" is purely subjective. Subjectivity has no
place in a logical debate.

In my yard, the only concept of beauty that's important is MINE.

Here's something to think about. Statement #1, below, is open to a wide
range of interpretation. You may want to suggest some possible ones. But,
tell me how many ways you can interpret #2.

1) "Things are going very badly at work lately".

2) "I have to leave for work in five minutes, but first, I want to see if
the cucumber flowers have opened since I looked at them last night".