Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] All right Glottie, here you go:

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> If we're going to use sophistry to make my CFI go away, we might use a variant
> of Wonko's possibility #2: If an object exists, it is by definition
> independent in existence of other objects, even otherwise identical ones.
> Therefore, the prospect of uniquely identifying the object is there.  However,
> if it is not necessary to uniquely identify each of a class of objects -- if
> the object serves its function without confusion even if it's not identified
> -- then one can assume that the objects are in fact uniquely identified,
> inasmuch as, should they be sentient, they could probably distinguish
> themselves from one another.  Consequently, we can continue to use said
> objects without naming them, since an action that is indistinguishable from a
> legal action is legal.

I don't see how the fact that they don't have names better justifies
destroying them than naming them... Either would be in harmony with the
rules...

-- 
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss