View Poll Results: Do you believe in using "full versions" to try software products?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, and do so often

    22 55.00%
  • No, never have

    5 12.50%
  • Depends on the program/price

    13 32.50%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 123
  1. #21  
    dietrichbohn - You're certainly not offending me. This is entirely too much fun.

    However in answer to your questions. I would say that of course stealing from someone that has more is probably worse than stealing from someone that has less. However that has little or nothing to do with anything.

    To me 'moral' is an absolute. I would be willing to agree that once you have crossed the line from moral to immoral, you have suddenly opened up a world of gray. Both of your cases are immoral. You have stolen something that doesn't belong to you. The fact that one of your victims can probably afford the theft doesn't elevate your actions into the realm of morality, only into the upper reaches of rationalization.

    As far as this discussion being about cash, maybe it is for you. It certainly isn't for me. It is fundamental ownership of creative output. This is a concept that I believe in explicitly and absolutely. What I create is mine. If I want to sell it, that is fine. If I want to bury it under a rock or toss it into a river, that is my right also. You have no rights to my creations unless I give them to you. You are welcome to disagree, but in my opinion you would be wrong. Speaking of absolutes, this is just possibly the only thing in my personal universe that I consider to be an absolute and not subject to negotiation.


    BTW - I'm not saying that I always exist in the lily white world of moral perfection either - far from it.
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by bradhaak
    I don't believe that using someone elses property for personal gain without compensating them is ever morally defensible. [...]
    Ahem...what if you disarm a robber who is about to harm you? You have taken their property without their permission for personal gain (you're not dead).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by bradhaak
    [...] However in answer to your questions. I would say that of course stealing from someone that has more is probably worse than stealing from someone that has less. However that has little or nothing to do with anything. [...]
    How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion? I can see an argument for how they would be equally bad, or how stealing from the rich does less harm, but stealing from the rich doing _more_ harm?
    To me 'moral' is an absolute.
    Morals by definition are societal and hence _non_absolute other than perhaps within a given specific society at a given specific time.
    I would be willing to agree that once you have crossed the line from moral to immoral, you have suddenly opened up a world of gray.
    This 'world of gray' I can only guess must be reality.
    Both of your cases are immoral.
    According to whom?
    You have stolen something that doesn't belong to you.
    What if you find out your neighbor might kill his wife? Would it be immoral to take his gun without his permission?
    The fact that one of your victims can probably afford the theft doesn't elevate your actions into the realm of morality, only into the upper reaches of rationalization.
    What if their wealth was acquired dishonestly? Why do you think Robin Hood is considered a heroic figure?
    [...] BTW - I'm not saying that I always exist in the lily white world of moral perfection either - far from it.
    Good...now if you can just realize that moral perfection or absolutism is a ridiculous concept, we'll have gotten somewhere.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by Toby
    How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion? I can see an argument for how they would be equally bad, or how stealing from the rich does less harm, but stealing from the rich doing _more_ harm?
    Obviously I typed this backwards - it happens to us imperfect prople.
    Morals by definition are societal and hence _non_absolute other than perhaps within a given specific society at a given specific time.
    Morals are societal, but to a greater degree, they are individual. to me, moral/immoral is much the same as pregnant/not pregnant. You are or aren't. Most people in most situation aren't.
    This 'world of gray' I can only guess must be reality.
    Only if your reality is immoral.
    According to whom?
    According to me (see above).
    What if you find out your neighbor might kill his wife? Would it be immoral to take his gun without his permission?
    Yes.

    How about the fact that the nice new Ferrari I just saw might be used to break the speed limit. I better take it away from the owner to keep him from breaking the law.
    What if their wealth was acquired dishonestly? Why do you think Robin Hood is considered a heroic figure?
    Stealing is immoral. Period.

    If you are taking back what belongs to you, I would have a tough time calling that theft. If you retrieve stolen goods from a dishonest person and return them to the rightful owner, this would not be stealing. If you steal from a dishonest person and then redistribute the loot to people (including yourself) who may or may not be the original owners, you are stealing. This falls under the category of two wrongs do not make a right.
    Good...now if you can just realize that moral perfection or absolutism is a ridiculous concept, we'll have gotten somewhere.
    Sorry, moral perfection is not a ridiculous concept. It is an unattainable goal. But just because it is unattainable doesn't make it ridiculous or wrong.
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    However, I believe that "Stealing a steak from a poor starving child" and "Stealing a steak from a rich cattle farmer" have important moral differences.
    Ah, but they also differ from the third option that you conveniently left out ... "going hungry"

    In the case of the "rich cattle farmer" he or she has worked to get that steak. In the case of the starving child, someone has worked (maybe even the child) so the child can have that steak. If you steal from either of them, you have now taken something you did not earn from someone who did earn it. The "moral" option is clear, you haven't earned a steak so you should not have one.

    Robin Hood is considered a "hero" not because he was a thief, but because (according to legend) he mearly helped his people take back what they had rightfully earned from those who had "stolen" it (though if a truly accurate acount was available I doubt he'd come out looking quite so good).
    <ul><li>Dave Kessler<br>President - Kopsis, Inc.</li></ul>
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    This is why people freak out about Nietzshe still. When he said "God is Dead," he wasn't saying "The world sucks and we're all going to hell." He was just attacking an absolute. People make the mistake that you only have 2 choices: God or Nihilism. That just isn't the case.
    Actually, it had nothing to do with attacking an "absolute". In fact it was all about proposing an even stronger absolute - rationalism. When Nietzsche wrote that he was trying to explain that in the world of absolute rationality (which is where Nietzsche is coming from in "Zarathustra"), anything with an existance predicated on faith cannot exist (faith is not a "rational" thing - it is by definition a belief in something that cannot be proven through logical deduction).

    You're right that Nietzsche wasn't proposing that you only have two choices ... he was proposing that you only have one! I know, I'm way off topic now ... but it's not often I get a chance to debate philosophy
    Last edited by dkessler; 12/11/2001 at 08:13 PM.
    <ul><li>Dave Kessler<br>President - Kopsis, Inc.</li></ul>
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by bradhaak
    Obviously I typed this backwards - it happens to us imperfect prople.
    No problem there. After all, we're only the third most intelligent lifeform on the planet
    Morals are societal, but to a greater degree, they are individual.
    Please show me the person who was created in an environment isolated from any external influences on their beliefs of 'right' and 'wrong'.
    to me, moral/immoral is much the same as pregnant/not pregnant. You are or aren't. Most people in most situation aren't.
    Key words being 'to [you]'. Unless you are so arrogant to think that $DEITY has spoken directly to you as the final arbiter of RIGHT and WRONG, I'm not sure why you think anyone should take your decree simply at face value.
    Only if your reality is immoral.
    Nay, reality is seldom black and white which seems to be the only option in the fantasy world of moral absolutes.
    According to me (see above).
    Dear me...I've evidently been spoken to from $ALMIGHTY Itself.
    Yes. How about the fact that the nice new Ferrari I just saw might be used to break the speed limit. I better take it away from the owner to keep him from breaking the law.
    Well, I suppose if you'd rather make jokes rather than take a closer look at what you're saying, that's your prerogative.
    Stealing is immoral. Period.
    What is stealing then? Is lying immoral? If your wife inquires, "Honey, do these jeans make my **** look fat?" and they do, what do you say?
    If you are taking back what belongs to you, I would have a tough time calling that theft.
    Robin Hood was not taking back what belonged to him. He was taking back what a certain group considered their absolute moral right to possess for surely if God had not wanted them to be king, then surely he would have struck them down personally.
    If you retrieve stolen goods from a dishonest person and return them to the rightful owner, this would not be stealing.
    But who is ultimately the rightful owner? Who owns the money that you have? You? Why is it then a crime to destroy U.S. currency?
    If you steal from a dishonest person and then redistribute the loot to people (including yourself) who may or may not be the original owners, you are stealing. This falls under the category of two wrongs do not make a right.
    What differentiates 'retrieving' from 'stealing' then?
    Sorry, moral perfection is not a ridiculous concept. It is an unattainable goal.
    If you want to go tilting at windmills, don't let me stop you.
    But just because it is unattainable doesn't make it ridiculous or wrong.
    I never said anything about right or wrong. Those are just as societal and hence just as difficult to consider universal.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #28  
    Toby - If you are just trying to pick a fight, go find someone else. I made it very clear that although society is a major influence on what an individual regards as moral or immorral, ultimately this is an individual viewpoint. I don't believe that there is an innate right or wrong, or good or bad. I also never said this in spite of your attempts to twist what i said around to sound this way. All of my statements are predicated on that belief. I don't believe that there is innate right or wrong, or good or bad. I also never said this in spite of your attempts to twist what I said around to sound this way.

    The opinions expressed aren't pronouncements from a diety or almighty, they are just my beliefs (which puts them about as far from divine as is possible).

    As such, your sarcastic, condescending and insulting replies are not only unnecessary, but tend to support my case, since we are from basically the same society, yet have strongly opposed bleiefs on this subject.

    I haven't attacked your opinions on this subject, because I respect your right to have opinions that I believe are wrong. Actually, I can't really say what your opinions on this except by inference, since you have merely asked questions or attacked answers that you don't like - not exctly mature or constructive (of course this is only my opinion).

    I guess my beliefs come down to the fact that by setting a standard that is higher than I can reasonably achieve, I am constantly trying to improve myself.

    Can you say the same about whatever standard you subscribe to?
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by bradhaak
    Toby - If you are just trying to pick a fight, go find someone else.
    No, I'm not trying to pick a fight.
    I made it very clear that although society is a major influence on what an individual regards as moral or immorral, ultimately this is an individual viewpoint.
    Then how on Earth do you draw the conclusion that there are moral absolutes if it's all individual viewpoint.
    I don't believe that there is an innate right or wrong, or good or bad.
    This seems to contradict other things that you've said.
    I also never said this in spite of your attempts to twist what i said around to sound this way.
    Horse puckey. I've twisted nothing that you've said.
    All of my statements are predicated on that belief.
    All of your statements are predicated on the belief that there is no innate right or wrong, and yet "Stealing is immoral. Period."?
    I don't believe that there is innate right or wrong, or good or bad. I also never said this in spite of your attempts to twist what I said around to sound this way.
    You said that already, and yet it still doesn't ring true from here.
    The opinions expressed aren't pronouncements from a diety or almighty, they are just my beliefs (which puts them about as far from divine as is possible).
    "Stealing is immoral. Period." comes off as being a pronouncement to me.
    As such, your sarcastic, condescending and insulting replies
    Funny, but your remarks to Dietrich, as well as your reply to me, came off a bit that way to me as well (although I didn't reply with that in mind). Ever consider that neither of us may be fully qualified to determine the other's state of mind just within the text medium?
    are not only unnecessary, but tend to support my case,
    Well, you certainly haven't made your case very clear if it's so easily viewed as the opposite of what you claim it to be.
    since we are from basically the same society, yet have strongly opposed bleiefs on this subject.
    First of all, you really can't be sure of how similar/dissimilar our societies may be, and I would think it unwise to assume I had such knowledge of your society. Second, since you don't seem to have clearly communicated your view, and I've not particularly advanced one yet, then we really don't know whether they're opposed.
    I haven't attacked your opinions on this subject, because I respect your right to have opinions that I believe are wrong.
    Well, actually by claiming my beliefs (which really haven't been established) are wrong, you would be in fact attacking them.
    Actually, I can't really say what your opinions on this except by inference,
    Actually, you can't even infer very well from the fairly sparse coverage so far.
    since you have merely asked questions
    Why should that be disturbing?
    or attacked answers that you don't like
    Ahem...where exactly have I attacked any answers?
    - not exctly mature or constructive (of course this is only my opinion).
    Oh please. I find that a weak tactic. It would be more constructive and mature if you were to try supporting your assertions or clarifying your position rather than trying to resort to ad hominem.
    I guess my beliefs come down to the fact that by setting a standard that is higher than I can reasonably achieve, I am constantly trying to improve myself.
    Why is it necessary for you to set an unreasonably high standard for you to improve yourself?
    Can you say the same about whatever standard you subscribe to?
    I certainly can't say that I try to set standards which cannot reasonably be acheived. This seems to be a rather self-defeating course of action to my perspective. Reasonable, measurable goals seem to have worked thus far.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #30  
    You are either trying to pick a fight or you are dumb as a post. I have a high enough opinion of you from some of your more reasonable posts to not believe the latter. That leaves the former.

    To spell it out for you one more time. The statements that I made are for my particular moral system that was framed by my environment and personal opinions. Within that personal belief system stealing is an absolute wrong. You can feel differently. I don't care.

    I will freely admit that my personal opinion of absolutes is at odds with a belief that morals are societal and environmental. I don't have a problem with this since it works for me. If you have a problem with it that is too bad.

    If you disagree and want to convert me to your way of thinking, don't waste your time. If you want to actually attempt to communicate instead of rip, I would love to listen to your opinions and beliefs - not your opinions of my beliefs.

    I am very happy that you feel that by setting 'reasonable, measurable goals', things are going so well for you. Personally, I find that people with lesser ambitions do attain them. Makes you wonder how they would have done if they had really pushed doesn't it.
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by bradhaak
    You are either trying to pick a fight or you are dumb as a post.
    That would definitely qualify as a false dichotomy (although I've never really measured the intelligence of a post, so the latter could be true on some not yet established plane of reality ).
    I have a high enough opinion of you from some of your more reasonable posts to not believe the latter. That leaves the former.
    Nope, there are quite a few more options, but there seems to be little point in elaborating, so...
    To spell it out for you one more time. The statements that I made are for my particular moral system that was framed by my environment and personal opinions. Within that personal belief system stealing is an absolute wrong.
    *sigh* And you seem to be missing the point that if something is _personal_, it cannot be absolute in a real sense.
    You can feel differently. I don't care.
    I think that is abundantly clear.
    I will freely admit that my personal opinion of absolutes is at odds with a belief that morals are societal and environmental.
    Among other things.
    I don't have a problem with this since it works for me. If you have a problem with it that is too bad.
    Was this supposed to be an example of mature and constructive behavior?
    If you disagree and want to convert me to your way of thinking, don't waste your time.
    Actually, if this is how you wish to end it, you've just committed an immoral act (by your definition) since you've stolen one of the few things which cannot be retrieved: time.
    If you want to actually attempt to communicate instead of rip,
    I have not even begun to 'rip'.
    I would love to listen to your opinions and beliefs
    You would obviously not since you don't seem willing to follow through with the initial stages of the communication
    - not your opinions of my beliefs.
    I haven't expressed any yet evidently since you seem to think that I don't understand your beliefs.
    I am very happy that you feel that by setting 'reasonable, measurable goals', things are going so well for you.
    Things are going as they have gone.
    Personally, I find that people with lesser ambitions do attain them.
    Ah...a backhanded compliment.
    Makes you wonder how they would have done if they had really pushed doesn't it.
    Who says that reasonable measurable goals aren't 'pushing it'? Who defines what _is_ 'pushing it'? Why is 'pushing it' necessarily a 'good thing' anyway? If you see a man trying to fly by jumping off a building and flapping his arms, do you admire him? His is certainly a goal not reasonably attainable.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by bradhaak
    Read carefully. I have said that yes I have done this. Yes I have installed software illegally. The difference is that I have never knowingly stolen the use of any software. [...]
    I see that I could have saved a lot of time by reading the whole thread instead of reading new posts in a thread I had evidently missed part of, especially when viewed in light of the previous statement...
    A few times I have installed completely illegal versions of expensive software to make sure that they would do what I needed before buying them. After evaluating the software, I have either removed it from my system, or purchased a legal copy. When I say evaluate, I mean that specifically I have verified features and functionality. I have not used the software to perform the specific tasks that I needed the software for until after I have purchased a legal copy.
    If I'd have seen that bit of euphemism and rationalizing, I'd not have bothered taking your 'moral absolute' statement seriously. And no, that's not a rip either. If you feel that you have some sort of moral high ground where you can make statements like that and yet still be offended by 'my attitude', then we obviously exist on separate planes of reality.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #33  
    If you had read further, you would have seen where I stated completely honestly and openly that I don't live up to my own standards and I don't believe that anyone can. This would fit within the concept of imperfection. I have specifically said that by my own standards, I have failed and fallen onto the side of'immoral' many times in the past and will do so many times in the future.

    I don't see this as hypocritical, just slightly idealistic. I don't believe in lowering my standards to make myself look better (I'm not trying to imply that you do either).
  14. #34  
    !#$^%!#$*^#@^(@^#@$^(!#$*% internet explorer!!!

    I had this long reply, hit "tab" by accident, then hit backspace to "delete" the tab. In IE, backspace=back?!?!?! WFT???!?!?!?!

    After that, yes, MS deserves to be pirated!

    *sigh*

    dammit!

    Ok.....

    bradhaak
    I disagree with the idea of moral absolutism. Subscribing to moral absolutism blinds you to alternate ideas and makes you think you stand on a higher field than those around you, allowing you to "condemn" them. See the quote below.

    Also note that I don't absolutely deny the absolute. I'm not sure that I--or anybody--could come up with even a hypothetical that would allow me to accept incest, rape, mass murder, etc. It's a thorny issue.

    toby
    goddamn. You and me buddy, let's run for president and VP. You can be president first.

    Dave
    Nice you see you writing on something that isn't tech related!

    First off, the steak hypothetical sucks. yep...

    Ok, I disagree with your interpretation of Zarathustra. While I do admit that in many places Z is arguing that the overman does, in fact, demand an absolute rationality, I think that this is an intermediate step. The whole point of the overman is the overcoming, and I believe that rationality fits into that category. Reread the stuff in section two where he's railing against scholars and the like.. it's in there.

    One of Nietzsche's main projects was the destruction of systems. A system (I usu. think of bureaucracies in a very metaphorical sense here because of my affinity for Kafka and because it's in vogue now to hate red tape and corporate evil) is death. Once you subsume yourself to a system, you cease to be a human being. Thus, the overman is constantly overcoming all systems. For now, rationality is still an excellent tool for overcoming, but it too must be overcome. Even overcoming must be overcome....


    I had so much more, but it's late and I've got more work to do....

    to all
    My views, in short (because I'm pissed that my VC magnum opus was just lost because of stupid button mapping and because it's late):

    1. Absolutes are bad. But not absolutely.
    2. Absolutes spawn bureaucracies.
    3. Bureaucracies are to be overcome.
    4. Overcoming becomes an absolute. see 1


    And finally, the man himself has something to say regarding this little thread:

    Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Third Part, On Old and New Tablets, #10
    "Thou shalt not rob! Thou shalt not kill!" Such words were once called holy; one bent the knee and head and took off one's shoes before them. But I ask you: where have there ever been better robbers and killers in this world than such holy words?

    Is there not in all life itself robbing and killing? And that such words were called holy--was not truth itself killed thereby? Or was it the preaching of death that was called holy, which contradicted and contravened all life? O my brothers, break, break the old tablets!
    Thus sayeth da bomb, amen.
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by bradhaak
    I don't live up to my own standards and I don't believe that anyone can. This would fit within the concept of imperfection. I have specifically said that by my own standards, I have failed and fallen onto the side of'immoral' many times in the past and will do so many times in the future.

    I don't see this as hypocritical, just slightly idealistic. I don't believe in lowering my standards to make myself look better (I'm not trying to imply that you do either).
    But how can you be sure of those standards, what if they themselves are destructive?
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    But how can you be sure of those standards, what if they themselves are destructive?
    What if there is such a thing as a conscience?

    Let's say that conscience is put there by God to reflect His desires. Let's say that conscience is able to be ignored (free will and all). What evidence would there be? I propose that the evidence would be:
    1. societal morality that is very clear on a few issues (rape, incest, murder) due to the inability to rationalize these acts
    2. societal morality that is quite fuzzy on everything else - and is dependent on the circumstance (stealing) due to the ability to ignore the conscience and rationalize the behavior.

    Let's also say that a behavior that goes against the conscience doesn't necessarily mean that the end result is immoral. Possibly stealing a steak from a wealthy cattle farmer is out-weighed by giving that steak to a starving child.

    If my theory holds true, then Robin Hood remains a hero, stealing an attackers weapon is okay, and there is a difference between pirating software from MS vs. BlueNomad.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 12/12/2001 at 11:29 AM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    What if there is such a thing as a conscsence?
    What if it is nothing more than a social construct, designed by those in power for the express purpose of maintaining their power?

    What if we just ask each other questions?

    What if I lose my mind in the coming onslaught of homework hell that faces me in the next 24 hours?

    What then?

    ---

    edit: Seriously, though "conscience" is a pretty good contender for a non-systemic morality... until it is to be overcome.. ... Problems with conscience: mine doesn't equal yours, yet I often feel justified in making judgements on the basis of it. Or I don't, and don't think anybody can, in which case it's pretty meaningless.....arg.... arg... this is your brain, this is your brain on ethics. Any questions?
  18. #38  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    What if it is nothing more than a social construct, designed by those in power for the express purpose of maintaining their power?
    I believe my hypothetical deals with this issue. Obedience to authority may be in keeping with the conscience, but disobedience may result in a greater morality.

    And as I re-read my hypothetical, it occurs to me that rape and incest may be absolute because of the impossibility for greater moral gain. Murder should probably go in the fuzzy section (a well placed sniper could've prevented the deaths of millions of Jews).
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 12/12/2001 at 11:39 AM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Let's say that conscience is put there by God to reflect His desires. Let's say that conscience is able to be ignored (free will and all). What evidence would there be? I propose that the evidence would be:
    1. societal morality that is very clear on a few issues (rape, incest, murder) due to the inability to rationalize these acts
    2. societal morality that is quite fuzzy on everything else - and is dependent on the circumstance (stealing) due to the ability to ignore the conscience and rationalize the behavior.
    Posted my reply before I saw your edit...

    Unfortunately, we have societies that allowed the activities of 1., so societal morality isn't all that clear.

    Even if we did find some act that is universally taboo, that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a social construct. By "social" I mean something much deeper than "America vs. the Taliban." I'm talking deep-seated subconscious urges placed by unconscious messages.

    The other obvious problem with conscience is that it is so malleable. It is relatively easy to "twist" a person's conscience to the point where we wouldn't even recognize it as such.
    Let's also say that a behavior that goes against the conscience doesn't necessarily mean that the end result is immoral.
    This may even hold for more extreme examples. A lecture I attended contained one of the more extreme examples. The prof was arguing that moral utilitarianism is an insidious poison that, once allowed in, infects all ethical constructs. Some things, he argues, are just plain wrong, and you can't form a hypothetical that would allow for mediating that. He takes rape as an example:

    Take rape. Is it ever okay to rape a person? No. Ok, what if there is a psychotic killer holding a gun to your head? Still no. What if that psychotic killer will rape three other women if you don't do it. Still no. What if that psychotic killer has an army of buddies that will rape and then massacre an entire nation if you don't rape this one woman? Still no.

    ...eee... is his answer "no" because it is wrong, period, or because he's trying to protect his own ethical sanity... eeee...

    If my theory holds true, then Robin Hood remains a hero, stealing an attackers weapon is okay, and there is a difference between pirating software from MS vs. BlueNomad.
    yes.. but only for those who we grant have an "non-twisted" conscience. By what standard are we going to call conscience okay? We're back to the original conundrum. If you're going to make conscience be your guide, you have to accept the acts of those who have twisted consciences, or argue that conscience is somehow infallible and psychotics just ignore it---I think that psychologists have shown otherwise...

    yep, I can feel my grades slipping between my fingers even as I type. There they are, all splattered on the keyboard. A travesty, really.
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    mine doesn't equal yours,
    I think it may, more or less. There are few instances where disagreement on morality arose from a fundamental difference of perception of right and wrong.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions