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 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 123
  1. #61  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    !#$^%!#$*^#@^(@^#@$^(!#$*% internet explorer!!!

    I had this long reply, hit "tab" by accident, then hit backspace to "delete" the tab. In IE, backspace=back?!?!?! WFT???!?!?!?![...]
    Gah! You jinxed me. I had a reply typed and it also was swallowed into the ether...No mood to recreate, so I'll be brief.
    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.
    Those are all societal constructs as well. What's incest? Check out the percentage of consanguine marriages in Pakistan.
    toby
    goddamn. You and me buddy, let's run for president and VP. You can be president first.
    OK, Ford (can you guess my reading material while I'm stuck at this training? ).
    ‎"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...
  2. #62  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    What if there is such a thing as a conscience?
    Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try.
    Let's say that conscience is put there by God to reflect His desires.
    This God seems to have used an extremely lossy medium to put it there. I would expect better.
    Let's say that conscience is able to be ignored (free will and all).
    Methinks we've trod upon this ground.
    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
    Newsflash...Societal morality is certainly _not_ historically clear on those issues. Look at nearly any royal family in history for examples.
    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.
    This conscience certainly wasn't designed very well for a product of a supreme being.
    Let's also say that a behavior that goes against the conscience doesn't necessarily mean that the end result is immoral.
    Well, since morality is not an absolute concept, this part certainly seems possible.
    Possibly stealing a steak from a wealthy cattle farmer is out-weighed by giving that steak to a starving child. [...]
    Why?
    ‎"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. #63  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn

    Sorry if I came off as patronizing, I didn't mean to be. I think the link you're making between relativism and the "hypothetical method" is circumstantial. I happen to be defending relativism with it, but that doesn't mean that it can't be just as effective for another moral system.

    In fact, if you scroll back, you'll see that my professor used his extreme example as a defense of moral absolutism...

    yep...
    I know that you are not "trying" to be patronizing.
    You just can't seem to help yourself.
    I know what relativism is and I find it to be flawed. I also know what "hypothetical method" is. I am not against hypothetical method per se as evidenced by the fact that I used it in my very last post (Hitler part.)

    Hypothetical method has a weakness when one has to search for the most extreme scenario to make its point. Using a life and death example (starving child) to make ones point is too extreme to be applicable here.

    My problem with the Steak example also had to do with its conclusion, that somehow theft from a wealthy person is justifiable. In fact in either circumstance to steal would be WRONG, and as such the theft in either case cannot be justified. The degree is inconsequential to this discussion.

    In fact using this very same illustration the point is made quite well that to steal software from a small or large company is also wrong.
    Last edited by ByinHi; 12/12/2001 at 07:50 PM.
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by Burns
    [...] Ethics and Morals are are individual. Individuals choose for themselves what they believe as far as what is right or wrong. Many times, they don't live up to their own morals or ethics.
    Actually, I differentiate them as morals being societal (due to the root 'more' referring to a societal norm or custom) and ethics being more personal and more thoughtfully considered.
    However, right and wrong are not individual. This may be confusing to some of you. The explanation lies in the fact that humans were created with "free will," meaning that they make their own choices. So an individual can choose bad morals and bad ethics.
    Who's to say what's 'bad' or 'good' though?
    Humans are imperfect and often try to justify their imperfections to try to appear more perfect.
    Sure, and they also try to claim they 'know' certain things to appear more knowledgeable.
    I believe relativism falls into this description.
    Accepting that good/bad/right/wrong/moral/immoral are all societal constructs does not equate with relativism. It's closer to realism.
    A human chooses to do steal something from another human. This human justifies it by saying that their individual ethics and morals state that they have the right to take the something from the other human. They are justifying their imperfect act of stealing with relative rationalizing, thus appearing (to themselves) as being less imperfect.
    And who's to say that the concept of ownership itself isn't stealing from the collective? Maybe the fact that I own a house makes me a thief since I've stolen the use of that piece of land and all materials upon it from the use of the rest of the planet?
    Consider this example: Suppose I decide that I don't like you. Further suppose that my ethics and morals state that I can do whatever I want to someone I don't like. So I beat the snot out of you because there is nothing in my ethics or morals that says I am not allowed to do so.
    So far, the example is valid within a universe of just you and I. Where it falls apart is when others and their own sense of self-preservation comes in. If you are willing to beat the snot out of me, then perhaps you'll move on to others. It's all a function of the society in question. Perhaps I have some quality which you hated that the rest of society hates as well. Then society might not care about your violence. Perhaps the opposite is true. I might possess some quality which you hate which everyone else possesses. If this caused your action, then society will certainly consider how it should deal with it.
    You, however, believe that there is an imperfection in my reasoning and ethics (mostly because I just beat the snot out of you) unless you were trying to get rid of that cold. So, what do you do?
    Irrelevant from a moral perspective, AFAIC.
    You believe in relativism,
    Er...acknowledging that morals are relative within a certain structure does not equate to thinking that it's a Good Thing®.
    yet I just beat the snot out of you. If you believe in relativism, you probably also believe that someone else's morals should not be pressed on you.
    I would think that people who don't believe in relativism wouldn't like that much either if the morals were different from those which they endorsed.
    The problem lies right there. I just beat the snot out of you and you believe that was wrong. But you can't force that belief on me. So I ask again, what do you do?
    This really depends upon the society. Let's say that I'm a black man and you're a politically well-connected white man in Alabama in the first half of the 1900s. I can't do much of anything. If it's reversed within that same society, you're getting lynched.
    If real relativism was widespread, the world would be ruled by chaos.
    Have you looked at the news lately?
    No laws, no standard punishments, just what each individual believes.
    There are no universal laws or universally standard punishments. Those are a function of what each individual societal unit believes.
    If that's how you believe it should be, well, you're executing your free choice, and I'm not going to try and change your mind. That's not why I'm posting. I'm posting to give my point of view.
    Personally, I'd be more interested in the foundations of that point of view.
    There is one absolute, and you probably know what/who that is.
    Yes, Heisenberg probably rules!! (rest snipped due to counterproductivity)
    ‎"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...
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    Sociopaths aren't exactly "raised" to not have a conscience. It is something that happens to them as a result of a combination of abuse and chemical imbalances/brain damage.
    Which are also conditions that would have the potential to diminish or remove awareness of the conscience given my beliefs of the "soul" - where I believe the conscience would exist.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  6. #66  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try.
    I have. I believe it to be a possibility. I find the alternative more palatable.
    This God seems to have used an extremely lossy medium to put it there. I would expect better.
    Maybe the conscience isn't meant as the end all of morality. A guideline at most - to be disregarded if rational thought leads to a better path. An aide in the "test of worthiness" that life may be.
    Methinks we've trod upon this ground.
    Yes, but worthy of revisiting since views have evolved (mine, anyway). Can you link? I forgot how it ground to a halt.
    Newsflash...Societal morality is certainly _not_ historically clear on those issues. Look at nearly any royal family in history for examples.
    I've stated that societal norms can (relatively easily) be instilled regardless of conscience.
    This conscience certainly wasn't designed very well for a product of a supreme being.
    It may be designed very well, depending on the desired end.
    Well, since morality is not an absolute concept, this part certainly seems possible.
    I'd say there is: the will of God. It is not laid out explicitly anywhere - effectively there is no end difference so I won't argue this train of thought further.
    Why?
    It was a hypothetical. Possibly stealing a steak from a starving child and pissing on it would lead to an even higher morality. I was merely giving an example that was in keeping with my conscience.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    I have. I believe it to be a possibility. I find the alternative more palatable.
    Therein lies the rub. Who said there was only one alternative?
    Maybe the conscience isn't meant as the end all of morality.
    Then why would God put it there to reflect His desires?
    A guideline at most - to be disregarded if rational thought leads to a better path.
    And what if this rational thought leads to discovery that there's a better path than the one chosen in advance?
    An aide in the "test of worthiness" that life may be.
    What if the test of worthiness is to see if we can become greater than that which supposedly created us?
    Yes, but worthy of revisiting since views have evolved (mine, anyway). Can you link? I forgot how it ground to a halt.
    Don't remember exactly, but IIRC, I withdrew since I saw my statements leading down a path which some might have found disturbing/insulting. Questioning the foundations of others' beliefs is rarely well received.
    I've stated that societal norms can (relatively easily) be instilled regardless of conscience.
    Except that one of your stated bits of evidence of this conscience being placed there by $DEITY was that there were certain 'universal' acts which 'could not be rationalized'. What I'm saying is that these acts are not universally looked down upon. In most royal families, only other blood relatives are considered worthy to procreate with a royal. Since the advent of understanding of recessive genes, they've started seeking a bit farther out in the tree, but in many cases, no one was considered as up to snuff as another _very_ close blood relative.
    It may be designed very well, depending on the desired end. [...]
    The desired end must be to create strife and conflict then. That seems to be the repeated result.
    ‎"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. #68  
    Originally posted by ByinHi
    I know that you are not "trying" to be patronizing.
    You just can't seem to help yourself.
    Your Mom.
    I know what relativism is and I find it to be flawed. I also know what "hypothetical method" is. I am not against hypothetical method per se as evidenced by the fact that I used it in my very last post (Hitler part.)
    That went up as I was posting... ah well, the burdens of discussing via a discussion board...
    Hypothetical method has a weakness when one has to search for the most extreme scenario to make its point. Using a life and death example (starving child) to make ones point is too extreme to be applicable here.
    If your system can't hold up under extreme conditions, what good is it? Any old system does just fine in your typical, everyday conditions. Extreme cases are useful in that they bring out the hidden problems.
    My problem with the Steak example [snip]
    I hereby kill off the infamous steak hypothetical.
  9. #69  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Therein lies the rub. Who said there was only one alternative?
    Not I. I can envision little better than heaven. Eternal rapture sounds pleasant.
    Then why would God put it there to reflect His desires?
    His general desires. Not necessarily specific wishes for every situation.

    Were everyone to follow their conscience, everything would be ducky (authority wouldn't abuse its power, rational disobedience would be an oxymoron, someone wouldn't force a person to rape in order to prevent the rape and destruction of thousands more, etc.). Since the conscience is so easily ignored and personal desire often difficult to resist, there arises times when rational disregard of the conscience may become more moral.
    And what if this rational thought leads to discovery that there's a better path than the one chosen in advance?
    All the better, though I doubt a path has been chosen in advance. What purpose for time?
    What if the test of worthiness is to see if we can become greater than that which supposedly created us?
    Possible. If unattainable, that realization won't come until death (if then).
    Don't remember exactly, but IIRC, I withdrew since I saw my statements leading down a path which some might have found disturbing/insulting. Questioning the foundations of others' beliefs is rarely well received.
    Ah yes. You should not have withdrawn. A belief that is not questioned serves no one.
    Except that one of your stated bits of evidence of this conscience being placed there by $DEITY was that there were certain 'universal' acts which 'could not be rationalized'. What I'm saying is that these acts are not universally looked down upon. In most royal families, only other blood relatives are considered worthy to procreate with a royal. Since the advent of understanding of recessive genes, they've started seeking a bit farther out in the tree, but in many cases, no one was considered as up to snuff as another _very_ close blood relative.
    Incest involving two willing parties may well be more moral than the ones I was thinking of in which authority was as much a factor as the actual sex. My apologies for a lack of clarity.

    I could well have been citing those "universal acts" as such from an inability on my part to rationalize those behaviors. Given dietrichbohn's link, his professor's hypothetical, and your arguments, I accept that all falls into the second category with varying degrees of "explainability."
    The desired end must be to create strife and conflict then. That seems to be the repeated result.
    That may be the desired end, but it must not necessarily be so. Perceptions are limited to the boundaries set by the senses that perceive them.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  10. #70  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    I hereby kill off the infamous steak hypothetical.
    That's too bad. I thought my last example was hilarious.

    I am flawed.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Which are also conditions that would have the potential to diminish or remove awareness of the conscience given my beliefs of the "soul" - where I believe the conscience would exist.
    Ah-HAH! Here I am talking about conscience, and you're talking about the gd soul. Why didn't you say so? yeesh!

    Before I get my Atheism On ( ), I'll try a tack that's less likely to lock this thread down...

    Here we go:

    ****-richardson wrote:
    I'd say there is: the will of God. It is not laid out explicitly anywhere - effectively there is no end difference so I won't argue this train of thought further.
    Ok, since we're not going to agree on first principles of morality, let's see if we can't get to a pragmatic ethics?

    A few propositions,
    1. There does not exist a sufficient level of clarity on "the will of god" in order to make it the basis of an ethical system
    2. It is impossible to have unfettered access to another person's "conscience."
    3. If (2), then we cannot make moral judgements on that person's acts on the basis of conscience alone.
    4. An ethical/moral system requires that we be able to make moral judgements on a minimally objective basis

    The gist of which is that conscience does not work as the basis of an ethical system, because it essentally devolves into a mish-mash of individualistic (almost Ayn Rand-like) morality.

    So the question is, given our present abilities and society, what is the best system of ethics?

    Specifically, what does this system have to say about pirating intellectual property (assuming this system believes in property)?

    I posit that the best system for our pluralistic society is Object Utilitarianism. OU disallows stealing in act and in principle, yet is flexible enough to allow for a revaluation of the situation on the basis of the mutual benefit of society. In an ideal situation, it removes some of the disparities that often lead to piracy.

    yo.
  12. #72  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    That's too bad. I thought my last example was hilarious.
    I am flawed.
    Ach, the pissing got by me. Clearly, such an act is indicative of the higher man, an overcoming of the all-too-common. As such, it follows the higher morality of the overman. Thus Spoke DR.
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    Ok, since we're not going to agree on first principles of morality, let's see if we can't get to a pragmatic ethics?

    A few propositions, [list=1][*]There does not exist a sufficient level of clarity on "the will of god" in order to make it the basis of an ethical system
    I agree.
    It is impossible to have unfettered access to another person's "conscience."
    I agree if the person in question is unwilling to share.
    If (2), then we cannot make moral judgements on that person's acts on the basis of conscience alone.
    I agree.
    An ethical/moral system requires that we be able to make moral judgements on a minimally objective basis
    I possibly agree. What do you mean by "minimally objective"? Most agreeable to the masses? If so, then I agree. I believe that the conscience has a much better chance of being laid out in laws (leading closer to the situation I described where everyone follows their conscience) when more people are consulted (probably due to a desire for one's neighbor to act "correctly" more than a desire to do so oneself).

    The gist of which is that conscience does not work as the basis of an ethical system, because it essentally devolves into a mish-mash of individualistic (almost Ayn Rand-like) morality.

    Agreed.

    So the question is, given our present abilities and society, what is the best system of ethics?

    Specifically, what does this system have to say about pirating intellectual property (assuming this system believes in property)?

    I posit that the best system for our pluralistic society is Object Utilitarianism. OU disallows stealing in act and in principle, yet is flexible enough to allow for a revaluation of the situation on the basis of the mutual benefit of society. In an ideal situation, it removes some of the disparities that often lead to piracy.
    It sounds like I'd agree. Before I commit fully, could I bother you for a link on the tenets of Object Utilitarianism, specifically, how it differs from simple Utilitarianism? You've mentioned it before, but, alas, I have not done the research.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 12/13/2001 at 12:15 AM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  14. #74  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    It sounds like I'd agree. Before I commit fully, could I bother you for a link on the tenets of Object Utilitarianism? You've mentioned it before, but, alas, I have not done the research.
    I linked it earlier in this thread....

    It wasn't very popular the first time... *shrug*... I'm not entirely clear on UO in general. Basically, it's utilitarianism that doesn't require you to do the full "utilitarian calculation" every time you have a decision to make. Instead, it allows you to lay down general principles (i.e. "objects") that you can live by, yet are subject to review...

    ...Heck, I'm not sure that I like it... but it's the cleanest thing I've seen thus far....

    I'm off to watch Ordinary People... I'll be back for more annoying sophistry later....
  15. #75  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    I linked it earlier in this thread....

    It wasn't very popular the first time... *shrug*... I'm not entirely clear on UO in general. Basically, it's utilitarianism that doesn't require you to do the full "utilitarian calculation" every time you have a decision to make. Instead, it allows you to lay down general principles (i.e. "objects") that you can live by, yet are subject to review...

    ...Heck, I'm not sure that I like it... but it's the cleanest thing I've seen thus far....

    I'm off to watch Ordinary People... I'll be back for more annoying sophistry later....
    I thank you. I'd ask for a recess until all options have been considered.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  16. #76  
    4 links later I still didn't find it.

    Oh well, I believe I understand the gist of it. Object Utilitarianism with guarantees of individual rights is something I'll go along with. Otherwise we fall into a situation where 90% of the population completely agrees that the wealthiest 10% need to give up their money for "the benefit of society." I would not be a citizen of Omelas.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  17. #77  
    There does not exist a sufficient level of clarity on "the will of god" in order to make it the basis of an ethical system
    And let's not forget that there are many many gods, among other 'higher powers'.

    So the question is, given our present abilities and society, what is the best system of ethics?
    Formal documentation that is maleable? i.e., the constitution, the legal system, professional organizations ethical standards, respect for one another, etc.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  18. #78  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Not I.
    Perhaps not intentionally, but yes, you did.
    I can envision little better than heaven.
    The point that Lennon was trying to make is that there's nothing stopping us from creating a 'heaven' (since no one can prove that there isn't a better one or group of them besides the Xtian one) here without having to die other than our own selfish desires and/or actions.
    Eternal rapture sounds pleasant.
    But who (besides Xtians who have a vested interest in propogating the belief) said that the Xtian Heaven was the only possible way to achieve eternal rapture.
    His general desires. Not necessarily specific wishes for every situation.
    Horribly inefficient, this God is.
    Were everyone to follow their conscience, everything would be ducky (authority wouldn't abuse its power, rational disobedience would be an oxymoron, someone wouldn't force a person to rape in order to prevent the rape and destruction of thousands more, etc.). Since the conscience is so easily ignored and personal desire often difficult to resist, there arises times when rational disregard of the conscience may become more moral.
    Um...what about those that effectively have no conscience or whose consciences advise them differently than yours? See the example where I got the snot beaten out of me. This is where morals and laws come from. A society sets its standards of what is or isn't acceptable behavior and enforces them by social means (people like you if you do 'right' and don't like you if you do 'wrong'). In certain circumstances, they deem it necessary to set up formal structures and codify these ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' into laws with sanctions they deem appropriate. Other societies form when a certain subset of the group who don't like the opinions of the others decide that they don't like them enough to induce them to go elsewhere. Unfortunately, we've acheived critical mass in some respects and there aren't many places to go anymore. This is when things get messy.
    All the better, though I doubt a path has been chosen in advance. What purpose for time?
    I'm not getting your meaning here.
    Possible. If unattainable, that realization won't come until death (if then).
    All the more reason to not consider it. "Imagine all the people living for today."
    Ah yes. You should not have withdrawn. A belief that is not questioned serves no one.
    That may very well be so, but I bear no responsibility to be the one who always asks the questions if I've not sufficient time or if it will make me a pariah (not that I necessarily have a problem with being a pariah, just that I'm going to pick my circumstances carefully ).
    [...] I could well have been citing those "universal acts" as such from an inability on my part to rationalize those behaviors. Given dietrichbohn's link, his professor's hypothetical, and your arguments, I accept that all falls into the second category with varying degrees of "explainability."
    That's the tough thing about moral absolutism. It's so easy to find historical examples which disprove that any given act has been universally taboo. That's when the absolutist tends to jump off the deep end, though, claiming that they probably knew they were wrong for doing it blahblahblah or start throwing 'relativist' or 'situational ethics' ad hominems around.
    That may be the desired end, but it must not necessarily be so. Perceptions are limited to the boundaries set by the senses that perceive them.
    That was my point about lossy media. Seems quite poor judgement to put even loose guidelines on which a creation is supposed to act on a medium which is obviously so poorly suited to getting it right.
    ‎"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...
  19. #79  
    blah blah blah.......

    this has been 6 pages of muttering.......I think some of you are off your meds.....


    Started out as a great post......
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Perhaps not intentionally, but yes, you did.
    How so?
    The point that Lennon was trying to make is that there's nothing stopping us from creating a 'heaven' (since no one can prove that there isn't a better one or group of them besides the Xtian one) here without having to die other than our own selfish desires and/or actions.
    That has not been my interpretation of the song. Granted, I have not looked for his interpretation. Regardless, I've not said there is anything stopping us from creating our own heaven on earth. I have not addressed this issue at all. My own belief is that such a situation is entirely possible.
    But who (besides Xtians who have a vested interest in propogating the belief) said that the Xtian Heaven was the only possible way to achieve eternal rapture.
    Not I. I have made no comment toward religion. Among all the alternatives that may happen when I die, there is nothing I know of that would compare to eternal rapture. Even heaven on earth can't offer that. And I have stated repeatedly that I don't believe it is a "member's only" deal.
    Horribly inefficient, this God is.
    Or lazy. Or curious. Or vindictive. I can't speak to His motive or efficiency.
    Um...what about those that effectively have no conscience or whose consciences advise them differently than yours?
    I have addressed this.
    See the example where I got the snot beaten out of me. This is where morals and laws come from. A society sets its standards of what is or isn't acceptable behavior and enforces them by social means (people like you if you do 'right' and don't like you if you do 'wrong').
    Agreed. And these behaviors may be completely against the conscience.
    In certain circumstances, they deem it necessary to set up formal structures and codify these ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' into laws with sanctions they deem appropriate.
    Agreed. And the societal idea of "right" and "wrong" may, again, be completely at odds with the conscience.
    Other societies form when a certain subset of the group who don't like the opinions of the others decide that they don't like them enough to induce them to go elsewhere. Unfortunately, we've acheived critical mass in some respects and there aren't many places to go anymore. This is when things get messy.
    Again, agreed. Societal norms may easily be instilled regardless of conscience. Hence part of the disagreement, or fuzziness as I mentioned before
    I'm not getting your meaning here.
    I believe it possible that time may be an invention of God whereby He willingly sets aside his [possible] omnipotence for sake of...curiosity/morbidity/etc. I don't believe there to be a "chosen path."
    All the more reason to not consider it. "Imagine all the people living for today."
    Living for today is hardly rational, consequences being what they are.
    That may very well be so, but I bear no responsibility to be the one who always asks the questions
    So advance your own beliefs.
    That's the tough thing about moral absolutism...
    And the reason it should not try to be forced onto people. Religious people make poor salesmen and politicians.
    That was my point about lossy media. Seems quite poor judgement to put even loose guidelines on which a creation is supposed to act on a medium which is obviously so poorly suited to getting it right.
    You assume that "getting it right" is the only desired end. What if a "higher" end (by that I mean an end held in higher esteem by the diety in question) was the pursuit of "getting it right"?
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 12/13/2001 at 11:51 PM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions