Cacto , when you say It depends entirely on what you intend to achieve whether [a particular moral code] is appropriate or not . It seems like you mean that a moral code is justified by the goal of the one who adopts it. Is my understanding correct? I mean, if my goal were world domination, would it be morally correct of me to adopt a code that allowed for the assassination of rivals and the imprisonment or
So... why did you become a Mason, thatoneguyinslc ? I assume the gist of it is "to seek the one true moral code". Would you be willing to share some of the details of your choice?
Not at all, Guy ! copy/paste to your heart's content. But feel free to discuss your answers or mine here, as well.
Moderateman , I don't think that "legal" automatically means "moral". It's entirely possible that nobody thought the law of "your lord and master in feudal times to boink your wife before you did" was moral, but rather either suffered under it because they had no choice, or brazenly implemented it because they had no accountability. It's also important not to confuse the fundamental principles of morality with the customs which
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. I disagree with this statement. There never has been, and never will be, any consensus on what is in the best interests of humanity as a whole. So we're left with the interests of individuals, and the fundamental p
Meh. Typical political hypberbole. Criminals and asshats raise money for a candidate. The opposition candidate goes on TV and says that the other guy's campaign team is made up of criminals and asshats. Not all that exciting, really. Just a little bit of normal political spin. Kind of like characterizing Santorum as "desperate" and "lying" and trying to "save his job". The underlying facts are true, and even perha
Whatever you say, Gene.
Whatever you say, Gene. I used to totally disregard you, but recently I noticed that you've been using ALL CAPS for emphasis. I have to say, this totally changed my opinion of you and your ideas. Now I admit that you are obviously correct in everything you say. I am sorry I ever doubted you. Please forgive me. I will never disagree with you again.
There's a difference between fear and prudence. Do you lock your car door in the parking lot out of fear, or prudence? Do you support security checks at airports out of fear, or prudence? You should definitely expect each faction to portray the opposition faction's policies as fear-driven, and their own as prudence-driven. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. Decide for yourself what policies are prudent, and support those poli
So I thought it might be interesting and fun to put forward the following two questions for discussion: Is morality the same in all times and places, or does it vary from time to time and place to place? And Is your moral code the one true moral code, and all others are wrong; or is your moral code one of many, all more or le
PROTIP: High prices are not a scam. They're a calculated estimate of how much you desire a thing. If the calculation is off, they won't make maximum profit from your business (either because you'll take your business somewhere else, or because they're not charging you as much as you'd be willing to pay). The only scam is the one you're perpetrating on yourself, by choosing to believe that you must have printer cartriges, and that you're entitled to a lowe price for them.
1. That tax cut is being credited with contributing significantly to the economic recovery. Also, regardless of how big the deficit is, it's still wrong to cover it by finding people with money and taking it from them. You yourself acknowledge that the rich paid most (they still do, by the way). How is that fair, war or no war? 2. Why does everything have to be about U.S. interests, and the U.S. scoring brownie points in the popularity co
This is an excellent example of what's wrong with Democrats and liberals today. We already all agree that Bush needs to go. Term limits, remember? Instead of wasting time on rants about how something, that is already guaranteed to happen, really needs to happen, Gene should be ranting about how the Democrats have a plan to make things better, and trying to convince us to vote for that plan and its political figureheads. But Gene never says anything positive in support
Makes sense. Using the armed forces depletes their resources. All those armories full of ammo get emptied out. All those well-maintained vehicles swap out their weekly preventive maintenance sessions for hard use in harsh conditions. Trained men and women get burnt out, used up, and even killed. It's part of the natural and healthy cycle of a military organization: During peace time, it prepares for war. During war time, it exploit
In contrast, I'm more likely to engage the ideas of others, by commenting in their articles, than to write a new article of my own.
Thanks again for your straightforward and sincere answers, Mino. You've given me a lot to think about.
The claims made in this video have been discussed in great detail here , here , and here . I think you will find the arguments against the "missile" theory to be at least as compelling as the arguments in
I'm sorry, Mino. I didn't mean to give the impression that my questions had some hidden meaning. Thank you for answering them straightforwardly. I am not asking you if you would have an abortion. I am asking, if you had known then what you know now, would you have done anything differently to avoid this situation? Taken extra care to not get pregnant again, for example? Or gotten pregnant anyway, but made extra preparations for the upcoming expenses and loss of inc
Mino, I'm curious: If you had known nine months ago that the state would not pay you to have another child, would you have still gone ahead with your plans? What would you have done differently, to prepare for this extra financial burden and moral responsibility, if you had known you couldn't count on the state to cover your expenses?
What if she's trying to document an important ceremony? She could be liveblogging or podcasting an event of major cultural importance. She could be capturing soundbites or making audio notes of her initial impressions. She could be reporting live to friends and family who care deeply about this event but are unable to attend in person. Maybe the real question is, "is citizen reporting really necessary?"</fo
Indeed, we all do it to some degree. I am an enthusiastic believer in each person living according to their own moral standards, for the most part. I'm not sure how you can judge other people's consumption, though, without questioning their right to pursue happiness in their own way. Where, exactly do you draw the line between a free citizen's rightful pursuit of happiness, and conspicuous consumption?
Draginol, how much of Republican incompetence do you perceive as being due to a slim majority and a vehement, unreasoning opposition faction?
Shovel, what's "willfull wasting", in your mind? It is the goal of most sane people to live well, in comfort, with some time and accessories for leisure and entertainment readily available to them each day. So if I live in a house with a den, or a rumpus room, or a two-car garage, while somebody else lives in a van down by the river, am I consuming conspicuously, or am I simply seeing to my very human needs and enjoying the combinatio
As a U.S. citizen, I am definitely against both racism AND free education. If people want to learn German, they're gonna have to pay for it themselves. As long as they don't hate Germans, I'm happy.
We've been over this. In a globalized economy, American wages are going to go down. American wages are going to go down regardless of what the President does. If he's an economic genius and incredibly lucky, he might be able to slow the rate of wage decreases, but that's about it. Gene, what did you seriously expect to happen, once American workers started competing with Indian workers and Chinese workers and Mexican workers? By global standards, Americans ar
JoeUser Forums