30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 81st comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson, morality is determined by the majority, not your beliefs.
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 82nd comment:
Wtf? Did you really just say that? That right and wrong aren't something we each must decide?
If so, I totally disagree with you and reccomend you read some of the posters they put in high schools, like "Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right." ;)
And didn't someone say earlier that Canada hasn't even ruled on this kind of thing?
"Fundamental things" that don't change about law don't include technology related crimes, as they are quite new and by no means fundamental.
If so, I totally disagree with you and reccomend you read some of the posters they put in high schools, like "Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right." ;)
And didn't someone say earlier that Canada hasn't even ruled on this kind of thing?
"Fundamental things" that don't change about law don't include technology related crimes, as they are quite new and by no means fundamental.
30 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 83rd comment:
No that's not true. 100 years is not that new. The history of the ownership of ideas may go back 1000s of years. That's billions of opinions on technology. Fundamental things about copyrights won't change: they exist. Laws are usually not repealed, especially the larger concepts. The advent of trademarking and copyright is, fortunately or unfortunately, here to stay.
30 Sep, 2006, Davion wrote in the 84th comment:
Quote
And didn't someone say earlier that Canada hasn't even ruled on this kind of thing?
"Fundamental things" that don't change about law don't include technology related crimes, as they are quite new and by no means fundamental.
"Fundamental things" that don't change about law don't include technology related crimes, as they are quite new and by no means fundamental.
Yup! We Canadians are nearly impervious to such legalities. As far as music/software go, the thing about them is there's nothing physical about it. The act of stealing Adobe PS:CS from Limewire/Bittorrent is different from racking it off the shelves because nothing physical is take.
And to bring up that porsche annalogy, in order for it to pretain to stealing from the net, you'd have to alter it slightly :). One would have to take Porsche A, select it (or ctrl+a to get many!) ctrl+c it, then ctrl+p it and drive away. Then I think you can compare the two.
Also, probably not a good idea to mix legalities and moralities. One is subjective, the other is blind. ;)
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 85th comment:
Yes, I did just say that, Brinson. You're not dealing with high school here. Morality is determined by the national majority, not the popular kids in your high school. The posters are trying to help prevent kids from doing things there peers are doing that are morally and/or legally wrong, not trying to teach you that it's moral if you feel it's right. If I decide that you should be executed for your inability to deal with socially acceted standards of morality, that doesn't make my decision a moral one because I feel it's the right solution. Or is even that too abstract a concept for you?
(This is a hypothetical scenario, I have no intention nor desire to kill Brinson regardless of his reprehensible philosphy.)
(This is a hypothetical scenario, I have no intention nor desire to kill Brinson regardless of his reprehensible philosphy.)
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 86th comment:
Davion said:
Also, probably not a good idea to mix legalities and moralities. One is subjective, the other is blind. ;)
But, alas, given the direction of this discourse so far, it's becoming unclear which of the two is which. ;)
Truthfully, both are subjective, which is why some countries outlaw things that other countries consider perfectly moral and upright.
30 Sep, 2006, Davion wrote in the 87th comment:
Quote
You're not dealing with high school here. Morality is determined by the national majority, not the popular kids in your high school.
I'll have to disagree with this one. I don't believe morality has to do with the majority. I think it's quite a personal thing to determine how moral or immoral your actions are. I wont let a social majority tell me what I think is moral to do. It's up to the social majority to determine the legality of the situation. This is why we vote for people to pass laws and abolish things for us.
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 88th comment:
So, if Charles Manson decides that it's morally only right to rape and brainwash a bunch of teenaged girls until they worship him and happily slaughter folk for him, morally speaking, he's perfectly in the right because he felt that it was the right thing to do?
30 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 89th comment:
No, believing your right doesn't mean everyone else has to accept that you're right, but that doesn't change that you believe that you're right.
If morallity was decided by the majority we'd have no conflict in areas such as abortion, war, the death penalty, or gay rights.
Each person has a view on morality.
The Majority view(in a democracy) usually becomes the law.
They're different.
If morallity was decided by the majority we'd have no conflict in areas such as abortion, war, the death penalty, or gay rights.
Each person has a view on morality.
The Majority view(in a democracy) usually becomes the law.
They're different.
30 Sep, 2006, Cratylus wrote in the 90th comment:
morality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical...
It's the only description that derives from reason, imo.
-Crat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical...
It's the only description that derives from reason, imo.
-Crat
30 Sep, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 91st comment:
Conner said:
The only problem with this, Brinson, is that generally our laws are created to protect the rights of others based on morality. Theft is generally considered immoral as well as illegal.
Brinson said:
I never argued that it was legal or that it wasn't theft.
I was arguing the moral issue.
I was arguing the moral issue.
The only problem with this, Brinson, is that generally our laws are created to protect the rights of others based on morality. Theft is generally considered immoral as well as illegal.
Which country to do you live in? In the USA, we have this thing called the Iron Triangle….
And I am sure changing the Geneva convention is very moral. Obviously our legal system is the epitome of good, and the definition thereof.
30 Sep, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 92nd comment:
locke said:
Some fundamental things about law never change.
So true.
Fundamental #1: They are made by the people with the biggest stick.
30 Sep, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 93rd comment:
Conner said:
Brinson, morality is determined by the majority, not your beliefs.
Man, that's pretty sweet. So you're saying the only way I have to justify myself is by convincing a lot of other people? Wow, that's so easy! I think I'll go convince everyone that killing Jews is good.
README: (Please do NOT take this out of context. The above note is to be taken satirically. While I usually leave the satire to itself, I feel the statement to be too hurtful to given a chance of being taken seriously.)
30 Sep, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 94th comment:
locke said:
No that's not true. 100 years is not that new. The history of the ownership of ideas may go back 1000s of years. That's billions of opinions on technology. Fundamental things about copyrights won't change: they exist. Laws are usually not repealed, especially the larger concepts. The advent of trademarking and copyright is, fortunately or unfortunately, here to stay.
As I recall the history…..
Man A picks some fruit from tree.
Other man (B) sees him enjoying the fruit and wants some himself. Man B decides he wants some. Man B inquires as to the source of the fruit.
Man A says it's in the tall trees.
Man B does not like climbing trees. Man B asks Man A for some of his fruit.
Man A offers to show Man B how to get his own, but declines sharing.
Man B picks up a stick and beats Man A on the head. Man B has fruit and is satisfied.
Time goes by….
New method:
Find actions of Man B:
replace all references to physical harm with complex psychological and social constructs.
30 Sep, 2006, Cratylus wrote in the 95th comment:
Morality that does not derive from reason derives
from sentiment, and this is not a reliable means to
understand what is good.
Morality by consensus is not morality, it is democracy.
Unfortunately, the political position that morality is
decided by the majority is being misinterpreted here
as a philosophical one. It's just incorrect. Let's move on.
Brinson is the fun here, not Conner's misstatements.
-Crat
from sentiment, and this is not a reliable means to
understand what is good.
Morality by consensus is not morality, it is democracy.
Unfortunately, the political position that morality is
decided by the majority is being misinterpreted here
as a philosophical one. It's just incorrect. Let's move on.
Brinson is the fun here, not Conner's misstatements.
-Crat
30 Sep, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 96th comment:
Conner said:
Yes, I did just say that, Brinson. You're not dealing with high school here. Morality is determined by the national majority, not the popular kids in your high school. The posters are trying to help prevent kids from doing things there peers are doing that are morally and/or legally wrong, not trying to teach you that it's moral if you feel it's right. If I decide that you should be executed for your inability to deal with socially accepted standards of morality, that doesn't make my decision a moral one because I feel it's the right solution. Or is even that too abstract a concept for you?
(This is a hypothetical scenario, I have no intention nor desire to kill Brinson regardless of his reprehensible philosphy.)
(This is a hypothetical scenario, I have no intention nor desire to kill Brinson regardless of his reprehensible philosphy.)
I find your condescending tone here offensive. Just because Brinson may be in High School, or younger than you, does not mean you should ignore his opinion. That does not mean it is 'right,' or 'socially acceptable.' But if you stop listening, you are a fool covering your own eyes as you navigate the streets. You hope to stay on the safe path, and blindly run into those around you. As the car screeches to avoid the child you just knocked into the street, you smile to yourself and the exciting sounds - seeing no harm around.
This is a forum of discussion. We usually focus on our common interests here, but there are always thoughts in our mind about the human condition. Let us use our gift of communication to share and enrich ourselves. Let us not fight for gratification, justification, or apparent righteousness.
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 97th comment:
mordecai said:
Which country to do you live in? In the USA, we have this thing called the Iron Triangle….
And I am sure changing the Geneva convention is very moral. Obviously our legal system is the epitome of good, and the definition thereof.
Conner said:
The only problem with this, Brinson, is that generally our laws are created to protect the rights of others based on morality. Theft is generally considered immoral as well as illegal.
Brinson said:
I never argued that it was legal or that it wasn't theft.
I was arguing the moral issue.
I was arguing the moral issue.
The only problem with this, Brinson, is that generally our laws are created to protect the rights of others based on morality. Theft is generally considered immoral as well as illegal.
Which country to do you live in? In the USA, we have this thing called the Iron Triangle….
And I am sure changing the Geneva convention is very moral. Obviously our legal system is the epitome of good, and the definition thereof.
Mordecai, I did say generally there. I'm sure we're all well aware that our legal system here in the US sucks, but most laws in most places are at least originally implemented with the ideaology of protecting people from harm.
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 98th comment:
mordecai said:
Man, that's pretty sweet. So you're saying the only way I have to justify myself is by convincing a lot of other people? Wow, that's so easy! I think I'll go convince everyone that killing Jews is good.
README: (Please do NOT take this out of context. The above note is to be taken satirically. While I usually leave the satire to itself, I feel the statement to be too hurtful to given a chance of being taken seriously.)
Conner said:
Brinson, morality is determined by the majority, not your beliefs.
Man, that's pretty sweet. So you're saying the only way I have to justify myself is by convincing a lot of other people? Wow, that's so easy! I think I'll go convince everyone that killing Jews is good.
README: (Please do NOT take this out of context. The above note is to be taken satirically. While I usually leave the satire to itself, I feel the statement to be too hurtful to given a chance of being taken seriously.)
No, that's not what I'm saying any more than those posters in Brinson's school are saying that one must never follow the crowd to be in the right. The beliefs of a single individual do not qualify as morality for the masses, even if that individual convinces others to follow his errant ways.
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 99th comment:
Conner said:
Mordecai, I did say generally there. I'm sure we're all well aware that our legal system here in the US sucks, but most laws in most places are at least originally implemented with the ideaology of protecting people from harm.
mordecai said:
Which country to do you live in? In the USA, we have this thing called the Iron Triangle….
And I am sure changing the Geneva convention is very moral. Obviously our legal system is the epitome of good, and the definition thereof.
Conner said:
The only problem with this, Brinson, is that generally our laws are created to protect the rights of others based on morality. Theft is generally considered immoral as well as illegal.
Brinson said:
I never argued that it was legal or that it wasn't theft.
I was arguing the moral issue.
I was arguing the moral issue.
The only problem with this, Brinson, is that generally our laws are created to protect the rights of others based on morality. Theft is generally considered immoral as well as illegal.
Which country to do you live in? In the USA, we have this thing called the Iron Triangle….
And I am sure changing the Geneva convention is very moral. Obviously our legal system is the epitome of good, and the definition thereof.
Mordecai, I did say generally there. I'm sure we're all well aware that our legal system here in the US sucks, but most laws in most places are at least originally implemented with the ideaology of protecting people from harm.
I sadly wish this were true. I too once believed that most governing intentions were pure. Sadly, as I take in more from the world around me, I come to realize the selfish nature of things. As ideals wither, so does our ability to govern righteously. A republican party becomes a party of pigs. A god-fearing people become a fearless brigade of death. The world loses sight of good. They see the fire, and light up their matches in response. A culture of trust, turns faithful into hurtful. The people are swayed into acceptance of wrongs. Oh the pain that is felt. How the skies darken with mourning. A world in need of care.
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 100th comment:
mordecai said:
I find your condescending tone here offensive. Just because Brinson may be in High School, or younger than you, does not mean you should ignore his opinion. That does not mean it is 'right,' or 'socially acceptable.' But if you stop listening, you are a fool covering your own eyes as you navigate the streets. You hope to stay on the safe path, and blindly run into those around you. As the car screeches to avoid the child you just knocked into the street, you smile to yourself and the exciting sounds - seeing no harm around.
This is a forum of discussion. We usually focus on our common interests here, but there are always thoughts in our mind about the human condition. Let us use our gift of communication to share and enrich ourselves. Let us not fight for gratification, justification, or apparent righteousness.
Conner said:
Yes, I did just say that, Brinson. You're not dealing with high school here. Morality is determined by the national majority, not the popular kids in your high school. The posters are trying to help prevent kids from doing things there peers are doing that are morally and/or legally wrong, not trying to teach you that it's moral if you feel it's right. If I decide that you should be executed for your inability to deal with socially accepted standards of morality, that doesn't make my decision a moral one because I feel it's the right solution. Or is even that too abstract a concept for you?
(This is a hypothetical scenario, I have no intention nor desire to kill Brinson regardless of his reprehensible philosphy.)
(This is a hypothetical scenario, I have no intention nor desire to kill Brinson regardless of his reprehensible philosphy.)
I find your condescending tone here offensive. Just because Brinson may be in High School, or younger than you, does not mean you should ignore his opinion. That does not mean it is 'right,' or 'socially acceptable.' But if you stop listening, you are a fool covering your own eyes as you navigate the streets. You hope to stay on the safe path, and blindly run into those around you. As the car screeches to avoid the child you just knocked into the street, you smile to yourself and the exciting sounds - seeing no harm around.
This is a forum of discussion. We usually focus on our common interests here, but there are always thoughts in our mind about the human condition. Let us use our gift of communication to share and enrich ourselves. Let us not fight for gratification, justification, or apparent righteousness.
I'm sorry that you find my tone offensive, but after several pages of folks trying to convey the same thing to this individual his defense of "so you're saying the posters on the walls in my school are wrong" is somewhere beyond rational discussion. He's taking something intended to prevent him and his fellow students from succumbing to peer pressure and trying to use it to defend theft. My tone has nothing to do with his age, but with his choice of argument. I haven't chosen to ignore his opinion, I'm actively debating it for being so outstandingly wrong.
Random Picks
