01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 101st comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
mordecai said:
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.


Then why do you continue your attempt at acceptance? And why do you untrust some body to rule you over another? By what means do you discern? This is not clear to me.
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 102nd comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Conner said:
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.

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.


While much of that is quite true, and all of it rather cynical, it is largely not relevant. The discussion was whether or not it hurt anyone and was wrong from Brinson to steal from Adobe by downloading a copy of their software illegally rather than buy a copy for himself.
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 103rd comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Conner said:
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.


Then why do you continue your attempt at acceptance? And why do you untrust some body to rule you over another? By what means do you discern? This is not clear to me.


What attempt at acceptance?

Ok, What's not clear to me is what you are asking, or where you are getting your notions of what I trust or do not trust. Care to either clarify yourself or find some way to come back on-topic?
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 104th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
mordecai said:
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.)


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.


I was also alluding to his less-capable argumentation strategy. His reference seems misplaced and his ideals misguided, but at the heart, he has a more important message he is trying to convey. You and I may understand the fallible nature of such posters, but (I assume) from his context, they are more meaningful. His perspective is that of a High Schooler, and thus his justifications reflect that. I will cede this is not inherently obvious, but I do urge you to consider one's perspective before passing judgment on their communication tactics.
And thusly, I say you should consider the core of his statements, not the fluff of support.
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 105th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
mordecai said:
Conner said:
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.

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.


While much of that is quite true, and all of it rather cynical, it is largely not relevant. The discussion was whether or not it hurt anyone and was wrong from Brinson to steal from Adobe by downloading a copy of their software illegally rather than buy a copy for himself.


Sometimes the course may sway a little. Of the track you go. The well-worn path seems gone - a little - but back you must trek, until the end. The journey sometimes is long and hard, the way not always clear. But look to the heavens, and follow the stars. Onward! Without fear!
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 106th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
mordecai said:
Conner said:
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.


Then why do you continue your attempt at acceptance? And why do you untrust some body to rule you over another? By what means do you discern? This is not clear to me.


What attempt at acceptance?

Ok, What's not clear to me is what you are asking, or where you are getting your notions of what I trust or do not trust. Care to either clarify yourself or find some way to come back on-topic?


A straw man finds himself alone - his duty to scare the crows away. His human boss has entrusted him, with his liveliness and wealth.

To shut a babbling man, tell him what he wants.

I have no assumptions of you. My ideas cast away. Please start anew, with succinct clarifications. For I want to know, too.
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 107th comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Conner said:
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.


I was also alluding to his less-capable argumentation strategy. His reference seems misplaced and his ideals misguided, but at the heart, he has a more important message he is trying to convey. You and I may understand the fallible nature of such posters, but (I assume) from his context, they are more meaningful. His perspective is that of a High Schooler, and thus his justifications reflect that. I will cede this is not inherently obvious, but I do urge you to consider one's perspective before passing judgment on their communication tactics.
And thusly, I say you should consider the core of his statements, not the fluff of support.


Fair enough, I apologize, I had allowed the 6 pages that led up to that point to frustrate me more than I should have and you are correct in that I should have taken it for the context he was trying to present rather than as a debate tool among otherwise equals. Even so, when he starts to quote posters on his school walls as his defense for what the rest of seem readily able to recognize as outright theft…

Well, what would have been a more appropriate means to enlighten this young man to the fact that these posters are not conveying what he seems to have interpretted them to mean and, at the same time, also explain to him the core idea that we've all tried unsuccessfully so far to explain that stealing software is wrong and does hurt many many people?
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 108th comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Sometimes the course may sway a little. Of the track you go. The well-worn path seems gone - a little - but back you must trek, until the end. The journey sometimes is long and hard, the way not always clear. But look to the heavens, and follow the stars. Onward! Without fear!


Thank you for that enlightenment, oh great Zen master! :wink:
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 109th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
mordecai said:
Conner said:
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.


I was also alluding to his less-capable argumentation strategy. His reference seems misplaced and his ideals misguided, but at the heart, he has a more important message he is trying to convey. You and I may understand the fallible nature of such posters, but (I assume) from his context, they are more meaningful. His perspective is that of a High Schooler, and thus his justifications reflect that. I will cede this is not inherently obvious, but I do urge you to consider one's perspective before passing judgment on their communication tactics.
And thusly, I say you should consider the core of his statements, not the fluff of support.


Fair enough, I apologize, I had allowed the 6 pages that led up to that point to frustrate me more than I should have and you are correct in that I should have taken it for the context he was trying to present rather than as a debate tool among otherwise equals. Even so, when he starts to quote posters on his school walls as his defense for what the rest of seem readily able to recognize as outright theft…

Well, what would have been a more appropriate means to enlighten this young man to the fact that these posters are not conveying what he seems to have interpretted them to mean and, at the same time, also explain to him the core idea that we've all tried unsuccessfully so far to explain that stealing software is wrong and does hurt many many people?


I must disagree here. I do not think this subject is so easily proven, or even possible to consider in such a simple statement. I believe there are far too many factors to reach a conclusive conclusion in one simple forum thread (especially with no in-depth social research - we are after all debating a social issue). I think this is why the thread has lead us into a brier patch of reason, and no easy resolution found in sight.
My thoughts are, that to reach any kind of understanding, we much dissect every piece to its fundamental core. Or, if too difficult, cede the argument entirely and agree on a justified action.
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 110th comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Conner said:
mordecai said:
Conner said:
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.


Then why do you continue your attempt at acceptance? And why do you untrust some body to rule you over another? By what means do you discern? This is not clear to me.


What attempt at acceptance?

Ok, What's not clear to me is what you are asking, or where you are getting your notions of what I trust or do not trust. Care to either clarify yourself or find some way to come back on-topic?


A straw man finds himself alone - his duty to scare the crows away. His human boss has entrusted him, with his liveliness and wealth.

To shut a babbling man, tell him what he wants.

I have no assumptions of you. My ideas cast away. Please start anew, with succinct clarifications. For I want to know, too.


How.. poetic. :lol:
I think I'll choose to deal with just the last stanza of that and ask what it is that you wish to be made aware of.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 111th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 112th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Thank you for that enlightenment, oh great Zen master! :wink:


Master, I am not. Servant is my aspiration. Guide, possibly, if I am useful.
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 113th comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Conner said:
Fair enough, I apologize, I had allowed the 6 pages that led up to that point to frustrate me more than I should have and you are correct in that I should have taken it for the context he was trying to present rather than as a debate tool among otherwise equals. Even so, when he starts to quote posters on his school walls as his defense for what the rest of seem readily able to recognize as outright theft…

Well, what would have been a more appropriate means to enlighten this young man to the fact that these posters are not conveying what he seems to have interpretted them to mean and, at the same time, also explain to him the core idea that we've all tried unsuccessfully so far to explain that stealing software is wrong and does hurt many many people?


I must disagree here. I do not think this subject is so easily proven, or even possible to consider in such a simple statement. I believe there are far too many factors to reach a conclusive conclusion in one simple forum thread (especially with no in-depth social research - we are after all debating a social issue). I think this is why the thread has lead us into a brier patch of reason, and no easy resolution found in sight.
My thoughts are, that to reach any kind of understanding, we much dissect every piece to its fundamental core. Or, if too difficult, cede the argument entirely and agree on a justified action.


Well, given that it seems clear enough that neither side here is ready to cede entirely and agree that it was a justified action, I guess that means it's time to start the dissection. Though on the whole, I will agree that what we're debating does seem to be a social issue these days, I'm not sure that it would have been in the past. The issue isn't whether or not it's alright for Robin Hood to steal from the thieving Prince John to return the ill-gotten taxations to the people, but whether or not Brinson is in the wrong for stealing a product which he could live without from a company through no fault of their own.
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 114th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
I think I'll choose to deal with just the last stanza of that and ask what it is that you wish to be made aware of.


I will say it simply now, because its past has grown enshrouded.

How do you determine what you believe is right?
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 115th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Well, given that it seems clear enough that neither side here is ready to cede entirely and agree that it was a justified action, I guess that means it's time to start the dissection. Though on the whole, I will agree that what we're debating does seem to be a social issue these days, I'm not sure that it would have been in the past. The issue isn't whether or not it's alright for Robin Hood to steal from the thieving Prince John to return the ill-gotten taxations to the people, but whether or not Brinson is in the wrong for stealing a product which he could live without from a company through no fault of their own.


To keep things simple, I will now follow only one path.

The question is see here is, "Can he really live without it?" Or, more boldly, "What is life?"

Obviously you consider physical starvation to be unacceptable in life. What about intellectual starvation?
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 116th comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Conner said:
I think I'll choose to deal with just the last stanza of that and ask what it is that you wish to be made aware of.


I will say it simply now, because its past has grown enshrouded.

How do you determine what you believe is right?


Primarily by what my parents taught me to believe what is right, which largely came from a biblical foundation. (Well, the torah in my specific case, but the 10 commandments are generally the same in all Jewish/Christian beliefs.) Undoubtably, I've had other influences in my life as well, but that would be the underlying foundation. Have you found another/better way to determine what you believe to be right?
01 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 117th comment:
Votes: 0
mordecai said:
Conner said:
Well, given that it seems clear enough that neither side here is ready to cede entirely and agree that it was a justified action, I guess that means it's time to start the dissection. Though on the whole, I will agree that what we're debating does seem to be a social issue these days, I'm not sure that it would have been in the past. The issue isn't whether or not it's alright for Robin Hood to steal from the thieving Prince John to return the ill-gotten taxations to the people, but whether or not Brinson is in the wrong for stealing a product which he could live without from a company through no fault of their own.


To keep things simple, I will now follow only one path.

The question is see here is, "Can he really live without it?" Or, more boldly, "What is life?"

Obviously you consider physical starvation to be unacceptable in life. What about intellectual starvation?


Given that there are free alternatives that would have served as equal learning tools for him without resorting to theft, I see no reason that his lack of an adobe product constitutes intellectual starvation.

As for the broader question of what is life, well, for the sake of the sanity of the others reading this thread, I'll take the easy answer: 42. :wink:
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 118th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
mordecai said:
Conner said:
I think I'll choose to deal with just the last stanza of that and ask what it is that you wish to be made aware of.


I will say it simply now, because its past has grown enshrouded.

How do you determine what you believe is right?


Primarily by what my parents taught me to believe what is right, which largely came from a biblical foundation. (Well, the torah in my specific case, but the 10 commandments are generally the same in all Jewish/Christian beliefs.) Undoubtably, I've had other influences in my life as well, but that would be the underlying foundation. Have you found another/better way to determine what you believe to be right?


The question then becomes, "What makes your parents more important than any other human being?" I say any man is fallible. I see, you look towards God's commandments indirectly, but I see a foundation as fragile as the sand. To truly know what is Right, you must consider all circumstances. Realize that everything has a cause, and there is a reason behind what anyone says. Consider the universals, the absolutes, and there you might find Truth.

To put this in context, I will reveal that I have found this Truth to be reflective of the Bible also. However, please do not take my word for it. I am weak by nature, subjective to the things around me. In ten years, I may sway greatly to evil. Instead, come to and understanding for yourself. Open your eyes, and see the Truth. Understand the optical distortions others try to place in front of you.
01 Oct, 2006, mordecai wrote in the 119th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Given that there are free alternatives that would have served as equal learning tools for him without resorting to theft, I see no reason that his lack of an adobe product constitutes intellectual starvation.

As for the broader question of what is life, well, for the sake of the sanity of the others reading this thread, I'll take the easy answer: 42. :wink:


Learning what?

Occahm's Razor.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 120th comment:
Votes: 0
Okham's or was that Arkham's?
100.0/122