Nahh, the people who cheat will spend their time socializing instead, learning the valuable skills that will land them promotions, and eventually make them your boss.
I think the position that all human beings have the same moral value and thus ought to receive the same moral consideration is a widespread position in modern ethics. If you accept that position, then setting up an offshore operation that provides for similar or superior standard of living to the same or greater amount of workers cannot be said to be unethical according to most modern ethical theories.
But... that clearly wouldn't be the case. When you offshore most jobs, you provide a lower standard of living to a smaller number of workers who are forced to work ridiculous hours, often under physical threat.
But the opposing view is bad as well. By selling out in the race to the bottom, you contribute to the social factors that lead to those people being in a position of potential starvation, and make it more likely that more people will be starving in the future. So is it right to make more people starve in the future, to spare a few now?
The people in your geographic location are also those most capable of murdering you for food if they don't have enough money to put food on the table. People in remote locations don't have that luxury.
It's a necessary clarificative. Without it, how would you know if you were talking about just plain geeks, vs geeks who like to cyber all the time. This is a competition for cybergeeks.
I don't think Al Gore's work on Global Warming deserves derision for being a stretch to tie to peace. If you take AGW as a given, then the connection to peace is pretty straightforward. Doing nothing about AGW = rising sea levels. Rising sea levels = hundreds of millions of displaced, angry people. Hundreds of millions of displaced, angry people = war.
Ah, I assumed we were discussing relative to the USA. Though I would generally agree that as soon as you take public funds, the requirement to serve ALL of the public is pretty much mandatory.
Fair enough in general, though I don't believe this one: "church leaders should be required by state powers to perform religious ceremonies for non-members of their faith despite moral objections,"
Has been trumpeted by anyone except the extreme-anti-gays [in an effort to make lesser rights (say the right to be legally married) unpalatable]. That is, as far as I have heard, there are no gay rights activists demanding that right. Only anti-gay-rights activists are doing so.
Sorry, by 'the religious', I meant as an organizational whole. It's among the stated goals of a large number of religious organizations to prevent the spread of homosexual rights.
The problem is that the religious want to keep homosexuals oppressed in the secular side of life. That argument gets much harder if it isn't a choice. If it's 'just' a sin, the secular/government side of the usa is supposed to stay out of purely religious issues.
lol I think of the philosopher who finally one day proved that our choices are deterministic. What did he do next? Whatever he wanted.
One thing is certain: because of the complexity of the universe (small changes can make huge differences in the outcome), it is impossible to create a computer that will model the universe with less data than exists in the universe. So although everything might be theoretically determinable, no one in this universe can predict all decisions accurately.
And anyway, the fact that your decision might have been decided by the pre-existing positions of various matter doesn't make decisions any easier to make.....you still have to make them.
I think the whole point of the lack of free will / mechanistic view, is that regardless of how hard you think it is, you aren't making any decisions.
Laws determine precisely what is lawful or unlawful. Not right or wrong indeed. You might more properly have said: Taxation is legalized taking, no more, no less. Then we'd be in agreement. Murder is exactly unlawful killing, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder definition (1!) is: : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
And of course the natural 'right' to own property is quite heavily debated. By what authority do you derive the right to deny someone else a piece of food. What rule decides what is yours, what is mine? What if I decide differently than you? Your 'ownership' in property cannot be established without an authority, or rules, necessitating government, necessitating taxes.
That to me is a fascinating list. None of the cheats I've ever seen or heard of would be caught by it, of course, but it's interesting that there's enough of an industry out there to have this completely different class of cheats attracting attention and effort to control.
You used tyranny first. I was just replying. The prince is about running a principality. An authoritarian regime where ultimate power resides in one individual over all others, the same mechanism used in most corporate offices today.
Slashdot Mirror
Nahh, the people who cheat will spend their time socializing instead, learning the valuable skills that will land them promotions, and eventually make them your boss.
I think the position that all human beings have the same moral value and thus ought to receive the same moral consideration is a widespread position in modern ethics. If you accept that position, then setting up an offshore operation that provides for similar or superior standard of living to the same or greater amount of workers cannot be said to be unethical according to most modern ethical theories.
But ... that clearly wouldn't be the case. When you offshore most jobs, you provide a lower standard of living to a smaller number of workers who are forced to work ridiculous hours, often under physical threat.
But the opposing view is bad as well. By selling out in the race to the bottom, you contribute to the social factors that lead to those people being in a position of potential starvation, and make it more likely that more people will be starving in the future. So is it right to make more people starve in the future, to spare a few now?
The people in your geographic location are also those most capable of murdering you for food if they don't have enough money to put food on the table. People in remote locations don't have that luxury.
What if you employed that same person to produce food for, or transport food to hungry people?
Now be fair. javascript + html5 has way more colors than a commodore 64, and only marginally less performance.
Do you have a license for that?
It's (modded) funny because it's true.
That looks suspiciously like engineering work to me.
It's a necessary clarificative. Without it, how would you know if you were talking about just plain geeks, vs geeks who like to cyber all the time. This is a competition for cybergeeks.
I don't think Al Gore's work on Global Warming deserves derision for being a stretch to tie to peace. If you take AGW as a given, then the connection to peace is pretty straightforward. Doing nothing about AGW = rising sea levels. Rising sea levels = hundreds of millions of displaced, angry people. Hundreds of millions of displaced, angry people = war.
Ah, I assumed we were discussing relative to the USA. Though I would generally agree that as soon as you take public funds, the requirement to serve ALL of the public is pretty much mandatory.
You could use a proxy.
http://aliveproxy.com/us-proxy-list/
Fair enough in general, though I don't believe this one:
"church leaders should be required by state powers to perform religious ceremonies for non-members of their faith despite moral objections,"
Has been trumpeted by anyone except the extreme-anti-gays [in an effort to make lesser rights (say the right to be legally married) unpalatable]. That is, as far as I have heard, there are no gay rights activists demanding that right. Only anti-gay-rights activists are doing so.
Sorry, by 'the religious', I meant as an organizational whole. It's among the stated goals of a large number of religious organizations to prevent the spread of homosexual rights.
Sloppiness around birth control is clearly a genetic advantage.
The problem is that the religious want to keep homosexuals oppressed in the secular side of life. That argument gets much harder if it isn't a choice. If it's 'just' a sin, the secular/government side of the usa is supposed to stay out of purely religious issues.
lol I think of the philosopher who finally one day proved that our choices are deterministic. What did he do next? Whatever he wanted.
One thing is certain: because of the complexity of the universe (small changes can make huge differences in the outcome), it is impossible to create a computer that will model the universe with less data than exists in the universe. So although everything might be theoretically determinable, no one in this universe can predict all decisions accurately.
And anyway, the fact that your decision might have been decided by the pre-existing positions of various matter doesn't make decisions any easier to make.....you still have to make them.
I think the whole point of the lack of free will / mechanistic view, is that regardless of how hard you think it is, you aren't making any decisions.
Laws determine precisely what is lawful or unlawful. Not right or wrong indeed. You might more properly have said: Taxation is legalized taking, no more, no less. Then we'd be in agreement. Murder is exactly unlawful killing,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
definition (1!) is:
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
And of course the natural 'right' to own property is quite heavily debated. By what authority do you derive the right to deny someone else a piece of food. What rule decides what is yours, what is mine? What if I decide differently than you? Your 'ownership' in property cannot be established without an authority, or rules, necessitating government, necessitating taxes.
That to me is a fascinating list. None of the cheats I've ever seen or heard of would be caught by it, of course, but it's interesting that there's enough of an industry out there to have this completely different class of cheats attracting attention and effort to control.
Ah, yes, sorry, I was not talking about America. I can see how it would be read that way.
Theft by definition is an unlawful taking, so you've gotten pretty circular with your sig.
You used tyranny first. I was just replying. The prince is about running a principality. An authoritarian regime where ultimate power resides in one individual over all others, the same mechanism used in most corporate offices today.
Because most of us spend our daily lives working in a tyranny, not a republic.
If you haven't read the prince, you're missing out. People who have read it are manipulating you.