A customer's bill came to $5 and a few pennies. He gave me a ten and I rung it up and hit the cash button. I went to start counting his change and he tossed over a quarter. He was absolutely amazed when I was able to instantly do the math in my head and just hand him a five and however many cents it was
His bill was FIVE AND CHANGE. He gave you a TEN. And you brilliantly did the math to hand him a FIVE AND CHANGE???
Well, no, there's a legitimate public interest issue in it. Should governmental functions be served by some proprietory software or by source governmental employees (who ostensibly have people's interests in mind, let's be idealistic for a moment) can examine for security (a software vendor will, of course, lie about such things to sell the product, duh), for potential abuse, etc., etc.
So what does this sort of philosophy get you, DEBEDb? A thousand years of hatred and strife.
That is true. But it COULD get me where we acknowledge that no person earns money in a vacuum, and that Ayn Rand's politics is too simplistic.
Again, this is an illustration with the fundamental error of relativism: you cannot claim rights, liabilities, property, etc. of other individuals - whether they are your ancestor or your enemy.
Well, there is no theoretical fundamental error of relativism, if we're to have an idle argument:). You cannot claim anything means that you can claim anything, actually - once you've started down the path of relativism, you can't say anything is better than anything else. Or you can. Or whatever. There are just no answers, and so that is the fundamental problem with it - it doesn't get us anywhere. So we have to go back.
Otherwise, watch your back. I'm sure you've got at least one ancestor who screwed someone sometime...
I am not saying that you should screw the descendants of people who screwed somebody at some point. But what is your solution?
The whole argument is - how the money got in your wallet. It's not as simple as "I earned it." What enabled you to learn it? On whose shoulders were you standing?
And who will take from one and give to another to enforce this decision?
Well, it's also complicated. What one "has" may be a product of things stolen a long time ago. Product of slave labor, serf labor, fraudulent transactions, conquests. If you consider this, there's a short leap to "Property is theft":)
Slashdot Mirror
Take it a bit further. Why get married at all? It's just a tradition.
s/jewelry/art/
The problem is that while you can get all this stuff on the street, there's a certain risk of beign locked up associated with it. Do you want it?
oh yeah, that pesky quarter...
mea culpa
An empty set is still a set
His bill was FIVE AND CHANGE. He gave you
a TEN. And you brilliantly did the math to
hand him a FIVE AND CHANGE???
Father, your sense of humor leaves much...
Father, did you turn into a tree?
So by buying this extra stuff you are paying
money that you wanted to save to begin with. Brilliant.
Well, no, there's a legitimate public interest issue in it. Should governmental functions be served by some proprietory software or by source governmental employees (who ostensibly have people's interests in mind, let's be idealistic for a moment) can examine for security (a software vendor will, of course, lie about such things to sell the product, duh), for potential abuse, etc., etc.
Type of an argument is one thing, precondition is another. Hello...
Running this through a spell-checker
may give your letter another second to
live before being deleted.
The only reason for anonymity is to avoid the consequences of doing something that you shouldn't be doing.
Priceless...
What bank wouldn't, though? Sounds to me
:)
like a great deal for any bank - basically,
it's like a 100-year CD.
Don't forget inflation, though
I am sorry, I saw it beg just now...
O sure it is, in the first case, there
is a war and people get killed; in the
second, well?
Just because you "have no problem" with something doesn't mean that something is not contrary to the Constitution and rights acknowledged in it.
Isn't that exactly what the Founding Fathers
did, break the law?
the cable TV has enough channels, the
house has enough rooms and the
neighborhood has enough McDs...
Prior to that, you acquired a time machine, I believe...
Perhaps not "even though", but "because"
he had nothing to do with much of anything.
That is true. But it COULD get me where we acknowledge that no person earns money in a vacuum, and that Ayn Rand's politics is too simplistic.
Again, this is an illustration with the fundamental error of relativism: you cannot claim rights, liabilities, property, etc. of other individuals - whether they are your ancestor or your enemy.
Well, there is no theoretical fundamental :). You cannot claim anything
error of relativism, if we're to have an idle
argument
means that you can claim anything, actually
- once you've started down the path of
relativism, you can't say anything is
better than anything else. Or you can.
Or whatever. There are just no answers, and
so that is the fundamental problem with it -
it doesn't get us anywhere. So we have to go back.
Otherwise, watch your back. I'm sure you've got at least one ancestor who screwed someone sometime...
I am not saying that you should screw the descendants of people who screwed somebody
at some point. But what is your solution?
The whole argument is - how the money got
in your wallet. It's not as simple as
"I earned it." What enabled you to learn
it? On whose shoulders were you standing?
> I wouldn't call the parent comment a 'troll.'
Too many "trolls" today, which leads me to believe
the moderators are taking out their frustrations
or Saturday hangovers on everybody.
Well, it's also complicated. What one "has" :)
may be a product of things stolen a long time
ago. Product of slave labor, serf labor,
fraudulent transactions, conquests.
If you consider this, there's a short leap
to "Property is theft"
This is "Troll" too? Did the moderators
not get any last Friday night?