My idea of morality leads me to conclude that in a group of thieves, who act as thieves on a regular basis, there is no such thing as a more or less moral or ethical thief when acting among themselves. If one thief among a group of thieves betrays other thieves, I'm happy with that, because it means there are now less thieves. I don't consider this person to be less honorable than the other thieves; after all, they are thieves, even the one who betrayed the others.
In this way, when I play the video game Skyrim, and go to the town which is run by thieves, the game tries to get you to choose sides between different groups of thieves and their silly internal thief squabbles.
I decided fairly soon after encountering these folks (it's a bar in a sewer area in a town at the lower right of the map, can't remember the name) that none of them were worth talking to. None was more moral than the other; I could not get enough information about which person was more or less moral or ethical than the others. The game presented them as thieves. I hate thieves.
So I killed them all.
Of course, annoyingly enough, it turns out some were important NPC's so they wouldn't stay dead. But I tried.
1) Person A commits a murder, for example. 2) Person A's friend, Person B, goes to the police to report person A, thus betraying him. 3) Somehow Person B is supposed to wind up in Hell?
Um, it is GOOD that we have people who inform the police when crimes are committed. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If someone breaks into my house and my neighbor sees it, I would hope my neighbor would provide a description, as I would for them. Is this not the moral thing to do?
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the government, in that the government cannot abridge it.
But I can, or at least I should be able to, legally. You have a right to speak...and if I can use a method to stop you from speaking that is legal, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to.
People keep saying this. "Just ask them nicely to stop talking so loudly."
Have you ever actually tried this? There are certain people who will be happy to assault you or spit in your face for daring to be so rude to THEM by asking this. It happens all the time; there are assaults all the time on buses in my city (san francisco). Asking some jerk who is being loud to quiet down can get you punched or shot.
This is in the real world.
I disbelieve your definitions; In fact I will go further and say I believe they are incorrect.
I am an atheist.
I *believe* that God does not exist. Now, I could be wrong. I could be mistaken, and additional evidence could come forward to make me change my opinion, but at the present time, it is a belief that God, at least as described by the world's religions, does not exist.
I was once an agnostic. I believed that I did not have enough evidence to form a rational opinion on the existence of God. I never believed that knowledge of his existence or non-existence was unknowable or unattainable, but that I did not have enough understanding of the world to form a rational belief about his existence.
I do now; I am an atheist.
This is vastly incorrect. Hate crimes are based not merely about committing a crime, but about committing crimes while thinking certain thoughts. In essence, it is your intention that matters. You aren't being punished for just thinking something, but for thinking those things and having certain reasons for committing your crime. We judge certain crimes by the intentions behind them all the time, as with manslaughter vs murder. A hate crime is no different.
No, they are fools. The idiots who do this in the streets in Oakland, CA, for example, when there are Occupy protests, are not "agent provacateurs". They are thugs who come in from suburban areas to cause trouble. They want to make a point against capitalism and banks and they think that by bashing cops (who struggle to protect citizens in Oakland) and throwing bricks through mom and pop Subway franchises they are making some point.
The problem with this is that "competency" does not just extend to social or financial issues. I would rather have a competent president with their finger on the button than an incompetent one. And in that vein, Romney is certainly more reasonable and I suspect would be much less quick to war. That level of competence is even more important than the domestic issues.
No, generally the drivers I have seen driving Priuses are not old.
There are three (subjective) ways to drive.
1) Highly aggressively, i.e, changing lanes when there is no obvious reasons to do so, driving over the speed limit and accelerating to it quickly on a regular basis.
2) Driving roughly at the speed limit, accelerating to it at the same speed as most other drivers
3) Driving too defensively; i.e., driving constantly below the speed limit when there is no reason to to go the speed limit, or accelerating slower than most other cars to the speed limit.
Prius drivers tend to fall into the third class, from my experience.
I have never met a cyclist that stops at stop signs when no cars are around. I live in San Francisco; I have never seen a cyclist come to a 4-way stop sign with no other cars coming in any direction, and completely stop. I have never seen this. Ever. So I don't believe you.
I certainly have noticed this. I live in San Francisco, and I count on average 1 prius parked on the street for each city block I drive. They are everywhere.
I am continually frustrated with these drivers because they
a) Drive overly defensively, to the point where you cannot make normal predictions about driving behavior.
b) The cars have poor acceleration, so the cars always appear to go very slowly for no good reason.
c) I have seen more Prius drivers fail to use their turn signals. I do not know why this is.
And he didn't travel in Europe talking about how horrible the US is. He did point out all the damage Bush had done to our reputation, and he was certainly correct to do so.
Of course, this is incorrect; homosexual acts are generally those between two consenting adults, which is the logic used by the opponents of the law argued before the court. Because they involved two consenting adults, opponents argued, the law should be struck down.
As Santorum continually forgets, his "man on dog" comparison is not valid, because it does not involve two consenting adults. Which is why the comparison is so offensive to many people, and why Savage began his campaign.
But then, because of the very high costs of building a product like this in these other areas, the end product would cost a great deal more than it does now. No one would buy a 2000$ iphone, and then all of those people in these far flung hypothetical jobs of yours would lose their jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
My idea of morality leads me to conclude that in a group of thieves, who act as thieves on a regular basis, there is no such thing as a more or less moral or ethical thief when acting among themselves. If one thief among a group of thieves betrays other thieves, I'm happy with that, because it means there are now less thieves. I don't consider this person to be less honorable than the other thieves; after all, they are thieves, even the one who betrayed the others.
In this way, when I play the video game Skyrim, and go to the town which is run by thieves, the game tries to get you to choose sides between different groups of thieves and their silly internal thief squabbles.
I decided fairly soon after encountering these folks (it's a bar in a sewer area in a town at the lower right of the map, can't remember the name) that none of them were worth talking to. None was more moral than the other; I could not get enough information about which person was more or less moral or ethical than the others. The game presented them as thieves. I hate thieves.
So I killed them all.
Of course, annoyingly enough, it turns out some were important NPC's so they wouldn't stay dead. But I tried.
I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
I don't think it was crude at all. It was rather apt. I'm a neckbeard and have no plans for kids. I'm the neckbeardiest neckbeard in neckbeardurbia.
I don't understand this attitude.
1) Person A commits a murder, for example.
2) Person A's friend, Person B, goes to the police to report person A, thus betraying him.
3) Somehow Person B is supposed to wind up in Hell?
Um, it is GOOD that we have people who inform the police when crimes are committed. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If someone breaks into my house and my neighbor sees it, I would hope my neighbor would provide a description, as I would for them. Is this not the moral thing to do?
Are you a criminal?
So I don't understand this.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the government, in that the government cannot abridge it.
But I can, or at least I should be able to, legally. You have a right to speak...and if I can use a method to stop you from speaking that is legal, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to.
People keep saying this. "Just ask them nicely to stop talking so loudly." Have you ever actually tried this? There are certain people who will be happy to assault you or spit in your face for daring to be so rude to THEM by asking this. It happens all the time; there are assaults all the time on buses in my city (san francisco). Asking some jerk who is being loud to quiet down can get you punched or shot. This is in the real world.
I disbelieve your definitions; In fact I will go further and say I believe they are incorrect. I am an atheist. I *believe* that God does not exist. Now, I could be wrong. I could be mistaken, and additional evidence could come forward to make me change my opinion, but at the present time, it is a belief that God, at least as described by the world's religions, does not exist. I was once an agnostic. I believed that I did not have enough evidence to form a rational opinion on the existence of God. I never believed that knowledge of his existence or non-existence was unknowable or unattainable, but that I did not have enough understanding of the world to form a rational belief about his existence. I do now; I am an atheist.
This is vastly incorrect. Hate crimes are based not merely about committing a crime, but about committing crimes while thinking certain thoughts. In essence, it is your intention that matters. You aren't being punished for just thinking something, but for thinking those things and having certain reasons for committing your crime. We judge certain crimes by the intentions behind them all the time, as with manslaughter vs murder. A hate crime is no different.
No, they are fools. The idiots who do this in the streets in Oakland, CA, for example, when there are Occupy protests, are not "agent provacateurs". They are thugs who come in from suburban areas to cause trouble. They want to make a point against capitalism and banks and they think that by bashing cops (who struggle to protect citizens in Oakland) and throwing bricks through mom and pop Subway franchises they are making some point.
The problem with this is that "competency" does not just extend to social or financial issues. I would rather have a competent president with their finger on the button than an incompetent one. And in that vein, Romney is certainly more reasonable and I suspect would be much less quick to war. That level of competence is even more important than the domestic issues.
No, generally the drivers I have seen driving Priuses are not old. There are three (subjective) ways to drive. 1) Highly aggressively, i.e, changing lanes when there is no obvious reasons to do so, driving over the speed limit and accelerating to it quickly on a regular basis. 2) Driving roughly at the speed limit, accelerating to it at the same speed as most other drivers 3) Driving too defensively; i.e., driving constantly below the speed limit when there is no reason to to go the speed limit, or accelerating slower than most other cars to the speed limit. Prius drivers tend to fall into the third class, from my experience.
No, but I still don't believe you.
I have never met a cyclist that stops at stop signs when no cars are around. I live in San Francisco; I have never seen a cyclist come to a 4-way stop sign with no other cars coming in any direction, and completely stop. I have never seen this. Ever. So I don't believe you.
You mean advocating for the greater taxation of the rich? How is this destructive socially when he will pay more than his secretary?
I certainly have noticed this. I live in San Francisco, and I count on average 1 prius parked on the street for each city block I drive. They are everywhere. I am continually frustrated with these drivers because they a) Drive overly defensively, to the point where you cannot make normal predictions about driving behavior. b) The cars have poor acceleration, so the cars always appear to go very slowly for no good reason. c) I have seen more Prius drivers fail to use their turn signals. I do not know why this is.
And he didn't travel in Europe talking about how horrible the US is. He did point out all the damage Bush had done to our reputation, and he was certainly correct to do so.
Careful with your spelling. Pot, kettle, all that.
Citation Needed.
Citation needed.
Of course, this is incorrect; homosexual acts are generally those between two consenting adults, which is the logic used by the opponents of the law argued before the court. Because they involved two consenting adults, opponents argued, the law should be struck down. As Santorum continually forgets, his "man on dog" comparison is not valid, because it does not involve two consenting adults. Which is why the comparison is so offensive to many people, and why Savage began his campaign.
But then, because of the very high costs of building a product like this in these other areas, the end product would cost a great deal more than it does now. No one would buy a 2000$ iphone, and then all of those people in these far flung hypothetical jobs of yours would lose their jobs.
Probably the most clear-headed comment on this and a lot of new discoveries I've seen in a while.
Would it not be, "He would have been ok with"? While not a common contraction, in speech this is usually spoken as "He'd 'ave been ok with"
As long as Zuckerberg doesn't start trying to get us to kill our own bison and eat it.