View Single Post
Old 08-03-2022, 09:21 AM   #16
SleepyBob
Evangelist
SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SleepyBob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 426
Karma: 8522810
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Device: Kindle PW3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Robin View Post
Why is this confusing? The question specifically asks about the morality/ethicality of using something to which one is NOT entitled. If one BUYS access from the supplier (through payment of a fee to them), obviously one is entitled, and there is no ethical or moral dilemma.
But you are not entitled as a resident/taxpayer. You are entitled in a different way.

So I can see how someone may have read the sentence as written, rather than as intended, and been uncertain which they meant. Debating whether non-resident fee-based users harm the system is also a valid discussion.
SleepyBob is offline   Reply With Quote