Not going for the copyright discussion ATM - we will no convince PKFFW, because as (s)he is stating, s/o not sharing her/his believes is a psychopath and thus not prone to discuss. Sorry, but I am not going to discuss anything on those grounds.
Assume for one moment the following ... this is a rather stupid way to answer a real-world problem. After all I could answer the question "How could we solve worlds problems" in one sentence - "Assume that all problems are solved - qed" and use this to argument: Hey, no worries! (Its actually the same like "assume everythings shiny - is filesharing wrong? Yes? Then file-sharing is fundamentally wrong and oh-so-evil nowadays")
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Of course there are!
|
No there are NOT. There is nothing "absolute" - because an "absolute" would be true - no matter what. Theologists commonly argue "there is a moral absolute" (called god) - so far no proof of this one (fun fact: moral absolutes are not proof-able. They even cannot be falsified - thus their existence is not important. I will leave this research up to you (in fact its a point of believe. And I think we agree that "believe" should not matter in any reasonable discussion.
Quote:
|
If you truly think there are no moral absolutes try this..........think of something you would really really not like to happen to you. I'd suggest being murdered in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever, as a good example. Now try to think up a rationalisation or reason as to why that would not be considered wrong.
|
Nope - that is not a moral absolute. A morale absolute would e.g. be "worthyness of human-life leading to 'you are not allowed to kill a human being,
no matter what'". I would argue most strongly against that.
"Not being wanted to be murdered in cold blood no matter what" - yeah, I would not like this (OTOH: I dont think I would care, as I would be dead).
Quote:
|
If you can't truly convince yourself then you've found your first moral absolute. If you can, then you are the classic definition of a psychopath.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
My point was that if no justification can be found for some "wrong" act, for example that there is no justification for a reasonless, cold blooded murder, then that is an absolute regardless of what one believes. Unless of course one is a psychopath, in which case, they could be considered an "outlier"(to use a statistical term) and their belief can be discounted for the sake of the discussion.
|
If you do not share my believes, you are a psychopath/soziopath/terrorist and thus are not entitled to argue with me. Yes! We found a fundamentalist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Seems to me you are playing semantics rather than simply answering.
|
And this from the person going over multiple posts over "sharing vs copying" ...