Quote:
Originally Posted by tirsales
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.
|
I never stated that anyone who does not share my beliefs is a psychopath. You have clearly either misunderstood me or are being intentionally obtuse.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tirsales
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")
|
Not sure what you mean here as I simply can't understand the grammar and meaning of your wording
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tirsales
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.
|
1: No proof does not mean it does not exist.
2: You may think they are not important but that is simply your opinion.
3: You may think "belive" should not matter in a reasonable discussion but that is again only your opinion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tirsales
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).
|
Incorrect.
As I have already disucussed, killing someone can be justifiable and "right" depending on the circumstances and therefore would not be an absolute.
An absolute would be a specific and therefore you would not be able to apply a certain part or quality of that specific to other circumstances. Example, "premeditated murder" is an absolute(just as an example) That is specific. I am not saying "any and all killing of a human being is wrong" as that is not specific. See the difference?
So to argue that just because "any and all killing of a human being" is not an absolute means that "premeditated murder" is not an absolute is non-sensical. To aruge such would be no different to saying "because an orange isn't an apple then all apples aren't apples".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tirsales
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!
|
Have you truly misunderstood me? Is English not your first language and therefore you have mistaken my meaning?(honest question and not trying to be rude)
Or are you utilizing a straw man arguement? Or maybe just trying to be obnoxious?
I don't think anyone else in this thread has taken my meaning to be "if you do not share my beliefs you are a psychopath/sociopath/terrorist(I never even used the last two words for gods sake!)"
If you are not trying to be intentionally rude then I suggest you do one of two things....
1: Ask for clarification before jumping to assumptions
or
2: Learn to read and comprehend the english language fully before attempting to join a discussion with those more fluent in the language than you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tirsales
And this from the person going over multiple posts over "sharing vs copying" ...
|
Firstly, Sharing Vs Copying is not semantics. The two are completely different processes and the meaning of each must be made clear and understood by all before discussion can take place.
Secondly, I was merely trying to point out that the picture posted by the person I originally replied to stated that the process was copying and therefore to suggest it was sharing without the process of copying taking place was a bit disengenious.
Finally, I wont bother responding to you any further as it is obvious you either do not understand the written word well enough to enable discussion without far too much effort or you are intentionally misinterpreting my meaning in an attempt to be rude and obnoxious.
Cheers,
PKFFW