[tirsales]

Yes, I am not a native english speaker - actually I am from Germany. And there I was believing that my profile (see location field) and signature might give a clue.

@all: I do apologize if my usage of the language is bad.
@PKFFW: You are rude - Consider reading the netiquette.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Actually I'm quite well versed in mathematics.

Which is (by far) not the same as being a mathematician.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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.

Of course you did:

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.

You stated that either one shares this conviction or one is a psychopath (and thus not relevant for this discussion).
AFAIK and IIRC approx 2-3% of the people are (to some degree) psychopaths or sociopaths (I dont have the source ATM).
Before you are misunderstanding me here: I do not argue against your point (merely against its tone, its usage as a moral absolute and its dismissive nature).

Not sure what you mean here as I simply can't understand the grammar and meaning of your wording

Rephrasing: Making an example that lists a set of unreal prerequisites is easy. Forcing this example into a real-world discussion might be harder - but it still adds no real value to this discussion.
Thus: Stating "if (list of prerequisits) would be fulfilled, would file sharing be wrong" does not answer the question whether file sharing is fundamentally wrong - and most assuredly not whether it is wrong at the moment.

1: No proof does not mean it does not exist.

Nor does it mean that it exists. And yes, I am an atheist - not that this matters (to any degree) for this discussion, just to clarify this point in advance.
But: I do believe that "points that cannot be proven" have no meaning - I could just as well state "piracy is actually the only thing that keeps the business working". I believe that we both can agree that without prove this claim would be worthless.
Same rules for everything please - no prove, no meaning.

Incorrect.

dito.

As I have already disucussed, killing someone can be justifiable and "right" depending on the circumstances and therefore would not be an absolute.

You might consider working on your definition of a moral absolute - it's not about finding "the minimal consensus which I will define" but more "a law that cannot be disregarded or argumented against no matter what". And surely "no matter what" does not is not the same as "long list of prerequisites".

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?

Of course. Still I say that a hypothesis that depends on a long list of pre-requisits is not an absolute (moral standard). Oh and btw: It would be possible to argue against it - thus it is not a moral absolute.

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".

Actually: No. I am merely stating that "cold-blooded murder without possible reason, benefit or motivation" is not a moral absolute.
Oh and dont forget - there might be very good reasons for premeditated murder. Example: Assume there is an evil person (say: a child-molester). There is no legal way of stopping him (no evidence, nothing) - still you know without any doubt that he is a child-molester and that he is going to continue (molesting and killing children). Do you have the right to kill this person in cold blood? I would argue yes (if, and only if, it is the only way of stopping said monster and there is not a shadow of a possible doubt of his/her guild and intention to carry on). Thus - no moral absolute.
(btw: The government of the USA is arguing the same way because they actively try to kill terrorists if they cannot imprison them. On a moral base this is cold-blooded and premeditated murder.)
You might consider "god" as a moral absolute (cannot argue against him (see: no proof)), but I would not accept it (see Atheist).

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)

See above.

Or maybe just trying to be obnoxious?

Let me look it up - nope, not trying to be obnoxious. Actually I never did (might have been, but never intentionally so).
But I still claim that stating "either you share my conviction regarding cold-blooded murder or you are a psychopath and thus not relevant to a discussion" is plain wrong.
Either you are willing to discuss ANY believe - or none at all.

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.

Running out of arguments?

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.

Which is a discussion about the meaning of the word "sharing" (semantic).

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.

Might have swapped you with another user - but I am fairly certain that you were making this point "file sharing vs file copying" before the picture was posted.

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.

I am fairly good in my understanding of the english language. I might not be good enough in my active usage of the language (e.g. stating my intentions) - but this is another point. So please dont go on insulting without prior knowledge.
(Oh and btw: You are not even trying to argue against my points, merely stating them as unrelated, wrong or 'written badly, thus irrelevant'. You are the one who should seriously think about his argumentative tactics).