[PKFFW]

Ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try one more time.

Originally Posted by 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.

That you live in Germany does not mean your native language is German. My brother lives there too but hardly speaks German.

See I do not make assumptions about you based on where you live. Perhaps you should try doing the same when it comes to something in my post you obviously do not understand. Particularly when your assumption about my meaning clearly contradicts what I have posted in many of my other posts.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

You were rude first. Like attracts like.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

No it is not. And your point is?

Originally Posted by tirsales

Of course you did:
You stated that either one shares this conviction or one is a psychopath (and thus not relevant for this discussion).

See my reply to Sparrow

Originally Posted by tirsales

AFAIK and IIRC approx 2-3% of the people are (to some degree) psychopaths or sociopaths (I dont have the source ATM).

Yes, and your point is?

As an example, if we were discussing a disease that only affected white people what relevence to the discussion would be the % number of people that are black or asian or anything but white?

We are discussing "moral codes" and as far as I know a moral code that consists of "I can kill whoever I like and it is good because I say it is good" does not conform with any definition of a moral code. Hence why I stated a moral code like this would be the ravings of a psychopath and not relevant to a discussion about moral codes.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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).

First, understand my point. To do this you should read all my posts and try to understand my meaning rather than take one post in particular and extrapolate from there an assumption about what I mean.

Next you should realise that "tone" is something that is very difficult to get across in the written word unless one is an experienced and perhaps even professional writer.

After that you might see that arguing against someones tone when you may have misinterpreted the tone and arguing against the usage of their point when you don't understand their point to begin with is far from constructive.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

Did I ever say my "list of prerequisites" had anything at all to do with the real world or is that another one of your assumptions?

As for file copying, why should it be ok for you to add a list of prerequisites to state why it is ok but it should be wrong for me to add a set of prerequisites to try to ascertain if it would be wrong in those circumstances? And remember, I specifically stated that I was trying to determine if people thought it would be wrong under those specific circumstances.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

Never did I say that no proof means it does exist.

And no it doesn't matter. Couldn't care less if you are an atheist or not.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

Firstly, again your belief that points that cannot be proven have no meaning is your belief only.

Secondly, if you think "points that cannot be proven" have no meaning then why have you even bothered joining the discussion in the first place? Since we are discussing things that you obviously think have no meaning.

Thirdly, if you stated "piracy is actually the only thing that keeps the business working" I could show you a heap of evidence that directly contradicts this assertion. Therefore your claim would indeed be worthless. To go on believing and arguing for something when all the available evidence directly refutes the claim is a bit silly if you ask me.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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".

Do you understand the difference between something that is specific and something that is general?

A moral absolute must be something that comes with prerequisites because it must be specific.

"Killing humans is wrong" is not a moral absolute because it is a general blanket statement that is not specific. Killing humans can indeed be justified in some circumstances.

"Premeditated murder of a human being for no reason at all"(as an example only!!!) may be considered and absolute(note the reference to "may", I'm not necessarily stating that it is!) because it is specific.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

You are arguing something that can not be proven here therefore by your own reasoning it must have no meaning!

Your assertion that a "hypothesis that depends on a long list of pre-requisites is not an absolute (moral standard)" can not be proven as it is simply your own opinion.

So should I respond rationally by discussing your meaning and point or should I simply say "your point has no meaning" as you would? I guess I will rationally respond.

As I've explained before, a moral absolute must be specific. It can not be any other way. A general blanket statement about anything can not apply to all situations so how could it possibly be an absolute? Something that is specific by definition must come with prerequisites.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

So there is no proof but you "know without any doubt" that 1: he is a child-molester and 2: that he will continue to molest children?

Ok, if you know without any doubt he has molested children then there is some proof. At the very least there is your testimony as either a victim or an eyewitness. Maybe not enough to get him convicted but still some proof and therefore enough to have him investigated. This investigation may lead to further proof.

Secondly, for you to know without any doubt that he will continue to molest children you must be able to see the future with 100% accuracy. I would argue this is impossible and therefore a facetious argument to begin with.

So in short, your argument that cold blooded premeditated murder could be ok in this circumstance is full of holes and therefore does not negate the idea of premeditated murder being an absolute moral wrong.(note, I am not stating that it is, it is simply an example)

Originally Posted by tirsales

(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.)

And your point?

It is premeditated murder and my remarks above pertain to this matter in the same way.

Originally Posted by tirsales

You might consider "god" as a moral absolute (cannot argue against him (see: no proof)), but I would not accept it (see Atheist).

Never did I bring up God in this discussion. Only you have, which seems odd since you state you are an atheist.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Let me look it up - nope, not trying to be obnoxious. Actually I never did (might have been, but never intentionally so).

Never did and never intentionally so are two different things.

You were obnoxious and if you re-read your post and you understand the term correctly you will see where you were.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

That is not what I stated, that is your assumption of what I meant by what I stated.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Either you are willing to discuss ANY believe - or none at all.

There are some things that are not relevent to a discussion.

If we were discussing apples and someone believed oranges were apples should we be obliged to consider that possibility? No, there is an accepted definition of what an apple is and it doesn't matter if one person believes an orange conforms to that definition therefore it is simply not relevent to the discussion.

It is the same with moral codes. There is an accepted definition of what a moral code constitutes. Within that definition is scope for many and varied moral codes, some of which might be diametrically opposed to others but they all conform to the accepted definition of what a moral code constitutes.

A moral code that states "I can do whatever I like and if I say it is good then it is good simply because I said so" does not conform to any accepted definition of what a moral code constitutes and therefore is simply not relevant to a discussion about moral codes.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Running out of arguments?

You are the one who has used one big straw man argument, twisting my meaning by quoting a single post out of context with my other posts, in order to argue against me. So who is running out of arguments here?

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

Stating categorically that the meaning of a word is something other than it is is simply wrong. Correcting that error is not semantics.

Semantics would be discussing whether or not the stated meaning of a word is correct or not.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

You are wrong. I was not discussing file sharing vs file copying before the picture was posted.

That discussion arose out of the fact that someone seemingly took offence to my saying that file sharing was a euphemism.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

Well then if your understanding of english is good I can only assume you have intentionally taken a single post of mine out of context, extrapolated from this isolated post some assumptions about my meaning and then proceeded to argue based on those assumptions and not on my meaning.

That doesn't seem like a mature and rational way to go about a discussion. Hence why I thought it may be your lack of understanding of the english language. I would rather think you simply lacked understanding than think you were being intentionally argumentative, rude and obnoxious.

I guess I was wrong and you were indeed being intentionally argumentative, rude and obnoxious.

Originally Posted by tirsales

(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).

That is very funny coming from someone who went to great lengths to create a straw man of my points to argue against rather than debating my points directly!!

Cheers,
PKFFW