[tirsales]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Coming from someone who is clearly incapable of comprehesion that is rather funny

You know .. normally thats the point where I would quote something like "if it smells like a fish, looks like a fish and writes like a fish its clearly a troll", but this time I will settle for:
Oh yes, you must be perfect. There is not the slightest chance that *you* might have made some mistakes (e.g. misstating your posts). It is quite obvious that everybody else is mistaken (it must be a conspiracy!).

Originally Posted by PKFFW

In other posts I went to some lenghts to make it clear that I was referring to a "moral code" that was simply "I can kill anyone I like and it is good because I say it is good" or something simliar. This is not a moral code by any definition of the term.

But it is - it might not appeal to you, it might not be dependable to nowadays western standards, but it might be a moral standard.

I never stated anything remotely like "if you do not agree with my moral code you are a psychopath or terrorist".

I will not quote you again. You perhaps did not intend to do so - but you did. I quoted your post more then once.

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

I've certainly never had any problems understanding what you say (um, should that be type? ). To be honest, I usually forget you're not a native English speaker.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by PKFFW

See I do not make assumptions about you based on where you live.

As your choices were on the lines of "either you are not a native speaker or you are obnoxious" you prefer settling for "obnoxious" (and speech impaired, because you criticized my language rather harshly) then non-native? I believe this to be strange. But okay.

Perhaps you should try doing the same when it comes to something in my post you obviously do not understand.

Yeah, like that. Alternatively you could just accept that you might have phrased some questions or exclamations wrong...

No it is not. And your point is?

In this case? Dont argue with stuff you dont understand.

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?

a) you need to discuss this numbers to proof that they are not affected
b) you said that psychopaths are statistical outliers - thus not relevant - but provided no proof of this theory. I stated that there were roughly 2-3% percent - still an outlier?
Yes? Then we can discard publishers from this discussion - they are not near 2-3% of the population.
(Yes, this is a grave exaggeration. I still hope that my point is clear).

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.

Most moral codes across history would thus be "ravings of psychopaths"?

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.

Actually - no. You state an assumption and I say its invalid because .. Whats wrong with that?

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.

Hmm, you perhaps should be re-reading all your posts since you started arguing with me.

As for file copying, why should it be ok for you to add a list of prerequisites to state why it is ok

Because they are real-world examples (not far-from-real prerequisites).

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?

To ascertain the wrongness under those circumstances? Okay. Still it wont tell you anything about the prior discussion (and thats the only thing I criticized..)

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

Never did I say that no proof means it does not exist.

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

You might want to argue against it.

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.

??? When did I stated something even remotely like this?

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.

Sure. You did not get my points, but thats okay - it never was more then a hypothetically example to further explain my point (even better because of this addition )

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.

Never would argue against this.

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

Yeah, okay. We might want to quit this discussion because we (clearly) have differing definitions of "moral absolute" (and yours is far from any I have read in Philosophy so far, but thats okay).

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.

Sure. It's my definition of a morale absolute - because clearly a definition that includes a long list of "ifs" is not an absolute.
We might want to get a common definition ...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.

See?

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.

Yes - nothing can apply to all situations, thus there are no moral absolutes. You are changing the definition of a moral absolute to warrant your thesis that there are morale absolutes.
You might consider saying "there are situations which are always right or wrong" instead of "these are moral absolutes".
A moral absolute would e.g. be "You shall not kill" (a better translation would be "you shall not murder", but thats a completely different discussion).

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?

I consider proof something that will be considered a proof in a court.

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.

My apologies, I should have been clearer.

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.

You might want to argue this with any criminal court - they are always making those assumptions.
I do not know how much you have read about the psychology of child molesters - but the chances that a (real, dangerous, untreated and not feeling guilty) child molester will go on are very, very high.

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

Never did i say you did. I only stated this because its the most common argument in any discussion about moral absolutes (in fact its (nearly) only theologists arguing 'pro moral absolute').

Never did and never intentionally so are two different things.

You accused me of "trying to be obnoxious". "Never did I try to be obnoxious and never have I been intentionally obnoxious" are two different things - thus the two separate statements - but not so different that they would warrant further explanation - or so I thought.

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

You might consider cutting back on your accusations of "not understanding the language".

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

Clearly.

[quot€]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.[/quote]"Accepted definition" - nope. We clearly should consider whether oranges are apples - if only for the two sentences it takes to argue against it.

It is the same with moral codes. There is an accepted definition of what a moral code constitutes.

There is not. No, really, there is not - otherwise "Ethics" would be far simpler. Apart from that you might consider stating a source for your argument - its your theory, you should back it up.

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.

Yeah? Hmm - state your source.

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?

Well - you are arguing with the big authority (it is clearly accepted) without giving any damned source... All your arguments so far can be reduced to "because I say so".

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

Then I apologize (for this part).

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.

You can assume whatever you want.

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

Thats one alternative - the other one includes you making some errors - clearly impossible (in your eyes).