[tirsales]

This discussion is greatly off-topic. I apologize for this - perhaps we should move it into a more fitting thread? (Or simply end this discussion - I dont think PKFFW and I will ever get to an understanding. Pitty..)

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Nope, it doesn't conform to any accepted definition of what constitutes a moral code and therefore I will not consider it as one.

Just ONCE state what constitutes a moral code and what authorities have defined this. You are commonly referring to some kind of universally accepted definition what constitutes a moral code (which excludes arbitrary ones) - but you are never proofing this. Name a source, provide a definition - anything. (Oh and the base of science is the discussion of old standards - though you might consider cutting back on "its not approved, I will not discuss nor consider it").

[quote]In short your claim was another straw man representation of what I said.[/qute]*sigh*

It is always easier to argue that way so I'm not surprised you continually employ the tactic.

You know what really annoys me? That you are nearly always discussing based on some "authority" (e.g. generic acceptance) - but you are neither naming a source nor naming the authority (apart from common knowledge. Well, common knowledge constituted not too long ago that the world was flat. So clearly it can err and should not be considered a flawless source).

As I stated, and you have quoted me further down, I would prefer to think you were inadvertantly misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I was saying due to your lack of fluency with English and not that you were being intentionally obnoxious.

Contradicts your point regarding "considering native".

You claimed I was not a mathematician. I state I am well versed in mathematics. You then say that this is different to being a mathematician.

The first post of mine had a little smiley in it. You will often find mathematicians who *will* discuss 2+2=8 - because the definition of numbers is an arbitrary one and this is *very* important for understanding mathematics. Assuming a given definition of numbers (e.g. a ring using mod 4) 2+2=4=0=8.

So are you now arguing that you can only argue with stuff if you are a cetified expert in that area?

Nope, but only with stuff you really understand - it is very dangerous to argue with mathematics because very few people really understand it (I'm not considering myself one. I am a computer scientist, not a mathematician)

Or maybe your original comment was a sarcastic one line insult meant to imply that you thought my understanding of mathematics was flawed?

Actually it was more of a joke (see smiley).

So you come up with a number, with no supporting evidence to back up your claim, and then have a go at me because I did not back up my claim.

Nope - you claimed that psychopaths are irrelevant. Its your theory, thus you have to proof.

No, because that was not what their moral code consisted of.

It is not? Thus it is not an arbitrary definition to state "I kill you because you are not a member of my race / religion / color of skin / etc"?
Actually most civilizations had some moral code that included "you must not kill" - which only applied to members of that civilization. Assuming a given moral code that only includes one person and you achieve the same result.

No, you started out with a sarcastic and rude one line insult and then progressed on to stating I claimed something I did not.

You missed the smiley and the intention of my post.

So again, you twist what I am meaning to suit your own purposes. Once again, the issue you want to discuss is ok but the issue I want to discuss is not. Again, hypocrisy.

WTF? The topic of this thread is how common eBook piracy is. It changed into something like "is eBook piracy wrong". You then wanted to change it into something like "is eBook piracy under the given assumptions wrong". I claimed that this is a valid question but does not give any insight into the discussion about the wrongness of eBook piracy AT THE MOMENT and under the conditions found nowadays.

Does that sound "remotely like" you saying that you believe points that can not be proven have no meaning?

Yes? But I never stated that this discussion has no meaning - and thats what you implied.
Let me rephrase this statement: If you cannot differ between two hypothesis - not matter what - then it is completely irrelevant which of those hypothesis you choose.
Thus if you can neither proof nor falsify a point (making it impossible to decide whether its hypothesis or its null-hypothesis is valid) it is irrelevant (without meaning) whether you adhere to it or not.

Well it is not different to what I have read from over 35 years of interest in the subject.

Okay - after 35 years of study you really should know a single source. Name one.

Why bother trying to come up with a common definition about what constitutes a moral code(and not what a moral code must be) when there is already one out there.

Name it.

No, blanket statements can not apply to all situations and that is why they are not moral absolutes.

Actually thats one reason why there are no moral absolutes.
Oh well - shouldn't we return to the topic in this thread? We can discuss the meaning and existence of moral absolutes in a more fitting thread.

Eye witness testimony would be considered proof in court. So would victim statements. Again, maybe not enough to be convicted but still proof. Try being a little more specific about your meaning.

Yeah, same to you. As I said I live in Germany and I considered our laws - might differ from yours. Eye witness testimony is eye witness testimony, proof is proof. Under our legal system they are not the same (e.g. eye witness may be lying, testimonies can be wrong).

Odds that something will occure being very very high is different to "you know without a doubt that this thing will occur", which is what you stated. Do I need to find the exact quote?

"You know without a doubt" means "that you are convinced without a doubt". Its not the same as "being able to proof without a doubt". This actually got nothing to do with probability or mathematics.

It is a convenient straw man again.

Thats your favorite word, isnt it? Try ad hominem sometimes.

Bring up something I have not even discussed and argue your point from that standpoint because it is easier than dealing with my point directly and makes your argument seem stronger.

I DO have claimed that it is not relevant to this discussion.

You were obnoxious, you claimed you were not. You then claimed "well not intentionally so".

Thats one way of reading my post, yes. I'm sure self-doubts are new to you - but I do consider that what I achieved differs from my intentions. You might want to do the same.

You claimed you understood both english and my point, that being the case, as I stated earlier, I am left with only one conclusion, you were being intentionally obnoxious.

I have given you a third alternative. You might want to start looking into it.

If you wish to waste time arguing about something that already has a clear definition then that is your prerogative.

See above.

Since you have quoted Wikipedia, I will too.....
"In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions."
Note the reference to specified conditions and espoused by all rational people.

You might want to consider that everybody has its own set of moral guidelines. (Have a look at different law systems or behaviors). Thus what *you* believe to be true for all rational people might vary greatly from what I believe or what s/o else believes.
There simply are no moral guidelines that each and every rational person will agree to - unless you define a "rational person" as a person who agrees to this moral code. But then you would have some kind of circular dependency - and a circular proof is only valid inside its own little circle, it cannot be applied outside of it.

You haven't stated your sources for many of your points.

In most cases I did not state own points, merely expressed a lack of trust in yours. Your theory, your proof.