eBook piracy, how common is it?

[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).

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by netseeker

To cite you: Whats your point? "They" appear to be right from my point of view. And more important: Why are you trying to answer to my rhetorical question?

Why did you ask the rhetorical question? Just because you felt like it? Maybe I answered just because I felt like it.

So let me get this straight.....someone comes on here, claims I stated something I did not, then quotes a passage of mine that clearly demonstrates that what he claimed I stated was, whilst similar in content, was not what I actually stated, and you think this "right"? You have a funny definition of what is right but that is your prerogative.

Originally Posted by netseeker

Because i'm interested in what other posters than you have to say.

Well here's an amazingly simple idea......

Why not try reading their posts and not mine? You can choose to do so you know.

Maybe that takes too much common sense though.

Originally Posted by netseeker

See, you did it again. Once again somebody "should" do something in your opinion. Why should i argue against you? It seems to me that you are just interested in being right rather than in real arguing and accepting other peoples opinions.

So you have a problem with me suggesting others should do something but your replies to me suggest I should "accept that others disagree with you" and also suggest I should "make room for other posters".

So it's ok for you to tell me I should do something but not the other way around?

Maybe those more literate could help out here.......what's that word that describes someone who says one thing but does another or who has one set of standards for others and another set for themselves? Oh wait, I remember, a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by netseeker

Unfortunately. Maybe it's time for me to test MRs "ignore list" feature...

Perhaps it is. Especially since you never even tried to engage me in an intelligent discussion but instead chose to be abusive and rude right from your very first post to me.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Actually, I was basing my opinion on your earlier posts, not an isolated quote as you assume.

If that is actually true then I will admit that maybe I did not communicate my meaning fully enough. Others who replied seemed to have no trouble understanding my point, which was clearly not that if you did not agree with me you are a psychopath or terrorist.(especially as I never even used or referred to terrorists)

However, if you still think your original assumption regarding my meaning is correct, after my repeated attempts to clarify and correct the misunderstanding, then it is obvious you do not wish to understand my point and instead are choosing to stick with your misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The tone you adopt is entirely up to you; but it isn't one that makes me want to reread what you have been writing in the past few days, or seek out what you have to say in the rest of this thread. There is no benefit to me in doing so.

If people will take a rude and personally abusive tone with me then I will take one in return. If you feel that my tone is one that makes you not want to read my posts then that is of course your prerogative.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Just like I pictured you must be in real life, rolling on the floor....

The fact that you actually take time to picture what I must be like in real life shows you should(sorry netseeker) think about getting a hobby, if not a life.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Maybe that takes too much common sense though.

Well, now you are deliberately insulting others - maybe you should have a second look at your posts regarding "obnoxious"...

Maybe those more literate could help out here.......what's that word that describes someone who says one thing but does another or who has one set of standards for others and another set for themselves? Oh wait, I remember, a hypocrite.

Yes, you are.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

If that is actually true then I will admit that maybe I did not communicate my meaning fully enough.

Wonderful - at last. I am waiting for an apology.

Others who replied seemed to have no trouble understanding my point

Who?

which was clearly not that if you did not agree with me you are a psychopath or terrorist.(especially as I never even used or referred to terrorists)

Nope, and I never stated that you did.

However, if you still think your original assumption regarding my meaning is correct, after my repeated attempts to clarify and correct the misunderstanding, then it is obvious you do not wish to understand my point and instead are choosing to stick with your misinterpretation.

Nope, until now you did not try to clarify the point or correct the misunderstanding. You simply accused others of not being able to read or understand the english language correctly. In fact you stated that I were surely either obnoxious or unable to speak the language simply because I "misunderstood" you.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The fact that you actually take time to picture what I must be like in real life shows you should(sorry netseeker) think about getting a hobby, if not a life.

You know what they say about stating "no harm intended"? Why not make sure you are not doing any harm before stating "no harm intended"? Why say sorry in a blunt insult? So - spare your sorrys if they are not honest.

[HarryT]

Gentlemen - keep the discussion polite, please.

Thanks!

[Moderator]

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by fugazied

I have to say, rarely do I pirate ebooks, but I download a LOT of TV shows. Some TV isn't available where I live, so I grab those episodes off the Internet. TV stations are really missing out, if they provided better online options for watching their shows I would use that in a flash.

Exactly. It appears there are elements of this situation beginning with books.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tirsales

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!).

When some people, whom I have been discussing an issue with, understand my point and rationally reply to my point and others who have not been invovled in the discussion come in and claim I have stated something which I have not(even quoting a passage that simply did not back up their claim even though it seemed similiar on the surface) then I will assume that the new comers have misunderstood me.

Yes I may have mistated but since the ones I was discussing the issue with seemed to understand and respond to my post then I think the balance of probabilities lies with the mistake being made by the new comers.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

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 as I will not consider an orange to be an apple because it does not conform to any definition of an apple. If you feel it necessary to consider something that does not conform to the accepted definition of what you are discussing that is your prerogative.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

Nope sorry, what you quoted did not back up your claim of what I stated.

I will admit that what you quoted was similiar in content to what you claim I stated but it was not the same. In short your claim was another straw man representation of what I said. It is always easier to argue that way so I'm not surprised you continually employ the tactic.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

Yes I could accept that but as I said above, considering the people I was discussing the issue with seemed to understand and respond to my point, I am going to continue to assume the point was understandable, and that you have misunderstood, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by tirsales

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).

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.

The term hypocrite comes to mind again.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

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

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

No, you stated what you thought I meant, you then claim that what I stated was invalid.

What is wrong with that is what you thought I meant is not what I meant or what I stated.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

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 responded to my post first, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

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.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Never did I say that no proof means it does not exist.....
......You might want to argue against it......

No, what you said was it had no meaning and not relevant so why should I bother to try to argue about it with you?

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

Post number 860.......

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.

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

Originally Posted by tirsales

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 )

Oh, I got your point, just wanted to show that when someone intentionally misinterprets you and misrepresents your point then it is not really constructive is it?

Originally Posted by tirsales

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).

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

Originally Posted by tirsales

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 ... See?

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.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

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

Specific statements can apply to specific situations and therefore may be moral absolutes.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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).

No that is your idea of what might be a moral absolute.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

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.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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.

Since you feel qualified to make remarks on my mathematical ability I would expect a higher understanding of basic probability.

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?

Originally Posted by tirsales

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').

It is a convenient straw man again. 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.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

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.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

You might want to stop claiming I have stated something I have not.

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

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

I choose not to waste my time in such circumstances. Especially with someone who has come to the discussion late.

Originally Posted by tiresales

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yeah? Hmm - state your source.

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

Originally Posted by tirsales

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".

Same as you so what's the difference?

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

Nope, not impossible but as I said, since many others seemed to understand(if disagree with) my point then I am going to continue assuming that you, who came late to the discussion, have misunderstood me. Whether by choice, because you want to be intentionally rude, or for other reasons, I no longer care.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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.

Well, I did not know that there was a definition of moral code that restricted the possible instances. A moral code is for me just a set of moral rules or maybe a moral theory. For example in moral egoism (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=265418) you can kill whoever you want if it is favorable for you.

I still do not think you distinguish between the concepts and moral philosophy and real world psychology.

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.

Well I have always seen that the unalienable rights in a rights based moral system were absolute rights and therfore moral absolutes in the meaning you now ascribe to moral absolute (previously you said it was that all normal humans agreed).

[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.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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.

Having a moral code does not imply morality.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Well, now you are deliberately insulting others - maybe you should have a second look at your posts regarding "obnoxious"...

You and netseeker have been nothing but obnoxious to me and you expect me to treat you with courtesy?

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yes, you are.

No but you clearly are.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Wonderful - at last. I am waiting for an apology.

I said if it were true then I may not have explained myself clearly. As others seemed to understand my point then that is a big "may".

Don't hold your breath for that apology until you begin to act in a civil manner.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Who?

Re-read the thread and it will become clear.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Nope, and I never stated that you did.

Yes you did, repeatedly.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Nope, until now you did not try to clarify the point or correct the misunderstanding. You simply accused others of not being able to read or understand the english language correctly. In fact you stated that I were surely either obnoxious or unable to speak the language simply because I "misunderstood" you.

Yes I did clarify the point, repeatedly so.

Originally Posted by tirsales

You know what they say about stating "no harm intended"? Why not make sure you are not doing any harm before stating "no harm intended"? Why say sorry in a blunt insult? So - spare your sorrys if they are not honest.

Firstly, my "sorry" was directed at netseeker so I'm not even sure why you are discussing it at all.

Secondly, it was firmly tongue in cheek since he has repeatedly told me I should refrain from telling people what they should do.

But I'm sure you already understand both those points and are simply trying to be argumentative again.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, I did not know that there was a definition of moral code that restricted the possible instances. A moral code is for me just a set of moral rules or maybe a moral theory. For example in moral egoism (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=265418) you can kill whoever you want if it is favorable for you.

From the answer given on the page you link to.........

"A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them."

So the moral code of "I can do whatever I like and it is good because I say it is good" does not conform to this code of moral egotism does it?

I believe where the confusion lies is that people believe I am arguing murder is an absolute wrong and any moral code that says it isn't is not a moral code. I have never argued that murder is an absolute wrong. I have used murder as an example and stated that "if" no justification could be found for it "then" it would constitute a moral absolute. I have used this example in an attempt to show that a moral code of "I can do whatever I like and it is good because I say it is good" does not constitute a moral code by any accepted defintion. That includes moral egotism as your linked page clearly shows.

Originally Posted by tompe

I still do not think you distinguish between the concepts and moral philosophy and real world psychology.

Perhaps and perhaps not.

To be honest I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that and so can not comment unless you would like to clarify.

Originally Posted by tompe

Well I have always seen that the unalienable rights in a rights based moral system were absolute rights and therfore moral absolutes in the meaning you now ascribe to moral absolute (previously you said it was that all normal humans agreed).

Perhaps some unalienable rights in a rights based moral system are absolute rights that all normal human beings can agree upon? The two need not necessarily be mutually exclusive.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tirsales

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

Being argumentative for the sake of it then, I guess. I suppose if you never put forward a position of your own but instead simply sit there and tell someone they are wrong, you never have to actually argue your case do you?

Originally Posted by 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..)

Yes, I agree completely with you for once.

As you obviously don't want to discuss but would rather simply state that you think I am wrong, lets just end this "discussion".

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Yes you did, repeatedly.

Accusing others of being psychopaths? Yes. Accusing others of being terrorists? No.
You repeatedly asked me to re-read your posts. I did. Please do the same (for your and my posts).

Yes I did clarify the point, repeatedly so.

Not really, no. You are still repeating that there are rights any "normal human being will agree on" or that people not sharing some conviction about moral codes are not "normal human beings". THIS is the fundamental problem I do see. Its not about the wrongness or rightfulness of murder or file sharing / copying / transportation.
And you always stated that the error was on my side for "misunderstanding" it.

But I'm sure you already understand both those points and are simply trying to be argumentative again.

Oh, you did have a look at ad hominem.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I believe where the confusion lies is that people believe I am arguing murder is an absolute wrong and any moral code that says it isn't is not a moral code.

At least not in my case, no.

I have never argued that murder is an absolute wrong. I have used murder as an example and stated that "if" no justification could be found for it "then" it would constitute a moral absolute. I have used this example in an attempt to show that a moral code of "I can do whatever I like and it is good because I say it is good" does not constitute a moral code by any accepted defintion. That includes moral egotism as your linked page clearly shows.

Well - state your "accepted definition".

Perhaps some unalienable rights in a rights based moral system are absolute rights that all normal human beings can agree upon? The two need not necessarily be mutually exclusive.

That all normal human beings can agree upon .. up to this point in history there is not a single human right that all human beings agreed upon - neither is there any moral code that all human beings agreed upon nor has their ever been one.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So in a nut shell you(and I imagine the others arguing that "file sharing" is not wrong but who refuse to respond to my question) are admitting that fundamentally, at it's core,"file sharing" is indeed wrong.

So - as I said: You are constructing a far-fetched example, assume (under this example) a given position is shared, and then apply this position to the normal world.