 | | Re: So?
|
|
(...) I guess I should have learned by know that there is no such thing as a casual statement here. I did not mean to get into a big debate on this but I do agree that if cost is a factor then MIT is probably not quite what it is as when you take (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.loc.us.ma.bos, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Determining intent can only be inferential, not observational. This makes judging by intent inherently less impartial than judging by actions. (...) I do not trust myself to judge anyone's intent.(1) I am not omniscient, and I will never know (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I don't want to dwell on the morality topic, since it seems that it's being beaten into the ground. But I will say this: I think that the highest form of morality stems from compassion - the ability to experience the suffering of others as if it (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Yep. What it really means is I can't judge you. Only you can judge you. I can do my darndest to try, and usually, in our society, we can do a pretty good job of determining someone else's intent. We don't always get the details right, and (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Hmm. I think there is a fundamental difference in the way we determine morality. See below. (...) How can I, or you, or anyone, accurately judge someone's intent? It is impossible to empirically determine intent. Actions can be observed, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Well, I think my view on it is that it's required in order to be moral... We don't 'require' people to be moral, but if they're not, then people like me call them jerks. They're not unjust, per se; they are certainly within their rights, but (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) There is a difference between holding and even publicising an opinion that the druggist is a slug, and using force to require him to sell the drug. There is nothing wrong with that opinion even being wrong (in the examples Larry stated of (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Even you are a little squeamish about the druggist's behaviour: "If I were he I'd work out a payment plan blah blah blah" And yet you cannot find anything morally wrong in it, either. It all works out logically (why he is justified to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
(...) Not exactly. More like it IS everything else. Any right I recognise, ultimately, is a property right or can be reduced to one. (...) Well, here we go round the mulberry bush again, :-) but as I stated in the past, I don't accept the above as a (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
|
I think what this is really about is how highly do you rate property rights. Larry seems to be arguing that the right to property superceeds everything else. It's impossible to say what's right in this hypothetical situation, since so much depends (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
