 | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Old debates die hard :) (...) I certainly agree here. Heinz doesn't appear to me to have any right to the drug; and neither does his wife. Rights don't really seem to dictate proper ownership in this case other than the druggist. After all, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) No, it was to increase the level of information in the market place. I WANT sellers to dig out rare sets, and I want buyers to buy them. If they are blowing their money on stuff they can get at retail, they're not spending their money on rare (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37EFDE75.DDFD13...ger.net... (...) actions... let's (...) Larry, you know, I read your message about how low some of the auction prices in SeriousCollector are. As a result I went to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Ulterior motives (was Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) This was troll bait, right? :-) You've seen me try to raise prices before. (cf the great blue train window thing) Realise also that I suspect that the great acquisition mode phase may be ending for me... my house is bursting and I am starting (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —Josh Spaulding
|
| | | | | | 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think the issue Libertarians have with government regulation about standards, quality, and labels is not with intent. We're willing to grant, for the sake of argument, good intent(1). Our issue is just that they don't, by and large, actually (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance —Josh Spaulding
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think competitive improvement requires the postulate of an informed, active consumer base, which does not seem descriptive of America today. Frankly, when I see ads for "Pumpernickel limestone shampoo - the tingle tells you it's better than (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Granted. No one said it would be easy to move in the direction I'd like to see us move in. But in turn I'm sure you'd admit that the potential is there for the regeneration of such a base. (...) I'll claim that there are some examples but not (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance —Josh Spaulding
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Of course there's a potential, but such a regeneration would not be in the interest of manufacturers, so I wouldn't count on them to foster it by providing the public with balanced information unless required by law. This is part of my problem (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I heard a good one a few weeks ago... Three engineers, a mechanical engineer, a chemical engineer, and a Microsoft engineer, are riding in a car when the engine quits. The mechanical engineer suggests a rebuild of the engine. The chemical (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) Do you think morality is internal (only I can determine if I am moral), or external (you can determine if I am moral)? If external, then who defines morality? (...) I disagree. Only the druggist can determine if he has a moral obligation to (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance —Josh Spaulding
|
| | | | | | (...) Reading some of your posts, I see that you carefully differentiate self-defined "morals" and socially defined "ethics." The problem I have with this dichotomy is that it is impotent (no "r") to avoid imposing one's own morality on others. If I (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) Of course people develop their moral code. But no two people are going to have the same code, which means that no one individual can know wether someone else is acting morally. (I took some leaps of logic there) (...) I do not claim to not (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) All of these are irrelevant to the main thrust. The druggist's motivations for not selling are not important. (...) Why? (...) Allow me to draw a parallel hypothetical situation. There is a natural disaster, and several people are left in a (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Hmm... Important to Hienz's claim on the drug? No. They're not. Hienz has no claim to the drug if he hasn't acquired it from the druggist in some manner (trading/selling/performing services/etc.. not threats or beatings, etc., though) Is it (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) The druggist is clearly and willfully taking action that is harmful to a human life. If you consider that immoral, then it is immoral. His motivations do not matter. Even if he is (under his moral code) preventing a greater evil (for example, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) 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 —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) 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 —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) 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 —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) 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 —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Well, to the absolutest of my theory, yes. I have no grounds for assuming anyone else's intent, and have no basis for proof. But the point is that it usually does seem to work. That is, usually, I can judge someone's intent fairly well. But (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Doesn't have to be taken to an extreme. If I happen to see a total stranger kill someone, I know what has happened, but not why. (...) Sorry, being unclear in the interests of brevity(1). You were saying (paraphrase warning!) that you felt (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) And that's really why I feel the need to judge by intent. If I see one person kill another, I can see the action, but not the intent. Perhaps the killer had no idea he was killing, or whatever. His intent could concievably be such that his (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Hmm. Ok, fair. That's a difference in how we define morality. To me, morality is a matter of the conscious mind. Unless, of course, we're defining the subconscious differently, but I'm >not< going there! ;-) (...) Ah yes, but that doesn't mean (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) :) yeah, the subconscious is tough... (...) Ok, I can see that... Hmmm... maybe it would be fairer to say that the law can be 'bad'. Not *morally* bad, but ill-concieved. In other words, a law becomes less and less 'good' (ethically good, you (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
