Subject:
|
Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:24:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1236 times
|
| |
|
|
Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > > Wrong? I'd call it unsavory, but I wouldn't legislate against it.
> > > > Unless you mean they're addicting their customers by force.
> > I would say no. It's still unsavory - and I would be very retributive
> > if someone duped a loved one that way - but I don't think it's fraud or
> > should be illegal.
>
> You seem to imply
> there's a difference between being 'wrong' and being 'unsavoury',
> but I can't see any difference in principle - perhaps a small difference
> of degree in that 'unsavoury' implies a smaller amount of wrongness.
>
> Also, aren't you contradicting yourself here? If you don't see the
> drug-dealing example being discussed as 'wrong' then how can
> you possibly justify being retributive over it?
OK, I guess I don't know what 'wrong' means in a judgemental sense. I'm
not even sure that I'm willing to acknowledge that it means anything.
I'll listen if you want to define it though. If someone hurts my loved
ones I'm pretty liberal in what's 'wrong.' If I'm deciding on
legislation, I'm pretty conservative.
Does that make sense?
Something that is unsavoury is something that I find somehow
infelicitous. Not something that I think is evil or whatnot.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) Well, I sort of meant that if everyone affected by the deal agrees to it, then nothing else matters. I assume you agree that you can waive your rights if you so choose. (...) I know that Libertarians are into the Force 'n' Fraud phrase, and I (...) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
