 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
> news:4A2### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 9-6-2009 22:49, Shay wrote:
>
>>> C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
>>> torrent and download it.
>
>> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view.
>
> I'm not sure. Maybe if you believe in cosmic justice or somesort. Why does a
> failure some place give a moral free pass to make up for it?
>
> What about:
>
> C2. Power company f's up during a favorite television program - go find a
> torrent and download it.
>
> or
>
> C3. Some punks make the building's fire alarm go off during a favorite
> television program - go find a torrent and download it.
>
> or
>
> C4. A spill on the freeway blocks traffic for hours, making you miss your
> favorite television program - go find a torrent and download it.
>
> or
>
> C5. Recession causes you to be laid off and you cannot afford cable
> anymore - go find a torrent and download it.
>
> ... etc.
C6. I just plain forgot to record it - go find a torrent and download it.
Same thing as far as I'm concerned. And even though I have paid for
cable, the recording I download from the net will be without
advertisements. So, I'm "screwing" the advertisers and "screwing" the
guy who MAY SOMEDAY put the recording on DVD.
So, this act is "wrong" in the sense that it is amoral in the
black-and-white religious sense of morality -- someone, somewhere was
hurt by the act. However, if one looks at morality as a set of
guidelines which have emerged as the best way for people to have a
trusting, pleasant society, then the act is perfectly acceptable. Better
than just acceptable even -- positive. My downloading the missed episode
leaves me more inclined to watch future episodes, to continue to pay for
cable, to continue to watch the network's advertisements.
The world is a better place when a person can pick a loquat from a tree
in someone's front yard, listen to a an obscure "album" released on
cassette only in 1980, occasionally shout loud enough for a neighbor to
hear, drink from a hose-bib in an alleyway, or get a second chance to
correct a tiny mistake. These things aren't wrong.
> The bottomline is, one can for the majority of time find somebody or
> something else to blame for everything, if so inclined.
Another bottom line: one can for the majority of time find somebody or
something who was victimized by any act, if so inclined.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4a306637$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>
>>> What makes you think I won't say "you know, I hadn't thought of that"
> should
>>> it truly be the case that I hadn't thought of that?
>
>> Because you've earlier said you'd never change your mind based on an
>> internet discussion, yes?
>
> Not quite the same thing (new angles or data on a problem don't necessarily
> imply different resolutions).
True. And that's why Jim offered his.
> In any case, does my claim that I will never
> change my mind proof that I will never change my mind?
It's definitely evidence. It's even *greater* evidence that even were you to
change your mind you wouldn't admit it.
> Would it have been
> more likely that my mind could be changed, should I have not made that
> claim?
Yes.
> I wish I had that kind of perfect mental control...
Again, there's "you can't disprove it" and "we proved it". It's a question
of how much work goes into doing something for what expected reward. Is
there any proof there's no giant chest of gold under my back yard? No. Is it
worth me getting out the shovel to look for it? No.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a309135@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:40:21 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > In any case, does my claim that I will never change my mind proof that I
> > will never change my mind?
> No, but it is a stated inflexibility in views that is difficult to hold a
> discussion with, so I choose not to.
Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present evidence
of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further discussion, I
propose that we do not place too much stock in stated inflexibilities. Then
again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the original discussion....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a309135@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:40:21 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> > In any case, does my claim that I will never change my mind proof
>> > that I will never change my mind?
>
>> No, but it is a stated inflexibility in views that is difficult to hold
>> a discussion with, so I choose not to.
>
> Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further
> discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in stated
> inflexibilities.
So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there is
a flaw in your reasoning?
> Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the
> original discussion....
My intent was simply to state an opinion. You've made it abundantly
clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so
further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty
pointless.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for further
> > discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in stated
> > inflexibilities.
> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there is
> a flaw in your reasoning?
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is of
perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.
> > Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the
> > original discussion....
> My intent was simply to state an opinion. You've made it abundantly
> clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so
> further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty
> pointless.
Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the validity
of any arguments I make.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:02 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>
>> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
>> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for
>> > further discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in
>> > stated inflexibilities.
>
>> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there
>> is a flaw in your reasoning?
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is
> of perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.
No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
your mind if proven wrong. That's what's called (in my book) a waste of
my time.
I don't tend to spend my time trying to change people's minds when
they're not open to having their opinions changed. That tends to be a
futile exercise, and not worth me wasting my time on.
Unless I'm bored, that is. I've got too much to do now to engage in such
a discussion.
>> > Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the original
>> > discussion....
>
>> My intent was simply to state an opinion. You've made it abundantly
>> clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so
>> further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty
>> pointless.
>
> Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
> validity of any arguments I make.
Of course it doesn't. But it does play into whether or not I want to
spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view. It's my time
I'm concerned about, not yours. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/12/09 13:41, somebody wrote:
> Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the validity
> of any arguments I make.
Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth it for
him or anyone else here to counter your points.
If this were a public forum that will shape copyright policy, then it
would make sense to respond to what you say regardless of your
conversion likelihood.
As that is not the case, there is no benefit in engaging in discussion
with you on this topic.
(And before you say it: The suggestion that you're giving counterpoints
and that he may benefit by practicing in counter them is, in most cases,
an invalid suggestion).
--
All work and no pay makes a housewife.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:17:02 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth
it for
> him or anyone else here to counter your points.
>
> If this were a public forum that will shape copyright policy,
then it
> would make sense to respond to what you say regardless of your
> conversion likelihood.
>
> As that is not the case, there is no benefit in engaging in
discussion
> with you on this topic.
Precisely, thank you for that summary, that's exactly what I've been
trying to get across. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a32b7be$1@news.povray.org...
> On 06/12/09 13:41, somebody wrote:
> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
validity
> > of any arguments I make.
> Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth it for
> him or anyone else here to counter your points.
I could buy that, I could even buy the claim that his time is too valuable
to waste on my arguments, if he did not continue to waste even more time
trying to argue that his time is too valuable to waste on my arguments. As
it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
discussion with demagoguery.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a32a605@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:02 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> >
> >> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> >> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for
> >> > further discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in
> >> > stated inflexibilities.
> >
> >> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there
> >> is a flaw in your reasoning?
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is
> > of perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.
> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
> your mind if proven wrong.
I said no such thing.
> That's what's called (in my book) a waste of my time.
See my reply to Mueen Nawaz.
> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
> > validity of any arguments I make.
> Of course it doesn't. But it does play into whether or not I want to
> spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view.
Still stuck on convincing me I see. Why isn't it enough to make a good
argument? Is it the validation you seek?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
