Posted by Immortalist on 01/19/52 11:43

"Governor Swill" <governorswill@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v67g229mknp3kv704ph5psnamr3va4lks6@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:00:30 -0800, "Immortalist"
> <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I created the topic therefor it cannot be off topic. Do you mean that
>>X-posting is unpleasurable to you?
>
> If you thought the above made sense and would help you in your
> argument, you're an idiot. Why don't you go create a group to which
> your created topic would be entirely relevant.
>

Your concession is gratefully accepted, but why have you given up so easily?
Since you snipped out the context or what I was responding to you have lost
the argument by default, since there is no argument. I created the argument
is no argument by itself. Please learn to debate better and don't cut the
limb out from under yourself or you'll loose each time.

>>Can you show the rule that one must post in particular ways or is this an
>>ethical standard that you are proposing that we might consider agreeing
>>to?
>
> Sure. "Since the reason for posting is to be read, anything that
> contributes to a mass plonking by other readers due to poor
> usenetiquette can be considered a violation of the intent of usenet."
>

Gibberrish, please re-type more clearly sir.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-205611358478759520

> You wasted at least 80% of the bandwidth you used with that stupid and
> irrelevant list of links.
>

If I post one small image to a usenet group the text in it's source is
equivalent to an entire books worth of text. Put your mouse over a small
image on your cmputer and then right click and then choose "open with" open
with the Text Program. An MP3 posted in various groups takes more books
worth of text. In order for my bandwidth use to even compare I would have to
post my message a hudred times just to equal one image someone posts to
various groups.

More importantly you have not established an ethical standard which can
provide us with criteria for showing how the sentence you posted isn't
enough to be wasting bandwith but other degrees of text are.

Chapter 6 - The Problem of Justifying an Ethical Standard

There is one kind of problem that continually confronts most people. At one
time or another, we are faced with deciding what we ought to do. We also
often wonder whether we have done the right thing, and we accuse others, as
well as ourselves, of not doing what ought to be done. In many of these
cases, we are making moral or ethical judgments, judging the moral worth of
actions we or others have done or are thinking of doing. Think back about
some of your past actions. Probably you can find some actions you think you
shouldn't have done. Perhaps it was lying about your age to be served liquor
in a bar, or taking a glance at the test paper next to you in an
examination, or indefinitely "borrowing" a library book without signing for
it. Even now, you may be thinking about some course of action in the future,
whether to use the fraternity files for a course paper, whether to bury
yourself in your work and avoid participating in social action, or whether
to ignore an oft-proclaimed principle of your own to avoid some physical
hardship. Where a person thinks about what she and others have done and are
doing, rather than acting without thinking, there we find a person faced
with making a moral judgment. And as with any judgment, when we make it we
like to think we made the correct judgment, or at least that we are
justified in the judgment we make.

How can we justify our moral judgments? When we decide what we ought to do,
we would like to base our decisions on sound reasons, although, as in many
other areas of human endeavor, we often decide without thinking. Usually,
when we try to defend our moral decisions and actions, we do so by reference
to some moral rule or standard, such as "Thou shalt not kill" or "Lying and
cheating are wrong." That is, we often justify a claim that a particular
action is right or wrong by reference to some ethical rule or standard which
applies to the action. It is obvious, however, that we cannot show that an
action is right or wrong by appeal to a standard unless we have appealed to
the correct standard. For example, the attempt to absolve or excuse an adult
who has abused a child, by appealing to the standard that no adult ought to
be convicted of a crime when the victim is a child, fails to justify the act
morally, because the standard appealed to is incorrect. On the other hand,
attempting to eliminate acts of capital punishment by appealing to the
standard that no person, or group of people, has the right to take the life
of another person surely has some force. Those who defend capital punishment
usually will not attack the standard but try to show that it must be
modified to account for certain exceptions. An important part of justifying
a particular moral decision, then, certainly seems to be basing it upon a
correct ethical standard.

If we can justify a standard or a group of standards, then the only other
particularly moral task we have left-probably the more difficult one-is the
task of applying the standards throughout our lives. The second task faces
us all, including philosophers, who are in no better position to achieve
success than anyone else. Philosophers are particularly suited to the first
task, however, because they are centrally interested in, and uniquely
trained for, critical investigations of the arguments people propose to
justify their actions and beliefs. In this chapter we shall examine the
various leading theories that propose and defend particular moral standards,
and we shall attempt a philosophical examination of each, with the hope that
we can draw a justified conclusion about correct ethical standards.

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/

> Bedwarmer

[Back to original message]