In hindsight, I should have probably asked Anthony what he meant by the quote, rather than interpret it as I did.
(I still wonder, what other way can it possibly be interpreted?)
He believes I misread what he wrote. I believe I correctly interpreted what he incorrectly typed. If this becomes the focus of the discussion, any real debate will cease altogether.
So let's move on, and accept at face value Anthony's assertion that he would "endear" to my arguments more without the "harsh tone and offensive statements."
(Before I do, I want to make it clear that I readily admit to the "harsh tone" complaint. While I admit that, I'm not at all certain that any of my comments in this thread were grossly offensive.)
I have but one question for Anthony, one that arises from the assertion that there are worse things than software piracy - a question that I've asked before and really deserves an answer.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you're not doing well in some class in school; an assignment is due, and you have not finished it. You know that one of your overachieving classmates has it already finished, and you believe two things about the situation:
1. If you steal the homework from the other student, he won't suffer too much; he'll still be able to get an excellent grade in the class.
2. If you steal the homework and present it as your own, you'll "get away with it." You won't get caught.
My question is this: IS THE ACT IMMORAL?
I will concede that some of my posts in the past may have seemed arrogant, however, they were meant to be taken frivolously by those who would see it as such, I did not cater for the readers such as yourself, simply because I don't think the way you do whatsoever. However arrogant I may be, I don't believe I have shown it yet. With some of my posts, as some of you may have noticed, some sentences are better taken with a pinch of salt. Not everything I write should be taken seriously. I am ever so sorry that you can't distinguish the difference.
And as for the misunderstanding over the statement, I maintain that it was you who didn't read it the way I wrote it, and that's that. My black is your white and your black is my white; we are blind to each other's colours.
And as for the comment about no one agreeing with me, I never mentioned anything about anyone agreeing with me in my defence, I said that no one had accused me of such inaccuraracy, with you and Lemonite's exception. However, both of you have flamed me consistently in the past before, so excuse me if I don't take your criticism too seriously.
Anyway, onto your valid points;
"Killing someone is worse than beating the hell out of somebody. But that doesn't mean assault is okay. Robbing a bank is worse than software piracy, but that doesn't mean software piracy is okay."
I completely agree. But to defend myself I would like to say that I never said it wasn't immoral, I said that I hadn't made my mind on it, and if it was immoral... well, to be frank, I didn't really care.
Regarding your interesting question, it DOES deserve an answer. My answer is that yes, ofcourse its immoral. It certainly isn't the right thing to do at all. The act of stealing the homework is ofcourse, immoral. There.
Come to think of it we do all sorts of things that are 'immoral' according to the black and white definition of things everyday. Lying to your friends because you don't want to see them could be construed as immoral. Not telling your parents that you're flunking school could be immoral. Not telling the parents of your fiance that she's dying could be immoral. Not going to the bank and enquiring why a certain company is paying you a lump sum of £20 a month and therefore allowing them to continue maybe immoral. My point is, there are larger issues at hand to consider as well. I think, in the real world, you will agree that most people do NOT think about whether they're going to hell or not for cheating on taxes once in a while, for lying to someone over something they wanted to keep secret, or for looking at another woman's body and feeling lust. My point is, some people - if not most - don't have a moral problem with some things that could be construed as trivial in the larger scheme of things.
Maybe I WAS condoning it, and maybe I was in favour of it. Either way, I was answering the original question; I don't have a moral problem with it. The only thing that bugged me was the way some people were going about the way they argued their points.
I have a scenario for you, too. A classical one, if you will.
A man has a family of six. He is poor. Worse than poor. No job, no welfare - his family is starving. One day opportunity knocks on his door and he sees a window wide open, with a delicious loaf of bread right on it, inviting him to steal it and feed his dying children. What does he do? He steals it. You tell me whats MORE immoral; let his children die of starvation or stealing a loaf of bread from someone who can easily afford it?
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright Â© Interference.com