sorry 'bout that :embarrased:

looking at the context in which eric uses "gay" almost constantly' date=' i don't think he means dissolute or licentious.[/quote']

 

I think he's saying she's gay because her behavior on the board lacks ethics (something I don't necessarily agree with, but know others who would)

 

 

you dont really believe that someone postin comments as "let's not ban sternly lets just rape her" would want to uphold ethics, do you ??

 

See other posts I've made in this thread.

 

I'm not saying Eric is right os Eric is even good. All I'm saying is that Twix's critcism of Eric was inappropriate.

 

Yes I`ve read all posts and I'm not saying you are defending Eric, I'm jus referring to your comment starting with "I think he's saying..." and asking you if you still think he uses "gay" due to carla's lack of ethics? Especially him after posting such comments as quoted above.

 

Yes, I do, more or less. I don't think he means it in those exact terms. I was quoting the acceptable definition. But he means it as a synonym for "lame," a usage error which is common (almost colloquial).

 

At your underlying point: One can be absent of ethics yet still be able to comment on another's possession of them. Sometimes those commentaries are correct. Other times they are not.

 

But we're also going to create a strawman here if we use the terms ethics and morals too rigidly. A better term might be standards, or practices.

 

 

I don't quite agree to your idea of being able to comment on another's possession of ethics while neglecting them for oneself, how could you then realize other people's lack of them? Well but that's jus my opinion and I don't expect you to understand it.

 

I understand it. I just disagree with it.

 

Eric's making a conscious effort to neglect ethics. He makes comments to try to get under people's skin. While this is not something I would do, it does show a consciousness of right and wrong behavior. This knowledge can be considered separate from his actions, and as such his assessing an objective value to another's reverence for ethics is possible. The action and the assessment are independent of each other.

 

 

An analogy:

 

You got to restaurant and realize that the food is horrible. Yet you are not a chef, nor have you ever tried to cook. Are you unqualified to evaluate the meal merely because you aren't a practicing cook?

 

Of course not, because as an action eating the meal is independent from preparing it. And beyond that, you are qualified with taste and preference and an idea of what a meal should taste like.

 

 

It's the same thing here. Evaluating Carla's morality is independent of exhibiting one's own morality.

 

What makes you sure Eric makes comments "to get under ppl's skins" and so being "conscious of right and wrong behaviour"? If I say sth like "rape her" I know I don't mean it, but still it doesn't not show my ability to differ right from wrong, just coz I would not do it. Such comments already cross the barrier, so in my opinion it is not really essential if people know he is trying to get "under their skin". One should keep in mind of having and respecting ethics, standards or whatever you want to call them, before you doubt and question another person's.

looking at the context in which eric uses "gay" almost constantly' date=' i don't think he means dissolute or licentious.[/quote']

 

I think he's saying she's gay because her behavior on the board lacks ethics (something I don't necessarily agree with, but know others who would)

 

 

you dont really believe that someone postin comments as "let's not ban sternly lets just rape her" would want to uphold ethics, do you ??

 

See other posts I've made in this thread.

 

I'm not saying Eric is right os Eric is even good. All I'm saying is that Twix's critcism of Eric was inappropriate.

 

Yes I`ve read all posts and I'm not saying you are defending Eric, I'm jus referring to your comment starting with "I think he's saying..." and asking you if you still think he uses "gay" due to carla's lack of ethics? Especially him after posting such comments as quoted above.

 

Yes, I do, more or less. I don't think he means it in those exact terms. I was quoting the acceptable definition. But he means it as a synonym for "lame," a usage error which is common (almost colloquial).

 

At your underlying point: One can be absent of ethics yet still be able to comment on another's possession of them. Sometimes those commentaries are correct. Other times they are not.

 

But we're also going to create a strawman here if we use the terms ethics and morals too rigidly. A better term might be standards, or practices.

 

 

I don't quite agree to your idea of being able to comment on another's possession of ethics while neglecting them for oneself, how could you then realize other people's lack of them? Well but that's jus my opinion and I don't expect you to understand it.

 

I understand it. I just disagree with it.

 

Eric's making a conscious effort to neglect ethics. He makes comments to try to get under people's skin. While this is not something I would do, it does show a consciousness of right and wrong behavior. This knowledge can be considered separate from his actions, and as such his assessing an objective value to another's reverence for ethics is possible. The action and the assessment are independent of each other.

 

 

An analogy:

 

You got to restaurant and realize that the food is horrible. Yet you are not a chef, nor have you ever tried to cook. Are you unqualified to evaluate the meal merely because you aren't a practicing cook?

 

Of course not, because as an action eating the meal is independent from preparing it. And beyond that, you are qualified with taste and preference and an idea of what a meal should taste like.

 

 

It's the same thing here. Evaluating Carla's morality is independent of exhibiting one's own morality.

 

What makes you sure Eric makes comments "to get under ppl's skins" and so being "conscious of right and wrong behaviour"? If I say sth like "rape her" I know I don't mean it, but still it doesn't not show my ability to differ right from wrong, just coz I would not do it. Such comments already cross the barrier, so in my opinion it is not really essential if people know he is trying to get "under their skin". One should keep in mind of having and respecting ethics, standards or whatever you want to call them, before you doubt and question another person's.

 

What makes me so sure? Just what I know of Eric as a whole. Of course, your interpretation might be different than mine, and I don't think that anybody is forgiving him for using the language he does. That comment he made was over the line.

 

Regarding your last sentence, I think that is ideal but not necessarily correct. Just because the person posing a question is suspect to that same inquiry does not make render the discussion without merit. The question can (and probably should) be evaluated independent of the questioner. While it does open the person posing the question to the same criticisms the query tries to levy, it would be an invalid argument to say that one's point it moot because they don't hold themselves to the same standards.

 

A blind person says the sky is full of clouds. How do you respond?

 

1. "You can't see the sky. I will not consider your view."

 

2. "There may be clouds in the sky. Somebody may have told this blind person there are clouds in the sky. Perhaps this person is sensing the shadows. I will look for myself to see if there are clouds in the sky."

 

Eric says Carla's posting is lacking in morality. How do you respond?

 

1. "You are not a moral poster. I will not consider your view."

 

2. "Carla may or may not be a moral poster. Eric might be picking up on something here. I will look for myself to assess whether Carla is a moral poster."

 

There would be obvious expections to this, but I believe this holds true in this case.

 

 

PS, Thanks for the discussion.

ban sternly or no?

anyone who uses caps is gay

5% [ 1 ]

sternly is just the gayest on this board

5% [ 1 ]

i dont like sternly

10% [ 2 ]

i wish i had a mute button for her

10% [ 2 ]

BLAH IM STERNLY I USE CAPS!!!!

0% [ 0 ]

sternly is my friend...

70% [ 14 ]

 

Total Votes : 20

 

 

wow....some people here don't really like you, but most of them do....so I guess it's all good! :lol: :lol: :D :P :kiss:

^ and it's a fairly large amount of votes, too. As an aggregate it's a 70/30 split.

 

I voted for the third option. I'm getting to where I do like "Carla," but I also wish I had a way to not see the posts.

hmmmmmmmm

There are just so many of them! :)

 

I kind of wish we all had ways to ignore selected users' posts, that way if you didn't like somebody you can just ignore them and have to worry about conflicts.

There are just so many of them! :)

 

I kind of wish we all had ways to ignore selected users' posts, that way if you didn't like somebody you can just ignore them and have to worry about conflicts.

 

 

Ohh yes....there are some users that are just argh! :rolleyes: I also wish we had the "ignore" buttom...'cause I absolutely hate hypocrite people.....

 

 

 

 

 

I guess we all are at some time........ :dozey:

^ agreed :embarrased:

:lol: yeahhhh it's just Cry me a fucking river for crying out loud! argh! :rolleyes: :dozey:

^I always wanted to say that to my teacher and punch him in the face & kick his miniature.... He hated me w/all his heart :lol: A 32 yr old man hated me w/all his heart...now isn't that nice?lmao! :lol:

^ that sucks! looking back on it, it seems like some people because teachers just to try and undo their negative school days ...

 

... so they take out their issues on the kids.

looking at the context in which eric uses "gay" almost constantly' date=' i don't think he means dissolute or licentious.[/quote']

 

I think he's saying she's gay because her behavior on the board lacks ethics (something I don't necessarily agree with, but know others who would)

 

 

you dont really believe that someone postin comments as "let's not ban sternly lets just rape her" would want to uphold ethics, do you ??

 

See other posts I've made in this thread.

 

I'm not saying Eric is right os Eric is even good. All I'm saying is that Twix's critcism of Eric was inappropriate.

 

Yes I`ve read all posts and I'm not saying you are defending Eric, I'm jus referring to your comment starting with "I think he's saying..." and asking you if you still think he uses "gay" due to carla's lack of ethics? Especially him after posting such comments as quoted above.

 

Yes, I do, more or less. I don't think he means it in those exact terms. I was quoting the acceptable definition. But he means it as a synonym for "lame," a usage error which is common (almost colloquial).

 

At your underlying point: One can be absent of ethics yet still be able to comment on another's possession of them. Sometimes those commentaries are correct. Other times they are not.

 

But we're also going to create a strawman here if we use the terms ethics and morals too rigidly. A better term might be standards, or practices.

 

 

I don't quite agree to your idea of being able to comment on another's possession of ethics while neglecting them for oneself, how could you then realize other people's lack of them? Well but that's jus my opinion and I don't expect you to understand it.

 

I understand it. I just disagree with it.

 

Eric's making a conscious effort to neglect ethics. He makes comments to try to get under people's skin. While this is not something I would do, it does show a consciousness of right and wrong behavior. This knowledge can be considered separate from his actions, and as such his assessing an objective value to another's reverence for ethics is possible. The action and the assessment are independent of each other.

 

 

An analogy:

 

You got to restaurant and realize that the food is horrible. Yet you are not a chef, nor have you ever tried to cook. Are you unqualified to evaluate the meal merely because you aren't a practicing cook?

 

Of course not, because as an action eating the meal is independent from preparing it. And beyond that, you are qualified with taste and preference and an idea of what a meal should taste like.

 

 

It's the same thing here. Evaluating Carla's morality is independent of exhibiting one's own morality.

 

What makes you sure Eric makes comments "to get under ppl's skins" and so being "conscious of right and wrong behaviour"? If I say sth like "rape her" I know I don't mean it, but still it doesn't not show my ability to differ right from wrong, just coz I would not do it. Such comments already cross the barrier, so in my opinion it is not really essential if people know he is trying to get "under their skin". One should keep in mind of having and respecting ethics, standards or whatever you want to call them, before you doubt and question another person's.

 

What makes me so sure? Just what I know of Eric as a whole. Of course, your interpretation might be different than mine, and I don't think that anybody is forgiving him for using the language he does. That comment he made was over the line.

 

Regarding your last sentence, I think that is ideal but not necessarily correct. Just because the person posing a question is suspect to that same inquiry does not make render the discussion without merit. The question can (and probably should) be evaluated independent of the questioner. While it does open the person posing the question to the same criticisms the query tries to levy, it would be an invalid argument to say that one's point it moot because they don't hold themselves to the same standards.

 

A blind person says the sky is full of clouds. How do you respond?

 

1. "You can't see the sky. I will not consider your view."

 

2. "There may be clouds in the sky. Somebody may have told this blind person there are clouds in the sky. Perhaps this person is sensing the shadows. I will look for myself to see if there are clouds in the sky."

 

Eric says Carla's posting is lacking in morality. How do you respond?

 

1. "You are not a moral poster. I will not consider your view."

 

2. "Carla may or may not be a moral poster. Eric might be picking up on something here. I will look for myself to assess whether Carla is a moral poster."

 

There would be obvious expections to this, but I believe this holds true in this case.

 

 

PS, Thanks for the discussion.

 

 

Your welcome. Sorry but my efforts to understand you are not really improving not even with your analogies with which you want to explain the situation.

Yes having an objective view is always preferable, but not quite easy if you have in mind some of the questioner's comments. Especially when I feel that Eric never intended to question Carla's morality or ethical standards, the reason I asked you, if you really thought he'd be thinking that far. And even if he doubted her "morality" I still don't believe he has the right to question sth like that. Comparing his comments to Carla's I know for sure who lacks ethical standards. And I don't think your analogy of a blind is quite appropriate. I won't disregard a blind person's opinion because I know he CAN'T do anything against it. In comparison I do not believe someone lacking moral principles can judge another one's, he should rather start trying to set some for himself because he CAN.

She´s my friend!

By the way, nice effect^^

Your welcome. Sorry but my efforts to understand you are not really improving not even with your analogies with which you want to explain the situation.

Yes having an objective view is always preferable, but not quite easy if you have in mind some of the questioner's comments. Especially when I feel that Eric never intended to question Carla's morality or ethical standards, the reason I asked you, if you really thought he'd be thinking that far. And even if he doubted her "morality" I still don't believe he has the right to question sth like that. Comparing his comments to Carla's I know for sure who lacks ethical standards. And I don't think your analogy of a blind is quite appropriate. I won't disregard a blind person's opinion because I know he CAN'T do anything against it. In comparison I do not believe someone lacking moral principles can judge another one's, he should rather start trying to set some for himself because he CAN.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

A couple of things:

 

1) I think we're getting a little stuck on the term "moral." That's the textbook definition which justifies Eric's usage of the word gay, but it wasn't really Eric's intent. Eric's intent was probably more to use the word gay as a synonym for lame. This isn't pertinent to the large philosophical issue we've been discussing, but it's important in understanding this situation. Point #2 will address the nature of morality, the hypothetical being Eric intended to refer to Carla's morality. I don't feel he did.

 

2) Your point, as I'm understanding it, is that if a person does not have morals then that person can not question another's morals. What if they have a full knowledge of morals? Would they tend me able to question another's application of them. Morals are nothing but a set of abilities; morality being the application there of. How I choose to exercise my morals constitutes my morality. Whether somebody acts in a moral or immoral fashion is an assessment of one's morality or actions: Do you exercise your ability to be a moral person. Of course, intertwined with this is our consolidated view of what actions are moral or immoral, a view which I won't explain here.

 

With that in mind, do we say that Eric has no concept of morals and therefore is criticizing Carla from a position of ignorance (and is thus ill equiped to form a valid inquiry) or do we say that he is merely chosing not to exhibit morality? I contend that the latter is the case, for most of the time Eric is a fine poster but in an attempt to illicit a response sometimes deviates from behaivours that would be considered moral.

 

If you agree with this, then Eric would be equiped to judge another's morality, having morals just chosing to exercise them less frequently than we wuld like.

 

If you disgaree with this and feel Eric lacks knowledge of morals, does not possess the ability to determine right from wrong, then you should conclude that he is not equipped to offer a valid criticism of Carla.

 

But to that point I would offer that if Eric did lack knowledge of morals his irratic behaviour would be seen mroe regularly than they are: in situations where he's not trying to illicit responses but, rather, offering immoral responses as a default behavior.

 

And while there are times when Eric might cross the line, I don't see those times occurring with such frequency as to show a complete lack of knowledge of morals.

 

And that appears to be the crux of this argument: Whether you feel Eric possesses this knowledge.

^ that sucks! looking back on it, it seems like some people because teachers just to try and undo their negative school days ...

 

... so they take out their issues on the kids.

 

 

Well all my teachers were always nice to me...sometimes it scared me...because they would be extremely nice to me...& they were always like that but only with me not w/the other students....

 

 

But this teacher...he..I don't know I guess he wanted me to show some anger or just get out of control....just to tell you that he wanted me out of the class room everyday :rolleyes: :lol: I don't know maybe he just hated the fact that he was 32 and I was 16 :lol: eeeww! :confused:

^ that sucks! looking back on it, it seems like some people because teachers just to try and undo their negative school days ...

 

... so they take out their issues on the kids.

 

 

Well all my teachers were always nice to me...sometimes it scared me...because they would be extremely nice to me...& they were always like that but only with me not w/the other students....

 

 

But this teacher...he..I don't know I guess he wanted me to show some anger or just get out of control....just to tell you that he wanted me out of the class room everyday :rolleyes: :lol: I don't know maybe he just hated the fact that he was 32 and I was 16 :lol: eeeww! :confused:

 

Right: eeeeeeeeeeewwwwww.

Your welcome. Sorry but my efforts to understand you are not really improving not even with your analogies with which you want to explain the situation.

Yes having an objective view is always preferable, but not quite easy if you have in mind some of the questioner's comments. Especially when I feel that Eric never intended to question Carla's morality or ethical standards, the reason I asked you, if you really thought he'd be thinking that far. And even if he doubted her "morality" I still don't believe he has the right to question sth like that. Comparing his comments to Carla's I know for sure who lacks ethical standards. And I don't think your analogy of a blind is quite appropriate. I won't disregard a blind person's opinion because I know he CAN'T do anything against it. In comparison I do not believe someone lacking moral principles can judge another one's, he should rather start trying to set some for himself because he CAN.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

A couple of things:

 

1) I think we're getting a little stuck on the term "moral." That's the textbook definition which justifies Eric's usage of the word gay, but it wasn't really Eric's intent. Eric's intent was probably more to use the word gay as a synonym for lame. This isn't pertinent to the large philosophical issue we've been discussing, but it's important in understanding this situation. Point #2 will address the nature of morality, the hypothetical being Eric intended to refer to Carla's morality. I don't feel he did.

 

2) Your point, as I'm understanding it, is that if a person does not have morals then that person can not question another's morals. What if they have a full knowledge of morals? Would they tend me able to question another's application of them. Morals are nothing but a set of abilities; morality being the application there of. How I choose to exercise my morals constitutes my morality. Whether somebody acts in a moral or immoral fashion is an assessment of one's morality or actions: Do you exercise your ability to be a moral person. Of course, intertwined with this is our consolidated view of what actions are moral or immoral, a view which I won't explain here.

 

With that in mind, do we say that Eric has no concept of morals and therefore is criticizing Carla from a position of ignorance (and is thus ill equiped to form a valid inquiry) or do we say that he is merely chosing not to exhibit morality? I contend that the latter is the case, for most of the time Eric is a fine poster but in an attempt to illicit a response sometimes deviates from behaivours that would be considered moral.

 

If you agree with this, then Eric would be equiped to judge another's morality, having morals just chosing to exercise them less frequently than we wuld like.

 

If you disgaree with this and feel Eric lacks knowledge of morals, does not possess the ability to determine right from wrong, then you should conclude that he is not equipped to offer a valid criticism of Carla.

 

But to that point I would offer that if Eric did lack knowledge of morals his irratic behaviour would be seen mroe regularly than they are: in situations where he's not trying to illicit responses but, rather, offering immoral responses as a default behavior.

 

And while there are times when Eric might cross the line, I don't see those times occurring with such frequency as to show a complete lack of knowledge of morals.

 

And that appears to be the crux of this argument: Whether you feel Eric possesses this knowledge.

 

 

 

So if Eric choses "not to exhibit morality" in some situations, who gives him the right not to tolerate another poster's same attitude, IF he believes that this is the case (as I said I do not feel Carla lacks moral standards).

The only thing which surprised me and therefore started this discussion was the fact you said you thought he'd be referrin to her lack of ethics. I did understand his "gay" as sth similar to "lame" but did question your use of morality in this situation, especially after his comment in another thread which as you might have noticed by now really pissed me off.

To me someone not having any morals can not have a full knowledge of morals, so therefore I don't think its possible for this person to question another's application of them. Morals to me are accepted standards, good or right, judged by the standards of an average person or society at large. So therefore I believe that if you do know about moral principles, you automatically adapt to them and show accordingly in society.I don't want to go on further questioning whether Eric possesses knowledge of moral standards especially because I do not feel to have the right to

judge such characteristic, but as I said even if the comment is not directed at me I feel personally in some way offended by it cause it shatters my view of interpersonal behaviour on this board. I feel I have tried to make my points clear and knowing I have more important things to do I will not comment any further on this topic, thank you for taking your time trying explaining me.

Eric's making a conscious effort to neglect ethics. He makes comments to try to get under people's skin

it's not like i mean it

just messing with them in a friendly way

Comparing his comments to Carla's I know for sure who lacks ethical standards

omg!

what have i said thats bad besides the obvious one?

ahhh

im hopeless :cry: :(

Eric's making a conscious effort to neglect ethics. He makes comments to try to get under people's skin

it's not like i mean it

just messing with them in a friendly way

 

I agree. This is how I know you have ethics. moral, etc.

This thread is still alive?!! :stunned: well holy shit! :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: