dionisio

:kiss:

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.

bounce :blush:

:stunned:

:cool:

:stunned: ill go on eatin choc

hat sich total daneben benommen..dachte jeder würde ihn nicht leiden können und so fing er jedesaml streit an......der war blöd..... :stunned:

hmmm :/

yoghurette :stunned: yummy :D

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.

:dozey:

:kiss:

:x

:stunned:

:rolleyes:

:stunned:

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.

:stunned:

lmao@will :lol: :lol: :lol:

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.

:stunned: :/ :confused: :/ :sick:

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 ??

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw "ignore list"...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :lol:

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw :baby: :rolleyes:

i miss my whole family :angry: :angry: :rolleyes: