Re: I'm at a loss for words

[tilghman@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Tilghman Lesher)]

Steve White (swhite@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <552o2q$4ke@client2.news.psi.net>, smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve
: Mentzer) wrote:


: > Without your "moral" foothold, your arguments are nonexistent.


: For some reason unknown to me you have failed to complete your education.
: If you had and had taken a logic class, you would have learned that the
: moral argument in this running conversation is the primary issue. You have
: admitted to pirating software at each stage of your life, and are
: unapologetic about it. In fact, you wish others would quit pointing it out
: since it's irrelevant to you.

He seems to think that morality is purely a religious issue.  Indeed, it
can be, but it can also be argued from a logical standpoint, such as the
Categorical Imperative.

: It might be irrelevant to you but it isn't to any other moral person who
: believes that stealing is wrong.

: You continue to attempt to justify your pirating and then complain that I
: don't accept your arguments. Of course I don't. There is no justification.

It's true that his arguments are lame, but your blanket assertion of
"There is no justification." is just as lame.  See analogy at bottom.

[[[[snip]]]]
: In the end, the Apple II was closed down as a business decision of Apple,
: Inc. They were probably right. The Apple II wasn't going to keep pace with
: the industry in the direction the industry wanted to move. As good as the
: IIgs was, it wasn't going to keep up with 386 and 486 PC's in the business
: market, and Apple knew it was going to face a stiff challenge in the home
: and education markets before much longer. Right or wrong, that was a
: business decision and not a moral one.

You're going to have a hard time arguing this point, as noted by the
recent exchange about it (31 messages still retained at this newsserver).

: No, the moral argument in this debate is, and continues to be, your
: continued stealing of that which doesn't belong to you. You wish others
: would just accept your theft without comment. I won't grant you that.

A better argument would be a comparison to the following scenario:

	Are you justified in accusing a drifter of theft
	for a car which I abandoned 5 years ago, and that
	I no longer acknowledge that a) it exists, or
	b) it is mine?

	Similarly, can he be accused of theft of software
	for which the company does not acknowledge either
	knowledge or ownership?

	Yes, if he steals the car while I still am using it,
	it indeed is theft, and he should be punished for
	that.  But after I've abandoned it?


: steve

--
__ __|_) |       |                    
   |   | |  _` |   \   ` \   _` |   \ 
  _|  _|_|\__, |_| _|_|_|_|\__,_|_| _|
          ____/