<p>
[quote]
Be respectful of other people's opinions. Ad hominem attacks should not be tolerated on this thread.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's a great thing that you referred to their words as "opinions" which have no basis in logical reasoning and ethics. But, interestingly, ad hominem attacks are "opinions" too, so why be selective when this has become a practical free-for-all? This thread has spun out of control and the discussion isn't going anywhere. Everyone is simply too stubborn and too entrenched in different moral systems - one system widely accepted, the other not - for any progress to be made. Let's just wait and come back a few weeks later to see what has been made of Yalecheater's deeds.</p>
<p>Because of CC's standard of accepted conduct, I have the right to be selective, screwitlah, thus I hope a moderator comes here and polices this thread if the posters here aren't mature enough to do it themselves. I don't agree with most of what the people you're attacking are saying but I respect their right to say it as long as its not offensive or attacking a single person. Notice, I have chided them too.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Everyone is simply too stubborn and too entrenched in different moral systems - one system widely accepted, the other not - for any progress to be made.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, that's what the Democrats and Republicans think. :) Everyone thinks their moral system is the "widely accepted" one. But, I'd hardly call the posters here freaks, morally devoid, geeky nerds, as opposed to those coming from different perspectives. There's not much on here to suggest that extreme.</p>
<p>Such a mature statement. You are obviously trying to appear better than</p>
<p>
[quote]
people with freak morals and utterly distorted logic!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except, by just using ad hominem attacks, you are no better. You can't parade in on the auspices of superiority and then act in the manner you are.</p>
<p>Edit: And as you might have noticed, I haven't said anything in regards to the actual topic. That's because my viewpoint is irrelevant to this matter. Whether I condoned cheating and indulged in it myself, or thought all cheaters should be shot in the kneecaps and left in downtown Detriot with a backpack full of drugs and money, has no bearing on the fact I think that your calling people names and doing nothing to support them is a pathetic excuse for a debating tactic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because of CC's standard of accepted conduct, I have the right to be selective, screwitlah, thus I hope a moderator comes here and polices this thread if the posters here aren't mature enough to do it themselves. I don't agree with most of what the people you're attacking are saying but I respect their right to say it as long as its not offensive or attacking a single person. Notice, I have chided them too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to admit that I've never bothered to read the rules and standards of accepted conduct for any of the online forums I frequent, but I won't dispute the moderators' right to intervene on this board. :) </p>
<p>
[quote]
Ah, that's what the Democrats and Republicans think. Everyone thinks their moral system is the "widely accepted" one. But, I'd hardly call the posters here freaks, morally devoid, geeky nerds, as opposed to those coming from different perspectives. There's not much on here to suggest that extreme.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The sad thing is, they HAVE reason to believe their moral system is "widely accepted" - each system is supported by almost half the country. </p>
<p>Of course the posters here aren't freaks. I just think it's LIKE a circus - not unlike today's politics. </p>
<p>collegebound2009, please update us if you get a reply or an outcome!</p>
<p>I'd rather have your country's multi-party, democratic circus than my country's single-party sham of a democracy. But I won't deny that my country has done pretty well under our flawed system!</p>
<p>And oh, in case you're wondering why I comment on American politics, I do get CNN International and the actual Fox News Channel on cable. No prizes for guessing which one is a circus. But CNN USA may just be as bad as FNC though.</p>
<p>Also yeah, I tend to say "scene" to refer even to books. At least in my imagination it remains quite vivid. </p>
<p>
I formed my point of view from a documentry called "is greedy bad?" or some title to that type of meaning. But I seriosuly don't believe people worship Bill Gates
</p>
<p>Never mind, my PRC comment was off then. But it is an irony that people in China worship in entrepreneurs. Partially because of the culture, and because the government pushes for entrepreneurship in "Special Economic Zones". (In reality, special refuges of capitalism.) But it is a special type of entrepreneurship, where not only is it cutthroat all the way, but where single select individuals enjoy state support. Never mind of course, that entrepreneurship is achievable by the common citizen and that such a mentality hinders the ability for many people to contribute to economic efficiency by, because if you're not an "Olympic-level" entrepreneur, then you might as well forget it. </p>
<p>Firstly xbank, I hope are aware of something called the "social contract". Self-interest is all fine and well, but what you should realise that unfettered uncontrolled greed ends up hurting the self-interest. (Because conflict and destruction come at a cost.) Game theory is recalled to mind ... for this reason individuals have worked out CONTRACTS and RULE OF LAW (to inspire confidence in the framework) such that the most efficient outcome can be achieved. </p>
<p>Your naive enthusiasm for Microsoft, and your not knowing of the great harm it has done to IT in its latter years, is something you should reconsider in due course.</p>
<p>Im off this thread as I siad you can't change m bviews and I can't change some of your views. Im pretty much the same as zzzboy. The only time I would considering putting the guy who faked his rec out was during thr admission process or if the teacher as like my fav teacher, but sitll I think i might just let it go.</p>
<p>BTW Baelor you make it seem like selfishness is bad. It seemed like your the only one in the world that do stuff that's not your own gain. HAve you ever compete for a job against another applicants? God isn't that selfish. Thinknig only about yourself and not the other applicants. There are many acts of selfishness. Everyone does stuff for his or her own gain. If you have a job, are you doing it for yourself? Would that be selfish? According to you as long as you want to gain something from doing it but would not do it for free then it is selfish. So basically everyone who is in the workforce in the world are selfish since I highly doubt they would do their work for free. </p>
<p>I mean seriosuly if you really mean what you want to say then i applaud you. Your perfect human image is basically "I would do everything and gain nothing so I am not selfish I am great."</p>
<p>Even though I am very sry if I stepped in line of personal attacks. I tried not to. So sry if I offended you on the personal levels rather than just your views as I tried to keep this as mature as possible.</p>
<p>and to galo: of course Microsoft has done bad, For every Ying there is an Yang. I just think Microsoft accomplished more good than bad in my point of view since despite what some people might say. I enjoy my windows operating systems(with the exception of Vista since I cant find crap on there) and their other programs. But if Microsoft is a bad example. Think of all those medicine companies. They created many drugs to help save people but what drives them? The selfishness to earn money. They aren't doing it for free, but I rather have these medicine companies driven by greed to create new drugs rather not having these drugs.</p>
<p>Oh to those who think cheating is no big deal, or not a deal big enough to warrant "tattling," because "might is right" and this is a dog eat dog world, etc.: Let the cheater be right, he who has the might not to be caught. Since some people in this thread subscribe to social darwinism and all.</p>
<p>Never mind of course, their ignorance of the theory of law...</p>
<p>xbankx, you assume that nothing is gained by turning a person in. But then think also what must be done to prevent cheating against you. (Events that in general, hurt your self-interest.) To a great extent such prevention depends on others to catch the cheater for you. Whether that cheater would hurt the curve in your class, deny you a place in your future education, even after you graduate from your current institution, or whether you can in general live in freedom and in confidence, etc. </p>
<p>And what must you do in return? Catch cheaters for others. To some extent the incentive to ensure you do not break this implicit agreement is cultural (in some students' cases, it would be going to an institution with a strong honor code, safeguarded by the students themselves <em>cough</em> <em>cough</em> ;)); and then of course there are Nash equilibria, stable strategies, social inertia, switching and all that fun economic stuff to be explored.</p>
<p>But clearly you see that to preserve your own self-interest, to some extent you must also aid others' self-interest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Think of all those medicine companies. They created many drugs to help save people but what drives them? The selfishness to earn money. They aren't doing it for free, but I rather have these medicine companies driven by greed to create new drugs rather not having these drugs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not at all attacking self-interest.</p>
<p>But what you have proposed is that it is acceptable for one to break codes of honor, rule of law, contractual agreements, and other elements of order in order to further one's self-interest. But what you do not seem to realise is that if everyone did the same thing, your own self-interest (and everyone else's) would suffer even more. For this reason, these codes are kept, and for this reason, breaking such codes for self-interest is not excusable, since in the end, such actions harm the self-interest more than they aid it.</p>
<p>If self-interest is your basis for justice, then fine. But surely then you know about the categorical imperative: an action is just only if it is just for others to do that same action in the same context. </p>
<p>So YOU argue that your action, though it be violating all Honour, is just because it furthers your self-interest. But if everyone did the same it would hurt all self-interest -- either it is not a just outcome, or your conclusion is inconsistent with your premises.</p>
<p>You're going to feel pretty bad about doing this for the rest of your life since it appears you are doing this out of malice. </p>
<p>Also have you bothered to think, what if this kid goes crazy because of this? What would you do if he harmed himself or someone else--perhaps even you--because of this?</p>
<p>I think you shouldn't have taken matters into your own hands.</p>