Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mike h. on July 12, 2011 at 7:58am

Great discussion. Sometimes, there is NO need to have a "side". This is not an athiest or other belief situation. It is a pure matter of right vs. wrong, and I take it from some posters, justifications of why its ok to do different than what was setup. The world at large has laws, rules basically for the world to get along. I do not like many things attached to a law/rule, but must abide by them. Again, this has nothing to do with stated belief systems. Speed limits were designed for safety, although I like to go faster, a penalty will be paid if I do not follow the limit, like it or not. We can see right thru the underhanded sneaky double talk. Richard is not worked up, he is rather intelligence (and compassionate LOL) in logical/rational replies. Also the truth. Truth does not hurt, its the disclosure of it....

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 12, 2011 at 7:20pm

Mike I agree with you regarding Hitchens comments - but we do naturally have social values....

I think of Indigenous people who took advantage of telegraph poles put in across the desert - they quickly worked out how to climb up the poles and get the glass and use the glass on their spear heads - now where they immoral for doing that? Or where they just taking advantage of a new resource on their land?

Of course - they didn't realise that they were damaging government property or creating a hindrance to telecommunications between immigrant Europeans in Australia. I'm sure even if they knew the implications it may not have changed their behaviour - as they had just been invaded by a foreign race intent on the destruction of their land and culture. In this case, like the others I've mentioned - the morals and ethics are complex.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on July 12, 2011 at 12:45pm

voting as many times as you wish is a violation.

Except the site explicitly says:

 

Visit this page daily from now through August 8 to vote for your favorite from among six new designs.

 

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on July 12, 2011 at 9:17pm

I see you don't respond to my arguments in the way you accuse others of doing.  Picking your battles I guess.

Permalink Reply by Richard H. McCargar on July 12, 2011 at 10:02pm

limited time, few real arguments.  If you are not from Ohio, it doesn't matter how many you may like or disagree with on a given day.  Most of your arguments boil down to justification in a matter that could be resolved in a way that does not require an unethical action.

If you disagree with the Ohio situation, and live in Ohio, there are many ways you may attempt action without compromising your ethics, or you can cheat and game the system, as was originally suggested.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on July 13, 2011 at 12:42pm

Gaming this system is not outside my ethical system, for if any system placed upon us leads, through tyranny of the majority, to unethical actions that break the laws of the land, then its rules are unjust.  Following unjust rules makes me no more ethical than not. 

You keep saying I'm compromising my ethics, but I'm telling you I don't see it that way.  I'd rather not just call it an impasse', but you seem stuck on following the rules for the sake of the rules here, and I'm not sure why.  You've clearly stated elsewhere that you understand that sometimes it is more ethical to break rules than follow them.  I take it then, in this case you disagree with breaking rules for the sake of the public and my own personal ethics?

Permalink Reply by Littlejohn Dellar on July 12, 2011 at 6:37am

What is an "athiest"? I'm athi, he's athier, she's athiest?

Permalink Reply by Rudy V Kiist on July 12, 2011 at 8:08am

Sorry, didn't see this discussion before I commented on the main thread. This was my thoughts.

 

Whoever started the whole process obviously meant for out of staters to vote. It's like a porn company going online getting people to click the box marked "I'm over 18". They know darn well who's watching their stuff.

If they wanted ONLY people from Ohio to vote they knew darn well how to make sure only Ohio residents vote. This would be the only way to get people from outside of state to vote, yet wash their hands of legal responsibility.

Further more, there is only one reason they do online polls such as this...to make it look more popular than it is. Idol shows love to brag how 10s of million people vote, when in reality only a fraction do. In this case, being that the states is such a strong christian nation, the people who set this all up are expecting christians from all over the nation to vote, so they in turn can brag "see how we're such good christians here in Ohio?" It's the nature of and how online popularity voting works.

And as far as the "honour system" goes...on the internet? Do you really think anyone (including the ones who proposed this) really thinks that would be a possibility? Just being realistic...

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 12, 2011 at 6:33pm

There has been lots of claims this way and that - it would be interesting to know the facts of the case.

 

Richard claims that the facts are that this is a closed pole for only those living in the state and that they only are allowed 1 vote each.

 

Whereas it is possible for anyone to vote on the pole from around the world - put any number into the zip code box and vote as many times as they wish without deleting cookies or restarting their computer.

 

So what is the 'ethical' thing to do?

 

Are all players doing the same?

 

Are there a bunch of religious folk who are 'stacking' the vote towards the leading sticker with the word - god - on the sticker?

Permalink Reply by Richard H. McCargar on July 12, 2011 at 7:40pm

Irrelevant. Ethics are not based upon whether or not you find other people also in violation.

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 12, 2011 at 7:51pm

Richard I wonder if you are going to get off your high horse and treat me like an equal?

Permalink Reply by Richard H. McCargar on July 12, 2011 at 9:07pm

I cannot help but notice you either cannot, or will not address the points I raise, so you tell me to get off my high horse. More demagoguery, not the least to the point. 

 

I'm responding to your words. If you feel we are equals, and yet you see I don't believe you are being ethical, nor using true reason, why would you think I believe we 'are' equals?

 

Just a thought. Please don't answer in haste and anger, but consider what I've written.  I'm surprised that so many feel ethics are so easy to eliminate, yet they feel they are ethical people. By what measure that anyone else could easily identify?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page