Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 27 May 2012, 18:17:36 pm *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 21
  Print  
Author Topic: The Front Office  (Read 19831 times)
Vulcanl
Guest
« Reply #45 on: 04 August 2009, 14:21:33 pm »

Pripps,

You are running head-on into a brick wall.  This is not something I have made up.

In the case of the preteen girl, she finds herself in a tragic situation, however killing an unborn human being is still wrong

In the case of the the suicide bomber and the group he belongs to, he and its values are clearly evil.

Morals do not change in either situation!  They never do - this is my point.

 
Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« Reply #45 on: 04 August 2009, 14:21:33 pm »



 Logged
agree with pripps
Guest
« Reply #46 on: 04 August 2009, 16:55:26 pm »

Pripps,

You are running head-on into a brick wall.  This is not something I have made up.

Nope, this is just typical of you, anything that doesn't correspond to your opinion must be wrong.

Quote
In the case of the preteen girl, she finds herself in a tragic situation, however killing an unborn human being is still wrong.

Lots of people disagree with you. 

Quote
In the case of the the suicide bomber and the group he belongs to, he and its values are clearly evil.

One man's suicide bomber is another man's freedom fighter.  What if they blew up an evil dictator thus saving thousands of lives?  Let's say Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein.

Is the police shooting a suicide bomber before he kills dozens of people morally right?

To quote a Vulcan who actually knew what he was talking about, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one".

What do you think of assisted suicide for those terminally ill.  That creates lots of debate as well.

Quote
Morals do not change in either situation!  They never do - this is my point.

 

You only see in black and white, grey exists. 
Logged
Pripps
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 265



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: 04 August 2009, 17:12:49 pm »

Pripps,

You are running head-on into a brick wall.  This is not something I have made up.

In the case of the preteen girl, she finds herself in a tragic situation, however killing an unborn human being is still wrong

Yes I know you haven't made this up, this is the old philosophical question: moral relativism vs moral absolutism and you have taken the latter as your extreme opinion to provoke discussion.

I think I am more of a moral relativistic kind of guy, I think there are a lot of situations when the right/wrong is .. well .. relative. The PP has also several good examples and I agree with him, the world is certainly not black and white. e.g. self-defense, some say harming others it is morally wrong, some say it is OK and even expected to protect yourself and your family.


Logged

Revera linguam latinam vix cognovi
I also agree with Pripps
Guest
« Reply #48 on: 04 August 2009, 18:04:50 pm »

People who are like Vulcanl and take and absolute, hard line, dogmatic view on morals are troublemakers in the world today. Their extreme absolute views stir controversy everywhere. It is no differnt on this board. Although I don't agree with abortion I think it is way too extreme to say that it is morally wrong and the entire world should abide with my view that there should never be any aortian under any circumstances. Vulcanl you make yourself sound like the guy running Iran, a dangerous idiot.
Logged
Vulcanl
Guest
« Reply #49 on: 04 August 2009, 20:08:25 pm »

Well, ladies and gents - what you are basically saying is that 'anything goes' and we can pick can and choose what is right or wrong at will.

It is just not so, and it doesn't matter how many agree with me or not.  The intentional killing of another human being (even those still inside the womb and even those that are evil) is WRONG

The ends do not justify the means. 

To bring the issue back to the front office, falling back on this picking and choosing of what is right and wrong, making decisions that do not rely on a moral code will inevitably lead to the FO's own demise.  This will lead to chaos and the eventual demise of  our current system.  We are already seeing this in the form of more aggressive legislation.
Logged
agree with pripps
Guest
« Reply #50 on: 04 August 2009, 20:31:17 pm »

Youare just showing your stupidity.

It would be immoral for me to use any force needed to stop an idiot going on a killing spree?

What would you do if a knife weilding nutter was stood over your kid.

You know zero about front office, you pretty much said as much, though minor issues like not knowing what you are talking about don't matter, you have however made your decision so that is it.

The other poster was right.  I'm coming to the conclusion you are actually mentaly ill.  Good job you aren't in power anywhere.
Logged
Vulcanl
Guest
« Reply #51 on: 04 August 2009, 21:30:04 pm »

Well as always, we can agree to disagree.  Although Pripps and I don't see eye to on this particular issue I respect the fact that he/she has taken a respectful approach that does not involve insulting others and for that I will pay more attention to what Pripps has to say in the future.
Logged
Vulcanl
Guest
« Reply #52 on: 04 August 2009, 21:33:57 pm »

The below couldn't be more timely.  At least Goldman has sufficient decency to be aware of what could be in store for them if they don't change their ways:

NYPOST.com

August 4, 2009
Posted: 2:55 am
August 4, 2009

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has warned his employess to avoid making big-ticket, high-profile purchases as the gold-plated Wall Street firm hunkers down amid a firestorm of public and political anger over outsize bonus payments.

According to sources at the bank, Blankfein has Goldman in particular, should be toned down in light of the billions in bailout money that banks, including Goldman, have gotten from Uncle Sam.

A source within the bank said Blankfein first began calling for an end to the conspicuous consumption late last year, but has stepped up his campaign in recent weeks as the White House has sought to rein in compensation and as the firm has gotten dinged by a pair of high-profile magazine articles.

"This is a sensitive time for us, and [Blankfein] wants to make sure that we're not being seen living high on the hog," said one Goldman exec.

Indeed, the exec said that senior managers were ordered to tell their staffs that just because Goldman made a record second-quarter profit of $2.3 billion, they shouldn't bank on getting a fat bonus just yet. Blankfein was quoted as reminding staff that bonuses are based on full-year results, and that the year is far from over.

Blankfein's admonishing of workers about profligate spending comes as the firm has been hit with a barrage of negative press lately over its uncanny ability to make money not only in the best of times -- but also the worst.

A Rolling Stone article referred to the firm as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity," while a recent New York magazine piece floated the idea that Goldman benefited from the rescue of troubled insurance giant American International Group.

A spokeswoman declined to comment.

Goldman's speedy recovery in the wake of the global recession and the demise of many of its rivals has drawn more outrage than awe.

Observers question everything from the bank's massive pay to its uncanny ability to serve as a incubator for Washington policymakers. Goldman alumni include former Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin, and Jon Corzine, the current New Jersey governor and former US senator.

Goldman accepted $10 billion in rescue funds from Uncle Sam to help it stay afloat last year amid a crisis of confidence on Wall Street but quickly repaid the money thanks to record revenues.

The Goldman exec said that while Blankfein was cajoling workers to cut back on their spending to avoid negative publicity, he was also playing cheerleader.

In a company-wide voice mail left last week, the CEO assured employees that management is "focused on addressing the negative news and that [Goldman] remains committed to integrity and excellence."

"I know you're all working hard," he added.

mark.decambre@nypost.com
Logged
But
Guest
« Reply #53 on: 04 August 2009, 23:40:31 pm »

the fact remains, whatever you cut and paste, you are still a bit of a nutter.
Logged
also but
Guest
« Reply #54 on: 05 August 2009, 9:19:58 am »

He again fails to answer questions that would prove his view wrong.

Pathetic loser.
Logged
9
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: 05 August 2009, 10:44:40 am »

Some clarification for Vulcan:

People's values define what they want personally, but morals define what the society around those people want for them. Certain behaviors are considered to be desirable by a given society, while others are considered to be undesirable. For the most part, however, morals are not written in stone, or proclaimed by God above, but instead reflect local sensibilities. Different societies have different ideas about what is acceptable and not acceptable. There are only a relative few behaviors (usually including murder, and various forms of abuse, including incest and adult-child sexual contact of any sort) (notice this does not include money grabbing by bankers) that are pretty much universally despised by stable societies.

got it?

Logged
it's not so
Guest
« Reply #56 on: 05 August 2009, 12:23:37 pm »

Vulcanl you need to realise (and quickly) that in the grand scheme of things, your opinions are simply that... your opinions. To intelligent and travelled people, they count for f'all.

Just because you think something is wrong, doesn't make it so.When you make these idiotic statements, you need to preface them with "in my opinion".
Logged
to pp
Guest
« Reply #57 on: 05 August 2009, 12:40:01 pm »

No no no no no.

Vulcans opinion is fact.  Did you not realise he is omnipotent yet?
Logged
Vulcanl
Guest
« Reply #58 on: 06 August 2009, 9:11:46 am »

9,

"...Some clarification for Vulcan:

People's values define what they want personally, but morals define what the society around those people want for them. Certain behaviors are considered to be desirable by a given society, while others are considered to be undesirable. For the most part, however, morals are not written in stone, or proclaimed by God above, but instead reflect local sensibilities. Different societies have different ideas about what is acceptable and not acceptable. There are only a relative few behaviors (usually including murder, and various forms of abuse, including incest and adult-child sexual contact of any sort) (notice this does not include money grabbing by bankers) that are pretty much universally despised by stable societies.

got it?..."

Thanks for your post.  There is room for debate here.  I am doing more 'research' on this and will have more to say on it later.

As far as money-grubbing goes - many innocent's hopes dreams and in some cases lives have been destroyed by the small number of 'experts' who deployed other people's money in reckless fashion to the detriment of us all.  This was clearly evil and I for one am outraged.

You should be too.
Logged
Chick Chick bOOOM
Guest
« Reply #59 on: 06 August 2009, 10:46:09 am »

Pripps,

You are running head-on into a brick wall.  This is not something I have made up.

In the case of the preteen girl, she finds herself in a tragic situation, however killing an unborn human being is still wrong

In the case of the the suicide bomber and the group he belongs to, he and its values are clearly evil.

Morals do not change in either situation!  They never do - this is my point.

 

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter... it's relative
Vulcan, not universal.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 21
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines