Serial Switching for Rewards. Not good.

System

Katiehound wrote: »

Well original poster does not know what any of us do with our ill gotten switch rewards and gains, so he does not need to tell me that I am 'not a nice person!'

I have already apologised for my accusation earlier in this thread and accepted that the act is immoral, not necessarily the person - like we can accept murder is most often bad, but we know nothing about the murderer so it's unfair to brand them as bad. I have also amended my original post.

Willing2Learn

scgf wrote: »

I have already apologised for my accusation earlier in this thread and accepted that the act is immoral, not necessarily the person - like we can accept murder is most often bad, but we know nothing about the murderer so it's unfair to brand them as bad.

So now you are saying that because I am a serial switcher, then although I am not necessarily a bad person, it does make me immoral, just like a murderer!!!

I think you need to stop digging your hole...

System

Willing2Learn wrote: »

So now you are saying that because I am a serial switcher, then although I am not necessarily a bad person, it does make me immoral, just like a murderer!!!

I think you need to stop digging your hole...

Lol! Another contributor showed me the error of my ways and said that while I can denigrate the actions of a person, I should not cast aspersions on them as a human being because I don't know them - just what they did. I took that to heart and will no longer criticise a person, just what they have done. I stand by that and have no need to dig a hole. Serial switchers have objected to my criticisms of them so I have taken it all back and will continue to criticise their actions. I think that's clearly what they wanted.

londoninvestor

Willing2Learn wrote: »

So now you are saying that because I am a serial switcher, then although I am not necessarily a bad person, it does make me immoral, just like a murderer!!!

I don't think scgf compared you to a murderer... they just compared your actions to murder.

Perhaps serial murder actually, as it's "serial switching" we're talking about...

societys_child

I recently switched and await my £100.


Just started another switch which should net my wife and myself One Hundred British Pounds Each.
If you don't like it . . . Tough, I'm really not interested in your opinion.

System

Oh you are. You're responding to it!

masonic

scgf wrote: »

I have already apologised for my accusation earlier in this thread and accepted that the act is immoral, not necessarily the person - like we can accept murder is most often bad, but we know nothing about the murderer so it's unfair to brand them as bad. I have also amended my original post.

It's only immoral based upon your personal moral standards. As mentioned earlier in the thread morality is not absolute. Morality has its origins in old religious texts and can be very problematic to say the least (many would consider homosexuality to be immoral, but not a husband's physical abuse of his wife).

So moral statements (such as "X is immoral") should never be simply accepted and need to be the product of rationale and discourse.

societys_child

scgf wrote: »

Oh you are. You're responding to it!

No, just pointing out that I don't agree with you, or am I not allowed my opinion . .

Terry_Towelling

Warning - some readers may be upset by the level of twaddle in this post!

So, it is OK to judge a person's actions but not to judge the person by their actions. So how do we define a person if not by their words and deeds? Is 'defining' a person different to 'judging' them? How about 'blame'? Can we blame a person for the actions they take, or are we all blameless too?

Are we simply a collection of organic compounds whose actions are simply the result of the effects of the laws of physics/chemistry (with a bit of quantum randomness thrown in)?

I can see it in court now; 'Honest, your honour, it wasn't my fault. I was just under the influence of the laws of physics/chemistry and quantum theory, just like all other collections of organic compounds - I had no choice'.

To which the judge will respond with a custodial sentence citing the same universal powerlessness.

So, the nature of a person is not the product of their words and deeds; they have no intrinsic nature; they are neither good nor bad; they are simply following the path predetermined by physics and chemistry that started when the elementary particles first got together a few billion years ago.

So, 'switch' as much as you like - it's not your fault!

masonic

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

So, it is OK to judge a person's actions but not to judge the person by their actions. So how do we define a person if not by their words and deeds? Is 'defining' a person different to 'judging' them? How about 'blame'? Can we blame a person for the actions they take, or are we all blameless too?

Continuing the twaddle, one could argue that judgement and blame are immoral activities. A progressive view is that people are a product of their genetics and environment. The concept of free will is also considered by some to be illusory.

So why do we criticise, condemn and punish some actions? Precisely because people are in part the product of their environment, so they can be deterred or, in extreme circumstances prevented, from carrying out such actions in the future. When should this occur? When those actions cause harm to others or themselves, preferably through laws adopted by societies, not individual opinions.