What to say? Tricky, not to say too much or too little... ...so:I am currently single, previously married and a proud father of two grown-up children. I love life, generosity of spirit and kindness - I hate negativity, bigotry and spitefulness. I love all kinds of fun and funny things but have a serious side too. I like to hear considered opinions even if I do not agree with them, I don't like dogma or following the crowd. My best virtue: I always try to be honest.My worst fault: I can be unnecessarily sarcastic.My worst sin: I smoke.Motto: "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view" If you want to know something - just ask.
Not added any friends yet.
No favourite stories listed.
Not following any authors
It is now fifty years, to the day, since Martin Luther King Jr's famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. Much has changed in the world in those fifty years some good, some not so good.I wonder what he would make of the changes that his life and work helped to bring about, not only in the USA, but throughout the world. I wonder what he would feel that needs a similar dream today.If you had a dream, what would it be?
GOLD!Saved to the happy folder.
I would agree with you that his action is wrong minded and irresponsible to the point of madness. My disagreement with you isn't truly based on your argument, rather it is based on the fact that the op never allowed for a clear distinction between legality and social responsibility. By doing so, he has set up a no win, no correct answer condition in his scenario. This is another reason it was flawed from the start. Under these conditions, no one answer will ever be judged to be correct by everyone. And now we are in total agreement - truth be told this is what I originally overlooked.It would be disingenuous of me to say overlooked deliberately as I didn't really consider the question from any legal standpoint at all.Rather I took the question at 'face value' and therefore my answer reflects my personality/character and not necessarily what was intended. Of course I would maintain that this would not necessarily nullify my point of view (irrespective of how the question is phrased) although it would probably have reduced it to a side issue.I believe with a little extra thought, and approaching the question with a different perspective, I am sure I could make a reasonable case for a different conclusion. But, I'm sure to the relief of many readers, I will stick with my original argument.In the interest of fairness, it may be such questions are deliberately phrased in such a way so as to invite a number of interpretations and thereby provoke a wide range of responses. After all just because I have made a reasonable (in my humble opinion) case for one answer that doesn't preclude the opposite conclusion to be made at least as reasonably.
This is the answer. You seem reluctant to admit it. It's your mythical scenario, you tell me if Agrippa is wrong agrippa seems to be disagreeing with you. If I understand him correctly, he believes that future generations would have title to that wealth, at least morally if not legally. Assuming I've characterized his position correctly, is he wrong? In this, I'd say yes. Morality is a choice, not a duty. Trying to make it so is tyranny . This is well-thought through and has constrained me to consider the scenario afresh. Having done so I find myself in basically the same position as before however I feel I need to qualify further as best I can.I do believe we all collectively (and those yet to be born) have title (in a loose, non-legal sense) to those materials or, more exactly, the good they might engender . I would absolutely shy away from saying there is legal title to the actual wealth that they may bring. This is an important and a not too subtle distinction. If the individual who owned these materials kept them for himself then he would, naturally, be entitled to whatever financial rewards may be available when they are disposed of. If they are inherited by others again the heirs would be similarly entitled.My contention is by acting in a 'dog in the manger' manner and removing these resources from all practical recovery, the individual has stepped outside acceptable behaviour - you may construe my opinion of that action as immoral.However as to foisting my own personal idea of morality on the world is a completely different matter. Nowhere in my posts am I suggesting that at all. I could not and would not trust any one individual person's ethical position as rule of law any more than I would expect my own to be adopted universally. Because I opine that the action is immoral, it does not follow I believe the moral position (as I see it) could or should be enforced.
Dear Kristind,You are too kind my liege lady. I dedicate my humble offering to you. Your obedient servant,Agrippa.
In addition to my earlier post and the response it provoked:It is not only what we (the human race) can achieve with any given material at the moment that is important, but also what future technology may be facilitated by their use. All precious metals have applications over and beyond the value that stems from their rarity in our predominately market driven societies. I expect further uses may be found for them, possibly such further uses may be of tremendous benefit to all man/womankind.Gold, silver, platinum, palladium, osmium (to name a few) all have a myriad of practical applications including, industrial, medicinal, electronic and so on. The intrinsic legal position of 'entitlement' is (to my mind) irrelevant. In my opinion (and I freely acknowledge that it is only an opinion) we are entitled (in a general sense) to expect that one individual cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally decide to deprive the world of the use of such resources - I would encapsulate that concept within the words fair and fairness. I will not be drawn into a discussion over or about semantics. All the words I have used are in common usage, if you don't understand them look them up in a dictionary.Having said all that, I would temper all the above with the observation that Critical Thinking exercises are just that; exercises. I enjoy them for their thought provocation alone - they are, for the most part, hypothetical and are not worth getting one's knickers in a twist about. My answer is not the definitive answer. It isn't the only answer. But it is my answer and it sits well with me both in terms of it's reasoning and with my views of what is fundamentally right and wrong.
//www.youtube.com/embed/GxW3Ed7GrhQ I love the original by Canned Heat, but this is an accomplished R&B/Country re-working by these young and talented musicians.
Small mindedness, intolerance, shallowness, bigotry, selfishness.
I first discovered I liked reading sex stories when I first read a sex story.
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.