quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So being unethical is ok as long as the outcome benefits you? huh??

Now, now, that is not what I said. What I said was that the ethical decision is not always the better decision... how you evaluate better is up to you; however, I would not say that just because it benefits me it is the best decision (as you suggest I was saying). Sometimes doing the unethical thing benefits more people and produces more desirable results then an ethical action would have.

Good example... during the second world war, upon learning of the death camps the ethical decision for the western allies would have been to disrupt the infrastructure supporting the transport of prisoners and supplies to the camps. The consequence of this action would have been the loss of long range bombers either through enemy fire or to the Soviets who would have assumed control of them upon landing at Soviet airfields (the western allies could not make it to the camps and back without landing at Soviet controlled air fields). Because the allies made the unethical decision they retained air superiority during the latter stages of the war and were able to disrupt German war production more effectively then had they lost those long range bombers, which supported the Soviet victory.... in this case the unethical decision was the better of the options.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

So explain to me the ethics of a coalition using the same method in your example. Im interested.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So explain to me the ethics of a coalition using the same method in your example. Im interested.

ethics take a back seat to THE LAW, for starters. ethics is subjective, while the law is more clear. "the coalition is a legal political option" is TRUE. "the coalition is unethical" is subjective and up for debate.

to speak to the example given, if the coalition taking power is somehow deemed "unethical", but is judged (by history, I suppose) to have been the 'better' governing option for Canadians, then the 'unethical' move of the coaltion taking power would have been the greater benefit to Canadians.

it's a case of the ends justifying the means (though I personally do not agree with that Utilitarian philosophy as it allows for significant abuse).

some funny posters.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/litwinenko/3087325219/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/litwinenko/3088373816/

___________________
Deviant Art - Smuncky
My Photos on Flickr
If anyone wants to share their clubbing/nightlife pics go to Toronto Nightlife
"The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car, but eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go.” -Alex Steffen

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan lol wut? you're almost an outcast if you hace conservative morals and values for a long time in canada

conservatism as a political movement.

To each their own as it relates to morals, but its time that the conservatives receive a due pounding.

Harper can't be only guy for the job.

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 To each their own as it relates to morals, but its time that the conservatives receive a due pounding.

But of course. 12 years of flagrant corruption by the provincial AND federal Liberals (provincial less time, to clarify), as well as a corrupt municipal government clearly in kahoots with the provincial Liberals, and the conservatives are due for a pounding. What has Harper's government done that's anywhere close to Adscam or the Gun Registry?

Conservatives don't even have a "movement" in Canada. They're the minority. The only reason they've been able to sustain a minority government in Canada is because the Liberals were so open with their arrogance (remember "I'm entitled to my entitlement?") that citizens could not vote for them again in good conscience - and the NDP just isn't/wasn't a viable option.

People like you would be saying that "Conservatives" need to go even if their entire population consisted of 3 people thinking that we kinda maybe should have lower taxes and government spending.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky some funny posters. ...

LOL @ the "Axis of Weasels". very clever.

(those "home-made signs" by "ordinary pissed-off Canadians" look rather well made to me, haha. FAIL Jay )

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut But of course. 12 years of flagrant corruption by the provincial AND federal Liberals (provincial less time, to clarify), as well as a corrupt municipal government clearly in kahoots with the provincial Liberals, and the conservatives are due for a pounding. What has Harper's government done that's anywhere close to Adscam or the Gun Registry? Conservatives don't even have a "movement" in Canada. They're the minority. The only reason they've been able to sustain a minority government in Canada is because the Liberals were so open with their arrogance (remember "I'm entitled to my entitlement?") that citizens could not vote for them again in good conscience - and the NDP just isn't/wasn't a viable option. People like you would be saying that "Conservatives" need to go even if their entire population consisted of 3 people thinking that we kinda maybe should have lower taxes and government spending.

Yeah I dont even disagree with most of what you said; your tact could use a little polish. A+ on the "people like me comment".

Most liberals or "people like me" who have any political savvy are for the most part not in our glory and have not been for sometime with some of the blunders that have resulted in the ever fading past. However the point was more that recently and for the last little while the libs have been bent over the bench for their mistakes; and only because of very persuasive american style attack ads and good conservative political posturing have the conservatives been able to capitalise.

And as my messages stated previously it seems that the conservatives are well on their way to a pounding.

I'm not entirley sure how and why conservatives always seem to perpetuate the "underdog" image; sure I would agree that conservative doctrines are not the natural persuasion of most Canadians however the fact that the cons have held an origami government for the last while should no less negate your claim that there isnt a conservative movement. There is, it is a cold political breeze that blows far too hard from the west and couldn't knock over even one liberal campaign poster in the east.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut What has Harper's government done that's anywhere close to Adscam or the Gun Registry?

Other than being hypocrites who are selling the public this "attack on democracy" positioning that they themselves were ready to entertain a couple of years back? (hahaha the Bloc aren't dirty separatists or the NDP dirty socialists when they are adding their signatures to a paper monsieur Harper is sending to the GG though, right?)

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT LOL @ the "Axis of Weasels". very clever. (those "home-made signs" by "ordinary pissed-off Canadians" look rather well made to me, haha. FAIL Jay )

I was actually at the protest. Those guys were the only ones with those signs. I figure they must be good graphics artists who spent money at a printer. Compare that to the union made signs everyone was carrying that said that they were part of the 62% majority.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So explain to me the ethics of a coalition using the same method in your example. Im interested.

You'll note that I did state I support the coalition, right? You do understand I was just arguing the validity of the statement itself, right?

What you ask would necessitate a hypothetical answer, which I tend to avoid. History has to be the judge of whether or not a decision was the best one available, as the consequences stemming from decisions of this magnitude cannot be evaluated until years to decades after the fact. It is possible that the coalition succeeding could result in a better outcome then it failing, if it did then history would judge it to be the better of the two options, despite being unethical (unethical in my view because representatives of the people should declare their intentions clearly prior to an election and should have to disclose any material change in their intentions in advance of any action thus allowing those that they represent to ratify it... of course based on my view we have never had an ethical government).

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Conservatives don't even have a "movement" in Canada. They're the minority.

That's a ridiculous statement, as all movements start off as minorities.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down