US States
NJ Online Casinos
WV Online Casinos
PA Online Casinos
Michigan Online Casinos
Online Casino California
Online Casino Arizona
Online Casino NY
Real Money Casinos
Fastest Payout Casinos
Mobile Casino Apps
New Online Casinos
Casino Payment Methods
Sweepstakes
Sweepstakes apps
No deposit bonus
Daily login bonus
Sweepstakes games
Crown Coins
Funrize
Hello Millions
High 5 Casino
Jackpota Casino
Mcluck
MegaBonanza
PlayFame
Pulsz
RealPrize
Stake.us
Sweepstakes coins
Awards
Search forums
Free Games
Free Blackjack
Free Online Roulette
Free Slots
Bonuses
No Deposit Bonus
Crown Coins Promo Code
Funrize Primo Code
Hello Millions Promo Code
High 5 Casino Promo Code
Jackpota Promo Code
McLuck Promo Code
MegaBonanza Promo Code
Pulsz Promo Code
RealPrize Promo Code
Stake.us Promo Code
Games
Online Slots
Blackjack
Roulette
Poker
CardsChat Freerolls
How to Play Poker
Poker Hands
Poker Strategy
Free Online Poker Game
Poker Bonuses
Poker Tools
Poker Podcast
Poker School
Forum
News
Log in
Join
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Install the app
Install
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
What would YOU do?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="ScottishMatt, post: 2183845, member: 92892"] MediaBLITZ We obviously perceive things differently. I think that by choosing not to "act" we aren't actually taking action. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you could specify further that would be great. Lets say you chose to murder someone but you failed, by your own logic you are therefore a murderer even though you didn't murder anyone, is that correct? In essence your position is that by being passive you are in fact, being active? You know the only time I've heard a similar argument is when religious folks claim that atheism is a religion . . . As for your last section. It would be incorrect to say it was stolen as you have no evidence to suggest that it was (what you really have is a lack of evidence, and basing any claim on a lack of evidence is a mistake). You would be responsible for the loss of it, and therefore you can't justifiably claim any injustice was done to you. Lets get back on track though and actually compare these situations. In the first example, something was [B]given[/B] to you. Regardless of any other factors, you were [B]given[/B] something during an official transaction. It doesn't matter whether you deserve it, or whether the transaction's intent was for you to receive it. It is now in your possession and through no fault of your own. In the second situation, lets assume someone had actually "taken" the phone (we'll use phone in this example). I feel the difference here is paramount, not to mention blatantly obvious to anyone who has the capability to discern the not-so-fine line. Taking something is an "act". If someone decides to do something, and then proceeds to do so. They are then guilty of whatever the act was - in this case stealing. I'm not the most eloquent of debaters and I'm far from good at it so perhaps I'm not the person to get this point across to you. I really don't know how to defend my side of the debate against someone who uses the argument that not doing something is doing something :confused: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
What would YOU do?
Top