Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ScottishMatt, post: 2187375, member: 92892"] It would be the exact same as if they weren't my child. Make a mistake and you are responsible for your errors. Whether it's someone related to me or not I don't give a shit. Sounds to me that insert this emotional process into what should be objective reasoning. As I said, I wouldn't change my opinion even if you switched the positions and say that, perhaps my brother was working in the cage. ****, even if I'm working there I wouldn't change my opinion. If I made an error and lost my job as a result, I can hardly blame it on someone else stealing. I hope you can see just how pathetic that excuse would be? So you can try to switch positions in the hope to sway me from my perspective but the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't change a damn thing regardless of who you place in the scenario. And that is why my opinion holds more weight than those who would alter their's based upon such meaningless factors - like how much the chips are worth. As for the casino v charity scenarios. You seem to misunderstand. It doesn't matter who the money comes from nor why. My reasoning for taking a different option with the charity hypothesis has nothing to do with what is correct. It's the exact same situation, like you said, and I wouldn't hold it against someone who decides to keep the charity money. I can see why the morally egocentric would look down upon someone who would keep the money, I myself would describe it as a dick-ish move. However there is nothing logically wrong with it. I'll go to your level here and take an emotional POV on this. Understand this is completely hyperbolic, but we are talking morality here so scope should have no effect on judgement, unless you are a hypocrite. Let's say Obama has a daughter and she suffers from cancer. His hand accidentally slips on the button and he sets off a chain of nuclear events that destroy all of humanity (what a dick, right!). Well no, his poor daughter was suffering from cancer and we should take it easy on the guy cause it just wasn't his fault . . . (!) . . . You can claim that the casino employee doesn't deserve to lose his job because of some unknown factor. I struggle to think that you [B]wouldn't hold it against[/B] Obama in my example. In the end, people have no claim to a job they are incapable of doing. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us