Ars OpenForum

I can see that as a justification in that there would be more variables to account for it they looked at a larger dataset. But their contention is that shutting down MU caused a sizable sales increase. If they wanted to prove that, why didn't they compare the same time period? I wouldn't compare the number of tickets issued at the end of Feburaury versus the beginning of January and then state that the data shows a trend. That's like saying there are more people who register for license plates at the end of the month versus the beginning of the month.

Click to expand...

They compared a fairly long time span - read the paper.

And most likely the reason they only compared said time span was a lack of availability of a larger data set.

TechGeek":2mtl34xk said:

T Actually morality IS a rationalization. Gigaplex defines how he views the world. Just because his morals don't line up with yours, doesn't mean he is wrong or evil. I could consider you evil and morally wrong because of the way you treat other posters on these forums. That doesn't make me automatically right. You need to get off your high horse and take a wider view of the world, at least IMHO.

Click to expand...

Uhm. Do you even understand the concept of morality? If you define someone as evil per your personal moral system, then yes, they are evil, at least as far as you are concerned. And ergo, I would be perfectly entitled to call them such.

Morality is of course ultimately a semi-arbitrary human construct - there are no natural laws of the universe which describe what "good" and "evil" are, as those are ultimately value judgements.

However, I would tend to argue that certain things are nearly universally percieved as "good" and "bad". Living is good; dying is bad. Having better living conditions is good; having worse ones is bad. Fairness is good, unfairness is bad. Indeed, these are, in all probability, programmed into our genetics - preferring living to dying, better conditions to worse, fairness to unfairness are probably the result of evolution, ultimately.

Therefore, as far as human morality is concerned, a better life, fairness, and being alive are all viewed as positives, while the converse is viewed as negatives.

Thus if someone violates said norms, they can be described as "evil" or "bad". If someone claims to be doing something in support of one of these, but is actually acting in opposition, then they are hypocritical.

The easiest and perhaps most widely accepted definition of evil is "selfishness at undue cost to others". I would argue that almost all humans on the planet earth will see that as evil - there are, of course, exceptions, and people add MORE to their definition of evil, but that thing - selfishness at undue cost to others - IS something that is nearly universally viewed as evil.

Ergo I feel comfortable calling someone who is being selfish at undue cost to others evil, and I feel that most people would agree with that.

Now, most people do not perceive themselves as evil, but it is difficult to argue that evil is not in this world, and that there are not evil people. And most evil is of the banal variety, not of the moustache twirling variety.

Piracy is evil. The purpose is to take that which is not yours without compensating the originator of the work. If you believe in personal property, then this is, in fact, evil.

Its not as evil as putting a Jew in the oven at a concentration camp by a long shot, but that doesn't mean that it isn't bad or wrong.

I feel that I am in the right and my viewpoints arise rationally from a few basic "goods" that are nearly universally perceived as such.