DaveC426913 said:
These are implications of your claim.
No, they're not; they don't follow at all from anything I've said. They are, however, direct
consequences of your rather splendidly tangential claim that:
DaveC426913 said:
Nope. A person that believes rules only apply when someone's looking is a person that believes rules only apply when someone's looking.
For the life of me, I can't understand how you've decided upon my utter amorality in the course of two posts.
DaveC426913 said:
If you do believe that something is not cheating if you don't get caught, where is the line drawn? You tell me.
For me, the line is drawn wherever I'm comfortable drawing it, just as you draw your own conclusions about it. The general question is, after all, entirely subjective by its very definition.
DaveC426913 said:
So, if it's small enough, it's just too small to fall under the eye of moral conduct?
Of course. If, for instance, you agreed to share a box of chocolates with someone, would you really consider it to be immoral if they ended up thoughtlessly taking one more than you? Would you really check to see if they'd stolen any of your stuff simply because they'd had one more Vanilla Fudge than you?
DaveC426913 said:
So, is one silver spoon small enough, or is it only theft if it's the whole box?
Again, I have no idea why you've chosen to claim I believe depriving someone else of their property is acceptable behaviour.
Indeed, were I a more sensitive soul I might even regard the repeated implications as a personal attack. Thankfully I'm a bit more robust than that, though.
DaveC426913 said:
If I were the only one in this thread that felt this way, you might have a point.
Oh please, now you're appealing to proof by simple majority. This really is becoming silly.