Re: [tlug] Re: is there a real possibility that Sco get what it c laims?

[Raymond Regalado <fwgk5942@example.com>]

On 2004.2.10, at 01:34  PM, Edward Wright wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:25:31PM +0900, Shawn wrote:
>>
>> You, I and all the instructors in the world hopefully agree that "free
>> speech" is _not_ a completely blank page without moral obligations or
>> restrictions.
>
> Who is the man with the wisdom, and from whence is he granted the
> authority, to decide what others can and cannot say; what others
> can and cannot hear.....

I can appreciate your apprehension.  *But* we can not deny that there 
are such things as "moral obligations" in this universe, whether or not 
we all agree about what they are.  If there are no moral obligations in 
this universe, then no one can say that SCO is *wrong* in anything they 
do or say.

> And "moral obligations and restrictions" is a dangerously shifting
> quagmire when used to determine the acceptable actions of others.
> Super-especially if it's governments doing the determining.

On what basis, then, should we "determine the acceptable actions of 
others"?  It's true that we all fail in this area of morality, and 
Hitler and the Nazi's have shown us the horrors that could result when 
governments wrongly determine good and evil.

But, let's not throw away the baby with the bathwater.  We *have* to 
consider morality when we consider legalities.  Law is all about 
*morality* -- the legislation of good and evil, if you will.  The 
problem is that we don't all agree on all the details, and even on an 
*ultimate standard* for morality -- Muslims have their Q'uran, 
Christians have their Bible, atheists have their own personal 
opinions...

> And... this is way OT and I could go on for hours... gomen

Yes, OT.  More appropriate for a philosophy, law theory or theology 
list perhaps, except that morality does affect IT, too!

Kind Regards,

Raymond