Microsoft Break-up Broken

Microsoft Won't Be Broken Up is an Associated Press story (thanks Adrenaline Vault) with the news that there will be no further follow-up to the anti-trust-related break up of Microsoft ordered last year (story) that was subsequently reversed by an appeals court (story) which vacated the breakup order "on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the remedial order." According the new report, "The Bush administration, reversing the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft, told the software manufacturer Thursday it no longer seeks to have the company broken up. The department also said it will not pursue the bundling issues in its protracted antitrust suit against the software giant."
View : : :
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 7.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older
54.
 
Re: Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 12:51
anon@207.2
54.
Re: Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 12:51
Sep 7, 2001, 12:51
anon@207.2
 
by your definition, USA wouldn't be a capitalist state either. The Right of Imminent Domain makes everything owned by the state if it so desires.
53.
 
Capitalism
Sep 7, 2001, 12:34
53.
Capitalism Sep 7, 2001, 12:34
Sep 7, 2001, 12:34
 
"Someone compared Marx with Hitler...

Blahahahaha... Sniff.. HAhahahahahaha...

Fact: Despite the name of the Nazi party Hitler's Germany was in fact capitalist in nature. What's Ironic is that at the time Nazi's and American's had much more in common than any other Allied power. Basically Hitler took power under a certain ideal and then changed the whole damn system. Do your homework Capitalist."


First, no, that isn't a fact. I've done far more homework than you have; you're relaying propaganda.

Second, I wasn't comparing; however Marx was far more evil than Hitler: Marx makes Hitlers and Stalins possible. Ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler mirrors Marx. They were both collectivists, they were both statists, they were both altruists. No coincidence that Hitler killed a lot of people, and Marx' philosophy has killed a frightening number of people (hundreds of millions over the 20th century).

Statism means the concentration of power in the state (political leadership), at the expense of liberty. Kant, Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Hegel, Mao, Lenin, Mussolini, etc. all share the same philosophical principles, collectivism, statism, altruism. Care to do the math on their combined death toll? If you are unwilling to accept reason: then just look at the results. America in its 225 year history has yet to have a dictator, a king, etc. It is the aspect of capitalism (the only political system compatible with freedom) present in America that has made that possible; as capitalism gets removed, it becomes more and more likely that a fascist leadership will develop in America.

If you want a more specific comparison: USA & the KKK, vs Germany & the Nazis; capitalism made it impossible for the KKK to seize actual power (it gave men like Martin Luther King, JR an opportunity to defeat the ideology of the KKK) - the lack of capitalism in Germany made it easy for the Nazis to seize power, by merely chanting some vague promise (more space, more whatever).


Communism is unjust in practice because it is unjust in theory. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"; that is unjust and evil in theory, and so it is unjust and evil in practice. The USSR didn't fail because they didn't practice communism purely; it failed because if it had, there would be noone left to practice it, i.e. communism to be pure must kill everyone (because it is a system of sacrifice, and the ultimate sacrifice to make is your own life).

Fascism, nazism, socialism, communism are merely flavors of same philosophy: irrationalism. They all sacrifice human lives on the "public good" altar (the real meaning of that phrase, is the good of some at the expense of others; i.e. that it is ok to violate the rights of some people, and those some are defined by the gang in power - for the communists it was the burgeois specifically, and everyone in general).


No, Nazi Germany wasn't capitalistic (not even close); a capitalistic system has never existed, only 'mixed' systems have. Capitalism is a social (political) system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Capitalism is a system that holds there are only individual rights (not 'collective rights'); Nazism is a political system that denies individual rights (and holds that some individuals have the right to violate the rights of other individuals); thus they can't both exist at the same time, that alone proves you wrong, but I'll go further. The Nazi party controlled all aspects of life (including economy); thus it wasn't capitalistic. As Friedrich Sieburg (a Nazi writer) stated: "There are to be no more private Germans," this is contradictory to capitalism, again you're wrong. Or to quote Robert Ley, another member of the Nazi leadership "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fullfillment in this service." "The only person who is still a private individual in Germany, is somebody who is asleep." Again, this is contradictory to capitalism.

The Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production (they allowed pretend ownership, which wasn't ownership, because the State still held absolute control); thus it wasn't capitalistic (private ownership of the means of production is essential to capitalism, it cannot exist without such). The Nazis demanded that the government run the economy; Nazis held legal ownership to be irrelevant, what they declared is their right to control the property and the ownership. The Nazis held that one could 'hold' property, but that The Party had the right to do with it as it pleased; thus it wasn't capitalistic. Under nazism, collective ownership is de facto, under communism collective ownership is de jure; neither are compatible with capitalism.

In Germany, the Food Estate, the Estate of Trade and Industry, and the Labor Front, took control of the economy. This again proves Nazi Germany wasn't even remotely capitalistic. All prices, wages, and interest rates were fixed by the central authority. The Nazis worked hard to keep an appearance of a free market, they completely failed however. Businessmen retained the responsibility of production, but gained none of the benefits. The State determined the purpose and conditions of the production, and reaped the benefits of it (the benefits were put toward destruction). In one form or another, the State expropriated all profit; this is anti-capitalistic. Germany had so many controls, directives, taxes, welfare organizations and fees, special provisions, economic policies, compensations, reliefs, freezes etc. that it is quite ridiculous that you could even bring your mind to think it was capitalistic in any sense; you either lack knowledge, or are mentally deranged.


Or better, I'll let Hitler prove me right, that Germany was not capitalistic:

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our socialism goes far deeper."

"The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

Or to quote Goebbels: "To be a socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole." There certainly is no doubt that fascism, communism, nazism, socialism have sacrificed hundreds of millions of individuals to the 'whole' the 'total' the 'collective.'

Also, notice that Hitler states "possessions" (i.e. property) as being outworn; that is, his philosophy is anti-capitalist down to the root. When Hitler says the right to property is outworn, he is saying freedom is outworn.


---


"Yes, Germany has produced some of the most evil men in history, but I'm not sure why you rank Immanuel Kant up there with Hitler."


Because Immanuel Kant (and to a lesser degree, Hegel) made Marx, Hitler, Stalin, etc. possible (they were the philosophic products of Kant). Kant's philosophy swept through Europe like a disease; and Europe exploded with two massive wars. Europe was a mess on philosophic principle; and the philosophic principles that dominated the 20th century were that of Immanuel Kant (and his philosophy remains popular; pragmatism is an Americanized version of Kant's philosophy).

Capitalism for the relatively short period it was being spread produced the longest period of world peace in modern history, from the end of the Napoleonic wars, to the beginning of WW1 (roughly 100 years), at which point the statist regimes (which had been gaining power) exploded into conflict.

Kant, Marx, Hitler all share the same philosophical foundation: that humans are there to be sacrificed (and no coincidence, that is what has been achieved when their philosophies have been put into practice). Kant provided the philosophic foundation, Marx applied it to the political realm, and Hitler, Stalin etc. put it into action.

Immanuel Kant is the man that undercut most of the last remnants of reason that existed in Europe (left over from the Renaissance); his philosophy helped produce the most irrational political systems ever devised. Kant's goal was to save the philosophy of self-sacrifice - and he did.

Kant created the philosophy of social subjectivism; that is, if the 'collective' or 'group' wants it to be so, it is so; if the group wills it to be, it will be; if the collective wants there to be no absolutes, there are none; etc. Previously, individual subjectivism had existed, that stated if one desires it to be so, it is so (regardless of whether it breaks the law of identity or not); Kant took that and applied it to the group. Marx taught a form of social subjectivism, on the basis of 'class struggle,' the Nazis took social subjectivism and applied it to race.

This is why the social subjectivists always fall back to "the greater good" or the "public good" or the "good of the greatest number," because they believe if one wants to make the impossible possible, the best shot at it is to get the greatest number of people to 'will' it into existence.

No amount of 'willing' will break the law of identity however; reality cannot be conned.

52.
 
Re: Just to add something
Sep 7, 2001, 12:25
52.
Re: Just to add something Sep 7, 2001, 12:25
Sep 7, 2001, 12:25
 
You know what would happen if one chose not to be a part of the government? One would go to prison.

Also, #49, before gas taxes, road building and inter-city transportation were big business.

51.
 
Re: Money Uberalles
Sep 7, 2001, 11:53
anon@62.49
51.
Re: Money Uberalles Sep 7, 2001, 11:53
Sep 7, 2001, 11:53
anon@62.49
 
Another example of the power of MS over common sense.

I work in IT ( a small software house ). Our product is a multi-user real-time order entry system that has been running happerly on Unix/Linux for x number of years, however in the last 5 years almost every new site wants our system on NT. Why do people want NT over Unix/Linux?
Because it's a multi-user op/sys - it is NOT a multi-user op/sys ( it's a multitasking op/sys (it's not even a good one) - there is a difference)
Because it's faster - no it's not
Because it uses less memory - no it doesn't ( not even close )
because takes less disk space - no it doesn't
Because it's more stable - don't make me laugh
Because it's cheaper - Cheaper than Linux, that will the day.
Because they need to link to other MS apps - Not a problem we can do that from Unix/Linux we have the technogy
Because it's Microsoft - Yep

I'm not complaining too much, our system runs on NT with no code changes thanks to langauge will use ( a 4gl ) but supporting it is a real pain.

----
Dante
I'll take the red pill anyday, along with a couple of Prozac
50.
 
Re: Money Uberalles
Sep 7, 2001, 11:33
anon@62.49
50.
Re: Money Uberalles Sep 7, 2001, 11:33
Sep 7, 2001, 11:33
anon@62.49
 
That is the power of MS. It's not going to go away even if the company gets broken into smaller chunks.
I hate it ( I'm a programmer for a small software house )
The only way to beat MS is not to try and make any money/profit ( OpenSource and Linux etc ).
doesn't feed the kids though
MS have tried and failed to kill off open stuff before, just read the story of OpenGL. A great idea MS didn't like because they didn't have total control. Hence DirectX. Very soon now DirectX will catch up with the features of OpenGL but it will never been as upto date because card manufactures can't write optimised drivers for their own cards to work with DirectX ?.? the way they can for OpenGL.
Write a graphic engine/routine in OpenGL it should run with little or no chances on MS/Mac/Linux, write it in DirectX and it will run on MS.
So why did MS go with DirectX? because they bought the company that wrote the original version and have complete control over it.
Why not stick with OpenGL the way they planned to in the early days on of NT? because it was "OPEN" and they could never have total control.
Which is better? try for yourself, I did OpenGL was fun, fast and easy. DirectX wasn't.

In summary, it's not just Money MS wants it total control ( off what is anyone's guess, today the PC market, tomorrow the world )
----
Dante
I'll take the red pill anyday, along with a couple of Prozac
49.
 
Just to add something
Sep 7, 2001, 10:51
49.
Just to add something Sep 7, 2001, 10:51
Sep 7, 2001, 10:51
 
The force of the gov. to "steal" our money as it's put it is something we as a democracy imposed on ourselves. If alot of people siad we need a road here in anarchy and decided to build it out of their pockets. What about the people who will use the road but they don't have to pay? You could ask them nicely but if some minority knows they don't need to help fund something to get it done they'll chose not to fund it. So the majority forms a gov. for the fairness of everyone to get things done. They say if you want to be a part of what we are then you'll have to contribute. These days there are no examples of a gov. free society so we have forgotten why it's there and control is so distant that we can't relate to what it does so we feel bullied into doing stuff by a gov. we can't realistically just chose not to be a part of.

48.
 
Re: This is good.
Sep 7, 2001, 10:50
48.
Re: This is good. Sep 7, 2001, 10:50
Sep 7, 2001, 10:50
 
"I think that statement embodies a lot of what's wrong with money-based philosophy. An economy should exist for the benefit of everyone, not for individuals."

Following the point #44 touched on, this kind of system was strictly enforced in China and the former Soviet Union. It's called Communsim and as history has repeatedly demonstrated, it doesn't work very well.

Would #42 go so far as to force hard-working individuals to share their earnings with their neighbors, as he apparently would force (successful) businesses do?

47.
 
Money Uberalles
Sep 7, 2001, 10:31
anon@158.252
47.
Money Uberalles Sep 7, 2001, 10:31
Sep 7, 2001, 10:31
anon@158.252
 
Let's say I'm a small software developer. I come out with an innovative new product that looks like it might prove popular.
What does Microsoft do to "compete?"
They put out a press release announcing their upcoming version of a product that is very similar to mine.
Can you guess what happens to the investors I was hoping to attract in order to raise capital to produce and market my product?
Any guesses?
They vanish. They vanish because no one wants to go up against a company with the power and predatory practices of a Microsoft. They'd get killed in the market---NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE PRODUCT WAS.
Then, once my investors have vanished, does Microsoft release their product?
No. It never existed. It was vaporware. Its only purpose was to scare potential investors away from me.
Now, if they so choose, they can buy the rights to my invention from me, at a pittance of what it might have been worth.
Hey, aint the "free" market grand?
46.
 
Re: This is good.
Sep 7, 2001, 08:46
Bronco
 
46.
Re: This is good. Sep 7, 2001, 08:46
Sep 7, 2001, 08:46
 Bronco
 
I'm not attempting to judge you here, but...

Don't be afraid to judge. That type of a hedge is whats wrong with our society today. Besides I enjoy discussing these issues in a rational manner, which you appear to do as well.

I don't think it's proper to have a system which benefits those on whom fate smiles, with a small amount trickling down to the rest.

I agree that some people seem to 'luck' into their sucess however, many of the very sucessfull people in our society work very very hard, much harder than those that would be considered unsucessfull.

In my field of business our company is considered among the best at what we do. This has more to do with my partner and I working 80 hour six day weeks to suceed. For that reason I don't consider the system 'smiling' on me.

People don't mind screwing each other over, as long as they can "rationalize" it with "I have to take care of #1"/"I worked hard, I deserve it"/"Survival of the fittest."

There are businesses that take a predatory stance towards their competition. No amount of legislation will make that go away. If anything legislation will only make these companies go underground and hide it better than before. I don't go to work each day thinking 'how can I put the screws to my competitors'.

This is the curse of prosperity: A subtle and deeply-rooted selfishness develops in people; the virtues of humility, humbleness, and self sacrifice are washed away, and concern for the well-being of others takes a back seat.

Speaking for myself I have to say no. My family gives a good deal of our yearly income to the charities that WE choose. My wife does volunteer work at a local school. It really rubs me the wrong way when people think that my money should be given to the government to hand out because they know who needs it most. It''s obvious that these people also think that only democrats know who needs the money.

Competitive nature is part of our humanity as far as I'm concerned.



Snappy2Stroke

--It is a far,far better thing that I do,than I have ever done;it is a far,far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
45.
 
Capitalist pigs?
Sep 7, 2001, 08:46
45.
Capitalist pigs? Sep 7, 2001, 08:46
Sep 7, 2001, 08:46
 
Quit bitching about 'the power of the greedy cutthroat corporations.' MS is't stifling anything, its just that the majority of computer users dont need or want another operating system because MS provides the best. If another OS came out that was better for a wider consumer crowd, guess what? The market would take it and MS would have to compete for ITS business. Thats how it works. Also, monopoly is an incorrect term to use concerning MS because there are other commercial OS providers. (BTW, im not defending MS, just trying to clarify the way the market works for some of you.)

"Funny how a little change in the regime can make the law even more "bendable" than it already is.
Making money is not a magic excuse for anything. "

Funny how the government can just go after a corporation because it deems it too powerful.

This comment was edited on Sep 7, 08:50.
44.
 
Bullshit ! well said
Sep 7, 2001, 02:01
anon@64.231
44.
Bullshit ! well said Sep 7, 2001, 02:01
Sep 7, 2001, 02:01
anon@64.231
 
pUtting a cap on success is basically a communist idea, just like... we should all profit. Sure we should; and we would if business was left to it's own devices.

If people can not , or are not rewarded for what they do, there is no reason to do it. Money is the general reward in our culture for doing things, for creating things, in short ...for making a product or suppying a service that people desire. The more you try to regulate the terms to which people, or corporations can succeed, the more you tie their hands from innovating. Ethics exsist in business as they do in all dimensions of human life...BUT , what ethical standards exactly is Microsoft breaking?
Same people who complain probably NEVER steal artists music using Napster Clones... NEVER used copied games...
43.
 
Well said!
Sep 7, 2001, 01:16
anon@158.252
43.
Well said! Sep 7, 2001, 01:16
Sep 7, 2001, 01:16
anon@158.252
 
42 is exactly right. It is annoying how people can think all they have to do is chant the magic phrase "The only purpose of a business is to make money," and somehow all the ethical issues involved in doing so are mysteriously melted away.
I don't care how much money you make, I don't care how big your business is, if you f--k over other people or society in general to earn your dough, that is morally wrong, period. All the cash in the world can't change that.
Even if the law is on your side, it is still wrong, and before the Bush corporation was appointed to run the White House, the law WASN'T on Microsoft's side. Funny how a little change in the regime can make the law even more "bendable" than it already is.
Making money is not a magic excuse for anything.
42.
 
Re: This is good.
Sep 7, 2001, 00:50
anon@134.197
42.
Re: This is good. Sep 7, 2001, 00:50
Sep 7, 2001, 00:50
anon@134.197
 
"Businesses exist to make money for their owners period. I'll admit that there are people that aren't in it for the money. I've worked directly with the owners of five companies in very different industries. I now own a business. The industry I'm in serves a very important need in regards to public health. I can tell you that I don't go to work each day to be the slave of the people. I go to work to make money. Now indirectly the work I do protects the environment and protects the public welfare but that's really not the reason I do it."

I'm not attempting to judge you here, but...

I think that statement embodies a lot of what's wrong with money-based philosophy. An economy should exist for the benefit of everyone, not for individuals.

I don't think it's proper to have a system which benefits those on whom fate smiles, with a small amount trickling down to the rest. It's too Darwinistic (which is the way things work, but IMHO, is something that humanity has the power to overcome.)

Ray is somewhat correct. People don't mind screwing each other over, as long as they can "rationalize" it with "I have to take care of #1"/"I worked hard, I deserve it"/"Survival of the fittest."

This is the curse of prosperity: A subtle and deeply-rooted selfishness develops in people; the virtues of humility, humbleness, and self sacrifice are washed away, and concern for the well-being of others takes a back seat.
41.
 
Re: Microsoft etc.
Sep 7, 2001, 00:36
41.
Re: Microsoft etc. Sep 7, 2001, 00:36
Sep 7, 2001, 00:36
 
GIVE ME MY XBOX OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!

UHH...MY GAMECUBE, TOO!!!!!!1



Way late for work :|,
Ray

------------------------------------
It's a me, Mario!
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/
I love you, mom.
Avatar 2647
40.
 
Microsoft...bah!
Sep 6, 2001, 23:36
40.
Microsoft...bah! Sep 6, 2001, 23:36
Sep 6, 2001, 23:36
 
Hell, maybe my fiancee was right this entire time. Bill Gates is the anti-christ. You are probably wondering where the proof is, eh? Well...he has more money than you can count, more power than most, and currently holds a monopoly on not just the OS market, but many others as well. I knew it was a bad thing when Microsoft decided to start grabbing hold of all those game companies, and firing all of their employees. Face it folks...if the X-Box is anything compared to Windows, save your $$ and put it into something decent (like rent, or groceries). I've got a really bad feeling about this...

39.
 
It doesnt matter
Sep 6, 2001, 22:24
anon@64.167
39.
It doesnt matter Sep 6, 2001, 22:24
Sep 6, 2001, 22:24
anon@64.167
 
Well think of what would have happened it the law suit followed through? Microsoft would still be the #1 os company and software company. Anyway, no use debating if thens and if nots, I was reading other people's posts, and you guys really got into it. But in the end, it is a waste of time. that is why I keep mine short. if you can't beat them join them, I am investing into microsoft in 2 weeks, too profit of another massive mircosoft product, the xbox. Prepare for the biggest console ever to be released, and for it to break every record, because we all know, it will.
38.
 
God bless Micro$oft!
Sep 6, 2001, 21:55
anon@158.252
38.
God bless Micro$oft! Sep 6, 2001, 21:55
Sep 6, 2001, 21:55
anon@158.252
 
I just want to say that microsoft embodies the american dream …
As long as the “american dream" includes using your monopoly powers to crush smaller competitors by keeping their products out of the "free" market (even--or especially--when their products are better than yours) then pouring enough money into the two-headed single party system til the more conservative of those two heads takes power and lets you off scott free ...
You say you have a computer-related product that is an improvement over what microsoft does? Might as well just sign all your rights over to them now, or just throw your product in the trash
37.
 
Re: Microsoft etc.
Sep 6, 2001, 21:44
anon@209.42
37.
Re: Microsoft etc. Sep 6, 2001, 21:44
Sep 6, 2001, 21:44
anon@209.42
 
Chill out Ray, it's obvious #29 is the man, Bill Gates himself, posting anon like I, Steve Jobs am inclined to do in this case. Didn't you know we read Blues too?

Anyhoo, it's obvious that MS has influenced SOMEONE into thinking that Judge Jackson was biased in his interviews with the press. He is a Supreme Court Justice, a venerated man, and has a staunch reputation for being completely and utterly UNBIASED. He is quite possibly the best mediator the DOJ and "we, the people" could have had leading this trial.

Either way regardless, to take the case from the Supreme Court back down to the lesser judiciaries is ludicrous, and just isn't done in a monopoly anti-trust case as big as this one. I can't beleive they got away with it. It just made me fall out of my chair in utter disbelief.

The pundits will speak up, just don't expect to see it on MSNBC or NBC for that matter. I predict the mainstream media response will be lukewarm at best, leaving NPR as the most entertaining venue this weekend.

The days of the "big corporation new world order" are here. Is this a bad cliche? a sad reality? Moot point, whatever it is called, it is upon us without a doubt. Now let's all figure out how we can simultaneously dethrone them and maintain our morals and ethics in the meantime...

...as I blow the dust off my trusty slide rule...

36.
 
Re: This is good.
Sep 6, 2001, 21:39
Bronco
 
36.
Re: This is good. Sep 6, 2001, 21:39
Sep 6, 2001, 21:39
 Bronco
 
If you put things in perspective, business is meant to serve the good of the people. If anything, business should be a slave to our good will, not the other way around. Business should help us, instead of us helping business out (under the pretense that it returns to us indirectly.)

I can't say I agree with this statement. Businesses exist to make money for their owners period. I'll admit that there are people that aren't in it for the money. I've worked directly with the owners of five companies in very different industries. I now own a business. The industry I'm in serves a very important need in regards to public health. I can tell you that I don't go to work each day to be the slave of the people. I go to work to make money. Now indirectly the work I do protects the environment and protects the public welfare but that's really not the reason I do it.


Snappy2Stroke

--It is a far,far better thing that I do,than I have ever done;it is a far,far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
35.
 
Re: Microsoft etc.
Sep 6, 2001, 21:08
35.
Re: Microsoft etc. Sep 6, 2001, 21:08
Sep 6, 2001, 21:08
 
TROEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!111111

He, he, he...

I said that I will try to avoid one-sided comments. As in, I was trying to not just say "MICROSOFT SU><ORZ!!111" or "GOVERMENT IS FOR NOOBS!111111." I view either of those views as being rather ignorant.

You took the liberty of repeating part of what I typed. Why don't you go read what I typed; I'll wait for you. <tapping fingers on my desk as I wait> Ok, good. Can you find *anywhere* in what I typed the word "argument(s)?" I sure can't, yet you state "You say you will try to avoid one-sided arguments..." You then further the "arguments" subject by asking if I will avoid a "correct" argument.

While I can't attest for your definition of "correct," I have found that I do have opinions on matters ("arguments" if you will) and I generally try to explore/share/further them. I'm not sure what a question based upon something that I did not say has to do with any of this, though. ^_^

I guess that I will just have to take your "middle of the roaders" comment. I'm not particurlarly fond of extremes; I tend to find them, well, extreme. Examples of such extremes would be Microsoft killing (in a very physical sense) anybody who opposes them or Microsoft being *immediately* shut down because they might have done something wrong.

Yes, in general, I believe that there should be punishments for breaking laws and regulations. Ideally, we would all be happy, sweet people with one another, but that doesn't seem to be the norm. As such, I believe that it is generally important that we, as a whole, have regulations/laws/codes of conduct, punishment(s) for breaking these, and a constant observation of them (to watch for inequalities, outdate standards, ones that are incorrect, et cetera). I do believe that I have previously stated this idea...

I won't disagree with you that the law(s) may be vague, wrong, outdated, et cetera. Again, going back to my original post and the new comments in this post, I believe that we, a whole, should constantly watch these things. I would note that many (all? ^_^) laws can be vague. After all, we are a country that tries to be run by some old parchment...

Finally, I go back to <drum roll> my original post. I think there is a lot more to life than humanity generally sees. We spend a lot of time...I would say screwing each other over. However, it's all basically for naught when we croak (naturally or via other means). I find it sad/frustrating that it has been so hard for use to just be nice and fair with each other. No, I am no better or worse than a great many people with regards to this.

Biting away; always a sucker :o,
Ray

------------------------------------
It's a me, Mario!
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/
I love you, mom.
Avatar 2647
174 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 7.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Older