On 16/05/06, Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna / blurgle.ca> wrote:
>
> On 16-May-06, at 9:51 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
>
> > On 16/05/06, Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna / blurgle.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On 15-May-06, at 8:14 PM, Elliot Temple wrote:
> >
> >> > The harm there is that he would die sooner than he would if he were
> >> > left un-murdered. He loses that amount of his life. But the thing
> >> > is, who is harmed in the hypothetical case I described?
> >
> >> The publisher, and as a result, the author; by not getting the money
> >> for the book.
> >
> >
> > The argument was that wasn't going to get that money *anyway*.
> > If you're going to compare actions to murder, at least try to pay
> > attention :)
>
> You'll note if you had been paying attention that I wasn't comparing
> those actions to murder, I was comparing the *THOUGHT PROCESS* to
> reach his conclusion that it wasn't harming anyone. Try to keep up.

Fair point.
Sorry if I sounded snappy, but I don't think it's helpful to be using
emotive examples when .people are already wound up.

-- 
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/