Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jarober From: jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 740-9172) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: SUSPEND SYSOPS, NOT STUDENTS Message-ID: <1991Jun20.050524.17458@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> Date: 20 Jun 91 05:05:24 GMT References: <20740@slice.ooc.uva.nl> <20790@slice.ooc.uva.nl> <1991Jun18.033333.27450@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <1991Jun18.174430.12050@dsd.es.com> <1991Jun19.050956.8626@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> Reply-To: jarober@aplcen (DE Robertson james an 740-9172) Organization: Johns Hopkins University Lines: 23 In article jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: > >jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 740-9172) writes: >> From what I have read, you are AMORAL. respassing and violating my right to >> privacy is not an alternate morality, it is the absence of one. Just because >> you know HOW to take an action does not make it ok. > > While I agree that the poster was really naive, you, jarober, are >anything but a philosopher. Certainly, AMORALITY is a sense of right >and wrong - in the sense that you have some ability (whether innate or >beaten into you by others) to verbally and physically state and act >upon a patter of right and wrong with consistency. Now, in your case, >there are certain things which are right (you feel ok doing them) and >certain things which are wrong (you don't feel ok doing them). If I >am AMORAL, then I too have a patter (everything is ok). Now, this man >is not AMORAL, from what I have seen. He just is a lot less uptight >than you. It's like saying that it's ok to know how to rip off the to say the least. I said amoral since he felt it was ok to go sniffing around in other peoples property. Perhaps I flamed a bit too high, but I do wonder where the original poster draws lines. jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu