What's new
By:
Filters

Mach-IV Machiavellianism Question 1: ThereOne should take action only when sure it is morally right.

One should take action only when sure it is morally right.

  • Disagree

    Votes: 4 66.7%

  • Slightly Disagree

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • Nuetral

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Slightly agree

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • AGREE

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    6
Holy ****, dude. You couldn't even copy and paste that **** in proper English.

Leave this to those who know the language, brotha. No offense. Oh yeah, and it's question two. We did a question yesterday.
 
Last edited:
where's the link, or the poll?

I've run into at least one admirer of Machiavelli in here who thinks M is much abused in popular rhetoric, that he was really just a cool dude with a neat idea of how to avoid wars.

Personally, I don't consider M's methods honorable under any circumstances. The public might be morons in need of good management, but anyone who wants to manage the people is the wrong kind of person to be making public policy.

Note to Soros, Gates and whoever Rockefeller, and the House of Windsor: this means YOU.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Holy ****, dude. You couldn't even copy and paste that **** in proper English.

Leave this ideato those who know the language, brotha. No offense. Oh yeah, and it's question two. We did a question yesterday.
Click to expand...

ideato? Do you even english?
 
I am going to go with no. I will throw out "legally right".
 
Stoked said:
I am going to go with no. I will throw out "legally right".
Click to expand...

But how "no", completely no or slightly no?

I am also no, but only slightly. I think it should be taken into account in one's actions, but should not preclude necessary action.
 
Pretty sure I voted disagree for this, or maybe slightly disagree if I was hedging my bets. There are tons of actions which don't have moral implications* so if you followed this rule you'd be paralyzed.


*or where you can't be sure of the moral rectitude of either option
 
So do I but I feel like you two aren't reading the heart of the question. The operative word is only. And I strongly disagree that we should only take action when something is morally right. Whatever that means. I don't think Dutch even replicated the question correctly. Anyway, yeah, I disagree. To start, morality is not so black and white...
 
So do I but I feel like you two aren't reading the heart of the question. The operative word is only. And I strongly disagree that we should only take action when something is morally right. Whatever that means. I don't think Dutch even replicated the question correctly. Anyway, yeah, I disagree. To start, morality is not so black and white...more importantly, do each of you only pursue endeavors which are moral in essence? Do you ever just go out to have a good time? Or maybe take it a step further...Drink too much? Watch porn? And are those acts even immoral?
 
Disagree. If hell exists for immoral things I have done or thought about doing I have guaranteed huge pot of tar reserved for me.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
So do I but I feel like you two aren't reading the heart of the question. The operative word is only. And I strongly disagree that we should only take action when something is morally right. Whatever that means. I don't think Dutch even replicated the question correctly. Anyway, yeah, I disagree. To start, morality is not so black and white...more importantly, do each of you only pursue endeavors which are moral in essence? Do you ever just go out to have a good time? Or maybe take it a step further...Drink too much? Watch porn? And are those acts even immoral?
Click to expand...

well morality is pretty simply!
 
LogGrad98 said:
But how "no", completely no or slightly no?

I am also no, but only slightly. I think it should be taken into account in one's actions, but should not preclude necessary action.
Click to expand...

In the context of the question I completely disagree. It is framed as all or nothing. "Only when"

Not to mention that whole morality debate. Morally right according to who?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top