View Single Post
  #9  
Old August 29th 10, 02:15 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 28, 10:40*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/27/2010 9:06 AM, Robert Myers wrote:





On Aug 26, 9:51 pm, Yousuf *wrote:
On 26/08/2010 10:29 AM, Robert Myers wrote:


On Aug 26, 1:07 am, Yousuf * *wrote:
So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of
the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily?


The eighth commandment, as Lutherans and RC's count, is "Thou shalt
not bear false witness against thy neighbor." *If you are going to
accuse someone of something, you'd best have God-like certainty of
your standing to do so.


Ah, I see, so even scripture isn't above your spin-doctoring? That
commandment is quite obviously about committing perjury, and you've
turned it into "only god can know what went on"? Sorry god will never
take the witness stand, but trials are somehow still conducted and
verdicts rendered.


E-mail me privately, and I will show you the catechism. *It isn't
about only God can know what went on. *It's about defaming others
falsely, something you do regularly.


Circular logic, I corrected you by saying it's about perjury and you
agree with it, without admitting it. Is that your consent decree?


http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm

"The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our
relations with others."

Nothing about swearing. Nothing about perjury. We have not
agreed. You have said that Intel was "found guilty." It wasn't.
You have misrepresented the truth regarding Intel.

Luther's Small Catechism goes much further in interpreting the Eighth
Commandment as condemning the kind of behavior you regularly
indulge. I'm sure I could find something similar in the Institutes
of Religion (Calvin), with which I am much less familiar.

None of this has anything to do with circular logic. You set yourself
up as a moral judge, made false statements regarding Intel, and thus
condemned yourself.

You could plausibly argue that scripture and its normative
interpreters are no longer relevant to a discussion of moral
discourse, but that would be your only recourse.

Robert.