Assume Nothing

He didn't explain it at all. Stop crediting the wrong people.

Moral absolutism is the position which holds that certain acts, e.g. stealing is always wrong regardless of context or circumstance. Moral objectivism is the position which holds that whilst morality is independent of opinion/custom, it is not independent of context/circumstance. I'd say moral absolutism, i.e. moral universalization is one of the worse positions, since it would mean that morality in itself becomes trivial (if morality has no bearing on real world consequences, then what is the point?)

What's on second. Who's on first. I don't know's on third.

Banned for not telling me who's on first.

Banned for getting in the way of the lecture that follows. [hide="Brief run-through of posting on the 'You're Banned!' thread]On this thread, the objective is to create responses by posting a ridiculous reason for why someone deserves to get banned from the Tip.it forums. It should be something that's targeted and relevant to the user who has posted above, and it should be discussion-worthy. I'd suggest that it's a good idea to first observe the previous post, and to draw something from the user's post/avatar/name/signature/location/other miscellaneous info. With that, you then post something satirical/witty/sarcastic/otherwise fun from that, e.g. 'Banned for thinking that atheism is a religion.' If you're constantly posting things like 'Banned because the new-president of Kentucky got re-elected' though - then this thread becomes very boring and trivial, which in turn means the thread start dying because it's difficult/useless to respond to posts like that - and it's not even a valid reason for why someone deserves a ban. It's especially so if you're responding at a high-frequency, which I see that you often do. It's sometimes fun to add variety to keep things a little fresh. I personally like to express the alternate facets of my personality on this thread, doing so by incorporating role-play and light-teasing. Given that it's Forum Games, it could delve into anything from a political discussion, to a series of puns, rapping, or whatever that you'd think other people would enjoy. I'd like to briefly clarify that myself, and perhaps many other users on this thread do not appreciate the lack of creativity by your constant spam-esque posts. It's frustrating to the nth degree that you'd never learn from it either. I don't think you've ever fully understood the point of this thread. In summary, just think - 'Does this add anything to the thread, and is it even relevant?' It doesn't have to be relevant, but at least make it targeted towards someone.[/hide]

Banned for appreciating his sentiment.

I've handled food for longer, and not in the way you're thinking either. Restaurants get very busy at times.

I thought it was the people that were truly irksome, not the fries themselves.

>we can't completely eradicate it -> we should do nothing about government waste. >either suck up, or overthrow the government. Definitely non-fallacious reasoning there.

I don't think the question is so much 'is my taxes going back to me' than it is 'is my taxes that I'm paying fair, and does it go towards a good cause?' The problems we have right now is significant government waste - and religiously aligned political parties have a strange tendency to give to inefficient causes like the Churches. EDIT - I'm a little undecided on my personal views for taxation, so I wouldn't comment.

How are you still alive?

Banned for not adhering to my fetishisms. EDIT - I'd either use a mallet, or the back of a cleaver.

Banned for not understanding that I'd have to tenderise the meat first.

Banned for not understanding that it is better to be silent and thought of as a fool, than to speak and remove of doubt of stupidity. EDIT - Oh, taking other people's bans now - here's a personal ban for you, Lokie. You're tied up to a kitchen sink, and I'm cooking pasta. Now, the pasta's almost ready...

I'd tell him that you're doing it to spite him, for kicks.

Banned for testing my patience.

Banned for still under-philosophizing. Please clarify - does a negligible amount of time get counted, or is it discarded? If it gets discarded - where do you draw the line? A plank length, or a nanosecond, or a millisecond, or an hour... etc? EDIT - really? Stop getting in the way.

Definite no. Lokie.

Banned for being under-philosophical. Does being free entail the lack of financial cost, or does it entail the lack of social + monetary costs? If it's the former, it is not impossible - but if it's the latter, it almost certainly is.

I don't want to pull this into too much of a tangent, but how would you guys propose to fix the political issues? One of the problems I see with applicants for posts like these is the fact that none of them are really suited for the job - we're just taking the lesser of the three evils.

Banned for failing to use the expression 'There is no such thing as a free lunch.' EDIT - Banned for getting in the way.

Banned for stating an unintelligible opinion.

Banned for posting unintelligible nonsense.

They're not pro-fundamentalism, are they? Oh, and which taxes do they oppose?

Yes. Nex