^
PhD in Philosophy mate. He looks at words in a different way to people without serious philosophical training. It isn't wordwanking - it's just a deeper and more critical analysis of the very fundamentals of discussion.
( enoughblueskyforsailorstrousers, Mon 22 Dec 2008, 19:12, 2 replies)

Or, to put it another way...
wordwank.

Having a background in mathematical logic I know about getting the fundamentals right - start with the most basic axioms, and work from there.

In pure maths it's fundamental, but there's a time and a place for it. A discussion of financial responsibility doesn't start "first consider right and wrong" any more than proof of the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle doesn't start "consider the empty set".

(Or, to put it another way if you want to have a discussion about "ah, but how do we know it is a fork. Maybe in some other perception system it is money, or a lifeform" then cunt off and stop bothering normal people)
(teebie jeebie, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:17, closed)

But... but... but...
It was you that introduced a baseless claim about ethics (which, I take it, you meant as a claim about rightness).

As for the "other perception"... what the hell are you talking about? Do stop being so silly, eh.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:53, closed)

The shit you talk
It's wrong to lend money to people when you know they can't afford to pay it back and you'll be ruining their lives for the forseeable future.

Could. Not. Be. More Obvious.

Do I need to be using smaller words?
(teebie jeebie, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:00, closed)

No,
but you might consider looking at the bigger picture: why is it wrong? ("Because it is" is not an informative answer.) It's not wrong for a business to make money. The seller sells, the consumer has a choice. Caveat emptor and all that.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:40, closed)

No, you don't.
I'm not even disputing whether or not you're correct. I can't do that until you make a clear, moderately supported claim.

Until then, I guess I'll just keep banging my head against the wall.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:20, closed)

I have to say
I agree. Before I go on, I'd like to make it clear that I owe nothing to any bank. Not a bean.

However, if things are deemed illegal by a bunch of men in suits because doing said thing may but other people at risk, then fractional reserve banking should also, by the same definition be illegal as well.

Because someone may not have the skills/judgement NOT to become indebted to bank financially should not automatically give them [the bank] the right to push them into the ground with unethical practices (such as charging 150 quid for going a quid over an overdraft limit, or taking away an agreed overdraft at a moments notice knowing full well that they will 'offer' a loan to help pay it off at a higher rate etc...).

Yes, responsibility should be taken by the individual, but a greater responsibility should be taken by the bank - particularly as bad, unethical practices may (and have) resulted in tax payers - some of which, like myself have chosen to have nothing to do with their entire industry, having to bail them out when eventually the people they lend to simply cannot afford to live at the same time as paying back their loans.

That is where the individual/state argument came from.
(dchurch bah, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 19:02, closed)

You're still smuggling in the word "unethical"
Are the practices wrong because they led to the need for a bail-out, or would they have been wrong anyway, even without any such need? And, either way, why? (We tend to think that society has a role to help individuals who make silly mistakes - why not companies? And is the help for their sake anyway?)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 24 Dec 2008, 10:30, closed)

Thanks for that.
But it's nothing so fluffy. I just want to be clear about what's being said.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:51, closed)