Your definition of exploitation does not seem immoral to me. If both parties actually do get a good deal, where is the immorality? How exactly can we have civilization at all without being able to work together?

Morality is an invention of man -- created so that civilization might be possible. If we can't work together and trade our skills with one another without being immoral, then what's the point?



BTW -- what in gods name is, "unequivocal tergiversation"?

it's sort of an oxymoron.

unequivocal means that something is clear and cannot be mistaken.

tergiversation means to be ambiguous, or, to be equivocal (to purposely speak as such with the intent to confuse or mislead someone).

so basically, it's to unequivocally equivocate. :) which is to clearly be ambiguous, as to mislead someone.

damn.

excuse me, allow me to clarify: it IS an oxymoron.

So, was it unintentional obfuscation on your part when you used the expression unequivocal tergiversation? Or were you just attempting to screw with our feeble minds? :)

are you referring to myself, or jag?

jag used it, but i happened to know what those words meant, so i thought i'd explain.

If it was Jag's then it was clearly unintentional obfuscation. :)

WOW. That's a triple oxymoron.

BTW, almost a thousand hits on this post by FreeYourself. Has anyone referenced the subject of the original post in the past few hundred replies? And when was FY last involved in this thread, anyway? :)

wha? You can be clearly ambigious?!
A good example would be america's position on an invasion of tiwan by China - until Shrub stuffed it up anyway.

juju i'm out of itme, ill answer later

it clearly was not clear that it was unequivocal equivocation.

ah fuck it.

yes, i referenced the original topic the other day while talking to jag, dham, and syc...i can't believe this is the urban decay post. jee-zus.

my point was simply to use more complex language to illustrate my point jeni - and i still thin you can be clearly ambigious on something. If i say my opitnion is ambigious, clearly it is, because i stated it, right?
I"m nto getting into another silly arguement lol....

jag, chill out dude. i know you can, and i agree with you :) i was just trying to explain it and it became a silly sort of thing to see how unclear we could be at acting clearly ambiguous about something, or...something :) hehe.

hey by the way every time i try to read your quote out loud i laugh my ass off. i was trying to talk to paul last night while reading the cellar and i kept coming across it. sigh. it's just TOO funny.

masturbate a large word into conversation, even though i don't know what it means. -giggles to herself- ah my.

:P

Yeah Jag, your's is the best tag. Why not crank it up an notch ... and give us a new creative replacement for "masturbate" every once in awhile. I can think of a few:

constipate
fellatio

etc.

*confused...head hurts* Anyway. :)

you and me, we're in this together now...-humming- :)

Hehe... well, this is, quite simply, just the way we are. :]

Are you joking about my sig or serious?



Juju, you must realise I was trying to stir things up a bit, this is how the logic works.

As we've perviously hammered out - all business is exploitative, because it is taking advantage of the needs of others to make money, or, more money than you need(far more ambigious, so i prefer number 1). I think we can safely say exploitation is immoral, therefore busniess is immoral. Of course there is more to it than that but, it is, form an objective sense, an entirely logical train of thought.