When a bugler breaks into your house, the worst you're going to face is Reveille . . . though on second thought that might be enough to want to shoot him.

I dunno, I'm getting a bit of a charge out of it.

I've not installed from a 3rd party market, but the programs in the market itself have a list of permissions that are required for operation. Nonetheless, I agree with you that the Symbian-style notification on first access would be really useful.

Nah, they grow on trees. The ideas for marketing fall from the sky, silly!

Nah, viruses will blab to anyone they can.

Or rods to hogsheads, at the very least.

Surprisingly, the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god was incapable of saying what he meant when he came down and spoke as Jesus!

See below for my comment about the negative formulation. It is equally flawed.

I don't think I mean anything interesting by "morality". I don't think it is a moral rule at all, and I actually am coming to believe it isn't even a moral "guide" depending on what you want to pack into that. (And, actually, I think we're probably disagreeing about words like "guide" and "rule" rather than "morality".) If by guide you mean something like "a reasonable first test" of an action or something, then that's fine -- that is all that a heuristic is.

The fact that "many religions and philosophies" have presented something as X for thousands of years is hardly evidence for the goodness of the interpretation. Unless you think Jonah was LITERALLY in the whale. . . .

Yes, I'm afraid of anonymous trolls. So afraid.

Look, dipshit, what I said was that it isn't even a moral rule at all -- that it is, at best, a heuristic. You seem to agree with me completely! So I imagine you'll give me an A on my exam. kthxbai

Actually, this doesn't get rid of the problem. Consider: the molester says "I would have you submit to my desires" and the assailant says "I would have you take your medicine."

Uh, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. The golden rule isn't "an eye for an eye" -- that's lex talionis. It isn't a fallacy to give one formulation of the golden rule that is different from yours, since (i) it is a common interpretation and (ii) I acknowledge that it is one among many.

I take it from your "notation" that you think that the golden rule is something like "Do not do unto others as you would prefer them not do to you." That is subject to similar objections. Consider: say I'm a staunch libertarian who never wants help -- ever. I see someone drowning, and I think "well, I could help, but I wouldn't want help. I better go on my way."

I thing logically (to use your expression) and I'm a philosopher. But, in fairness, my lectures aren't "blah blah blah... rules... blah blah blah... rules." They're more "Dit-Dit-Dit Dah-Dah-Dah Dit-Dit-Dit wah wah waah BLAM!"

The golden rule isn't a rule of morality at all, actually. It can be a useful heuristic for teaching empathy, but all of the formulations of it fall apart when confronted with examples.

Consider a basic formulation: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Okay, well suppose I want to be sucker punched by a stranger out of the blue or have my genitals grabbed by a stranger without invitation. That's what I should do to them?

We could continue this all day, but all formulations will have similar structural failings.

Maybe you're being restrained because you don't know that the word is 'disillusioned', genius.

No doubt -- your mom is pretty easy.

[zing!]