I don't doubt your experiencing some kind of bug or issue related to WLID. It's happened before.
But your first post about it in CH was factually incorrect and hugely, unnecessarily, conspiratorial.
And it's not like clearing your cookies to see if that solves the issue is onerous. Heck, you could use private browsing (or (in IE, at least) ctrl+F5, although that's not quite the same).
@giovanni: I suspect that depends on the content providers rules: If their terms say you have to be based in country x then being anywhere else is in breach of their terms.
Morally, if you're paying for it (either up front or via ads) I don't see the problem; I can see how moral quibbles would arise from visiting, say, iPlayer that way though (although you don't actually need a TV license to use catch up within the UK so it's not like you're really depriving them of revenue (beyond increased operational costs)).
No repo here :S
If you're *already* signed in you'll hit a security prompt from your browser (redirect https to http) and I guess, in some circumstances, WL ID may require to re-input your password; but if you're not already logged in none of that should happen:
Try clearing cookies.
I've already said disagreement doesn't equate to subjectivity. Morality cannot be subjective because then it ceases to be morality - that is a logical paradox; in such a case "right" and "wrong" cease to have any meaning.
Subjective morality can be subjective morality. The only thing it can't be is objective morality, but you haven't shown that objective morality exists.
I don't have to. Either objective morality exists or no morality exists. If morality exists then it must by definition be objective since existence is universal. If it does not exist then it simply doesn't exist, nothing need take its place.
The existence, or not, of objective morality has no bearing on the impossibility of subjective morality.
You agree with what? I said that IF morality were objective, then it'd be just be "morality".I didn't agree that the "if" posit was true.
I quite agree that if morality is objective then to specify objective morality as opposed to simply morality would be meaningless. So I agree with your logic. I accept the conclusion you claim flows from my premise (because it does).
What I disagree with is your inference that because we have the word subjective morality this is proof morality must be subjective. I can say 2+2=5; that doesn't make it true.
In fact, I don't believe that objective morality exists. I tend to think unqualified morality is, by definition, subjective morality of the zeitgeist. History shows what was considered "moral" in the past isn't necessarily what is considered moral today and it will be different from what we consider moral tomorrow. That happens because the prevailing attitudes and beliefs change over time.
You make the error of assuming that what someone considers moral and what actually is moral are one and the same. The existence of objective morality doesn't preclude error in determining what is, in fact, moral. The existence of a spherical earth didn't preclude people from erroneously thinking it was flat.
Simply believing that good is good and bad is bad isn't proof of objective morality.
I never claimed it was, I simply claimed that it's an priori proof that subjective morality is impossible:
- Morality is the process of determining good from bad
- The statement that good is good and bad is bad is an objective statement
- Therefore subjective morality can have no concept of good and bad
- Therefore subjective morality cannot exist
Morality can only be what we perceive as morality. How can it be what we don't perceive as morality?
Did photons exist in Newton's day? Of course they did. But how could light be anything other than what Newton perceived it as (a wave)? Turns out there's this thing called "reality".
And if morality is simply what we perceive as morality what about the suicide bomber who truly believes he's doing God's work? I'm sure he perceives what he's doing as very moral; you can only say it's immoral if you invoke objective morality (and if you invoke a lack of any morality you must remain indifferent). Similarly for Hitler and countless other very nasty characters.
Uh, no. My position is that you're no more entitled to your drugs than I am to mine, and what medications that you need are directly related to your lifestyle. You're the one saying that you don't want to fund somebody else having sex all the time. Well, then I don't want to fund your cancer treatment that you might need due to your exposure to chemicals simply because you chose to be in the profession that you work in. See how that works?
Yes. And there are chemicals I would refuse to work with because the risk is greater than I'm willing to take. And, if I lived somewhere were medical insurance was primarily provided by employers as part of their remuneration packaged then that would factor into my thinking when deciding whether or not I should take a job offer. So I'm not asking you to fund my lifestyle.
My position is that nobody is entitled to drugs.
Why do you stop at drugs? If you're entitled to drugs so you can live your lifestyle why aren't you entitled to fast cars so you can live your lifestyle?
As I've in the UK we have the NHS. It turns out, even here, that no one is morally entitled to drugs - decisions are typically made on a public health and cost/benefit basis.
It's laughable that you think "just say no" is a solution.
I'm having trouble grasping your argument here.
The problem is that you're seeing contraception differently than other medications because you see sex as a non-essential lifestyle choice.
You're making up what I think about other medicine in a way that doesn't reflect anything I've said. Although certainly I think people may be more deserving of other medicines in some situations I don't generally think people are morally entitled to them.
(I actually think you could make a distinction here, especially as none of the contraceptives mentioned protect against STIs - it's less like paying for the cancer drugs and more like buying the Big Macs.)
My point is that the bulk of the drugs prescribed in this country are due to non-essential lifestyle choices.
And why should the someone else be required to pay for your lung cancer treatment if you've been smoking all your life?
I'm not taking a position on the moral entitlement of contraceptives.
You seem to be. Do you, or do you not, think people have a moral entitlement to have access to free contraceptives?
I'm just shooting down the reasoning for your objection to treating contraceptives as an entitlement.
Sadly you're shooting down a straw man. I think there are many ways contraceptives are different to many other drugs and treatments but I don't think you're morally entitled to those either.
The original question was about contraceptives simply because many people are claiming that this SCOTUS judgement aggrieves a perceived right and because the employer in question didn't object to (possibly already did?) providing other health care for their employees; I'm trying to understand where people think that entitlement comes from.
There do seem to be people out there who place "entitlement" to contraceptives on a special pedestal above other drugs too, and I want to understand that.
Maybe you'll find this amusing, I did: http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/01/now-that-were-all-responsible-for-each-o/
No. That just distinguishes different definitions of morality, which can't both be simultaneously true, from each other.
It'd be simply "morality".
Yes, I quite agree. Subjective morality can never be morality because it's just some stuff you think and anything anyone else thinks is equally valid; which kind of defeats the object of morality.
Generally, the only people claiming that morality is objective are theists. Non-theists who believe in sort of a "quasi-objective" morality believe that morality is a product of human evolution.
I quite agree, it's hard to have morality without theism (and even with theism the logical justification for the existence of morality ends in quite a cop out). But in this case you cannot have subjective morality because that relies on the objective moral premise that it is wrong to do wrong and right to do right; even if what constitutes right and wrong are subjective.
(For the record morality cannot arise from evolution, only the perception of morality; If you hold that our perception of morality has arisen solely from evolution you must necessarily be philosophically amoral.)