What would you do?

[acousticsguru]

"a crime isn't a crime unless you get caught".

That is precisely what this is about. Ethics is about what we instinctively know is right or wrong. It's really simple: since the rules won't (cannot feasibly) cover this, there would be no reason to be on the defensive about one's behaviour, unless of course, one knew it's unethical.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[scsuxci]

That is precisely what this is about. Ethics is about what we instinctively know is right or wrong. It's really simple: since the rules won't (cannot feasibly) cover this, there would be no reason to be on the defensive about one's behaviour, unless of course, one knew it's unethical.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

And thats the ballgame!!!I agree with you completely.

 

[risky biz]

. . . shouldn't ever hope for anyone handing them a drink when they're dying of thirst.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Your words. Reprehensible.

 

[risky biz]

Being a true Sportsman has nothing to do with rules but having the moral compass to know that your being as honest and fair like the game was meant to be played like.

It wasn't "meant" to be played that way. That's EXACTLY why the rules of the game AREN'T that way.

You have an esoteric knowledge of how those who wrote the rules "meant" the game to be played even though the rules they wrote specified that it must be played differently than that? How completely silly.

Cripes. Mass psychosis.

 

[risky biz]

Go back and read the OP's original question.He asked if you would shoot a shot you knew would be wrong but since your opponent didn't notice,would you shoot it?Its very simple,it you know its bad and still shoot it,its UN-ethical.If your trying to say its legal cause your opponent didn't realize its a foul is the same mentality as people saying,"a crime isn't a crime unless you get caught".

It isn't "wrong", it isn't "bad", it isn't "unethical" to follow the rules of the game. You're suffering from mental diarrhea.

It's ILLEGAL to commit murder whether someone witnesses it or not. It's LEGAL to roll up against a ball if it isn't frozen and it isn't frozen if it hasn't been called frozen by the opposing player or a referee. You should hold off on the lecturing until you can first perceive the difference between apples and oranges.

Why do you have this bizarre concept that the whole world must adjust to your personal rules that you use when you play every week with the same person or persons that you've been playing with for probably twenty years? There are very good reasons why the rules are the way they are and they don't need to be adjusted for every silly person who says. "Gee. We play this way. Let's change the rules or better yet just ignore them and accuse anyone who plays by the rules "unethical".

Jesus wept.

 

[risky biz]

Thanks for the concession. I'm glad you finally realized that you are wrong

Still talking to yourself?

 

[risky biz]

That is precisely what this is about. Ethics is about what we instinctively know is right or wrong. It's really simple: since the rules won't (cannot feasibly) cover this, there would be no reason to be on the defensive about one's behaviour, unless of course, one knew it's unethical.

The rules cover this very comprehensively and simply. If a ball isn't called frozen it isn't frozen.

You seem to be displaying a neurotic complex when you portray others as being on the defensive. Maybe you unconsciously choose to perceive it that way because you like to think of yourself as being the attacker condemning others. In other words, you have a hostile nature which is essentially unethical. It wouldn't surprise me that a person with this sort of personality would despise any rules other than those they are temporarily able to turn to their own selfish benefit.

 

[scsuxci]

It isn't "wrong", it isn't "bad", it isn't "unethical" to follow the rules of the game. You're suffering from mental diarrhea.

It's ILLEGAL to commit murder whether someone witnesses it or not. It's LEGAL to roll up against a ball if it isn't frozen and it isn't frozen if it hasn't been called frozen by the opposing player or a referee. You should hold off on the lecturing until you can first perceive the difference between apples and oranges.

Why do you have this bizarre concept that the whole world must adjust to your personal rules that you use when you play every week with the same person or persons that you've been playing with for probably twenty years? There are very good reasons why the rules are the way they are and they don't need to be adjusted for every silly person who says. "Gee. We play this way. Let's change the rules or better yet just ignore them and accuse anyone who plays by the rules "unethical".

Jesus wept.

I guess there's no such thing as being a sportsman?Your choice,goodluck

 

[scsuxci]

It wasn't "meant" to be played that way. That's EXACTLY why the rules of the game AREN'T that way.

You have an esoteric knowledge of how those who wrote the rules "meant" the game to be played even though the rules they wrote specified that it must be played differently than that? How completely silly.

Cripes. Mass psychosis.

Now I know your clueless.Did you write the rules?So you believe the rules
are put there Not to be ethical,or sportsman like?Rules are put in every game for the game and thats that.Being a Sportsman has nothing to do with the rules but has everything to do with the individual.Your fighting for something were not even talking about.I'd debate this forever,but
if your against being a Sportsman is your choice but it sure isn't mine!
Goodluck with your choices

 

[Masayoshi]

Still talking to yourself?

I wouldn't consider you to be myself, so no. Geez, you love being wrong, don't you.

 

[TheMarsMan]

It isn't "wrong", it isn't "bad", it isn't "unethical" to follow the rules of the game. You're suffering from mental diarrhea.

It's ILLEGAL to commit murder whether someone witnesses it or not. It's LEGAL to roll up against a ball if it isn't frozen and it isn't frozen if it hasn't been called frozen by the opposing player or a referee. You should hold off on the lecturing until you can first perceive the difference between apples and oranges.

Why do you have this bizarre concept that the whole world must adjust to your personal rules that you use when you play every week with the same person or persons that you've been playing with for probably twenty years? There are very good reasons why the rules are the way they are and they don't need to be adjusted for every silly person who says. "Gee. We play this way. Let's change the rules or better yet just ignore them and accuse anyone who plays by the rules "unethical".

Jesus wept.

It is possible for a ball to be froze to the rail without a referee or opponent calling it frozen.

Whenever I take a close look to see if a ball is frozen or not I always announce it, either way to my opponent. If I call the ball froze and then roll up to it, would it be a foul even though no one else called it froze?

Now if you look at the ball and see that it is frozen, you don't say a word and just roll up to the ball knowing that you fouled. Do you think this is moral because you can get away with it?

Common sense says that a ball can be froze without it ever being called. Calling it froze doesn't change the position of the ball it just announces it to your opponent.

Just for future reference when you see everyone else has a different view than yourself perhaps you should reevaluate your position and realize that you are wrong.

In my opinion your moral compass is pointing South.

 

[risky biz]

It is possible for a ball to be froze to the rail without a referee or opponent calling it frozen.

Whenever I take a close look to see if a ball is frozen or not I always announce it, either way to my opponent. If I call the ball froze and then roll up to it, would it be a foul even though no one else called it froze?

Now if you look at the ball and see that it is frozen, you don't say a word and just roll up to the ball knowing that you fouled. Do you think this is moral because you can get away with it?

Common sense says that a ball can be froze without it ever being called. Calling it froze doesn't change the position of the ball it just announces it to your opponent.

Just for future reference when you see everyone else has a different view than yourself perhaps you should reevaluate your position and realize that you are wrong.

In my opinion your moral compass is pointing South.

There you go folks. According to 'Mars' the rules of pool are immoral.

Don't take it too seriously, though. In this single thread he has already proclaimed twice that he's leaving and not coming basck and he has returned twice, too. I guess that makes him even. Or something like that.

By the way- I've already completely forgotten how he directly contradicted himself on pages 1 & 2. I can't remember that at all. Sounds like exactly who you want advice from about how to read a compass, doesn't it?

 

[risky biz]

Just for future reference when you see everyone else has a different view than yourself perhaps you should reevaluate your position and realize that you are wrong.

This is just one more example of you talking a lot without knowing what you're talking about. A majority of voters in the poll voted "no", which is exactly how I voted.

Just because I wouldn't roll up against that ball doesn't mean I'm dumb enough to call someone else who would "immoral" just because they followed the rules of the game. I would be really stupid, self-centered, and egotistical if I did that.

 

[acousticsguru]

Your words. Reprehensible.

Dude, you know exactly what I was trying to get at there. I could spell it out for you, but that you're trying to insult my intelligence and integrity doesn't mean I need to insult yours now, too, don't I?

The point was, and always has been, what said person is doing to him- or herself! That's why one should expect one's karma to turn against oneself. Like I said, you can try to talk your way out of it, clutching to straws like a little irony or cynicism of mine - although I did get your attention with it, didn't I? Now, unless you concentrate on the heart of the matter, I'm losing interest in this discussion…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[acousticsguru]

The rules cover this very comprehensively and simply. If a ball isn't called frozen it isn't frozen.

You seem to be displaying a neurotic complex when you portray others as being on the defensive. Maybe you unconsciously choose to perceive it that way because you like to think of yourself as being the attacker condemning others. In other words, you have a hostile nature which is essentially unethical. It wouldn't surprise me that a person with this sort of personality would despise any rules other than those they are temporarily able to turn to their own selfish benefit.

Dude, you're calling me hostile? :grin-square:

Of course, what the rules cannot fully contain is the fact that what they're mere guidelines to sportsmanlike behaviour. There are people who take pride in finding loopholes, but because they do, they are the ones who are most aware of what is decent and what isn't. This is why you're defending your attitude. Now, if you think I'm in some way propagating to take advantage of the difference between what the rules say and their meaning, and in doing so, support the idea of taking advantage of other people to the exact extent that won't result in punishment, be my guest and point me to it. But stop trying to outsmart me. You see, the fact that you're trying to insult me is one thing, but to try and tell that I'd do what you're doing, or think along the same lines as the likes of you, heck, that you won't even see the irony of it is flabbergasting…

At its most basic, what you're saying is you need rules because I don't respect other people and will trespass unless explicitly forbidden to do so. That's all right. Human beings are predators, and probably need to be reigned in. But try not to justify your way of thinking by pointing at others.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[acousticsguru]

It wouldn't surprise me that a person with this sort of personality would despise any rules other than those they are temporarily able to turn to their own selfish benefit.

Now since you are trying to outsmart everyone, try this: explain how my interpretation of the rule (calling the ball frozen oneself in the absence of a referee, because one knows it's the proper thing to do) could at all be "turned to one's own selfish benefit". Hyper-curious to hear that one!

Of course, where your interpretation of the rule's benefit resides, we all know, and have already discussed at length…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[TheMarsMan]

There you go folks. According to 'Mars' the rules of pool are immoral.

Don't take it too seriously, though. In this single thread he has already proclaimed twice that he's leaving and not coming basck and he has returned twice, too. I guess that makes him even. Or something like that.

By the way- I've already completely forgotten how he directly contradicted himself on pages 1 & 2. I can't remember that at all. Sounds like exactly who you want advice from about how to read a compass, doesn't it?

I keep thinking that maybe you are worthwhile to try and explain something that you don't seem to understand. In each instance you prove that you are not.

As far as morals I would bet if there was an accurate way of measuring them every one who posted on this thread would be rated much higher than yourself. In fact I would guess that 99% of the people on the entire board would also be higher. Luckily for you there isn't a test to see how little morals you have, but your posts on this forum seem to be a pretty good indicator for anyone who bothers to read your posts.

Just so you might do some good, I will donate $1,000 to any valid Charity you chose if you go away from AZ and never come back.

 

[risky biz]

I keep thinking that maybe you are worthwhile to try and explain something that you don't seem to understand. In each instance you prove that you are not.

As far as morals I would bet if there was an accurate way of measuring them every one who posted on this thread would be rated much higher than yourself. In fact I would guess that 99% of the people on the entire board would also be higher. Luckily for you there isn't a test to see how little morals you have, but your posts on this forum seem to be a pretty good indicator for anyone who bothers to read your posts.

Just so you might do some good, I will donate $1,000 to any valid Charity you chose if you go away from AZ and never come back.

The bottom-feeding 1% on a scale of morals and ethics would be those who call others immoral or unethical for nothing more than following the rules of pool. That's simply glaringly hypocritcal.

 

[risky biz]

The point was, and always has been, what said person is doing to him- or herself! That's why one should expect one's karma to turn against oneself. Like I said, you can try to talk your way out of it, clutching to straws like a little irony or cynicism of mine - although I did get your attention with it, didn't I? Now, unless you concentrate on the heart of the matter, I'm losing interest in this discussion…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

. . . shouldn't ever hope for anyone handing them a drink when they're dying of thirst. After all, according to their own ethics, their concept of survival of the fitter justifies neglect.

No, David, actually a moral and ethical person would gladly offer water to another human being dying of thirst no matter how they perceive the other human being. A moral and ethical person would certainly never even imply watching another human being die of thirst because that person simply followed the rules of pool. You're so beyond the pale with this attitude of yours that it is truly astounding. Morals and ethics 101. Your self-centered mind didn't even grasp this until I mentioned how glaringly unethical it is. Now you're back pedaling at a couple of hundred miles an hour.

 

[acousticsguru]

The bottom-feeding 1% on a scale of morals and ethics would be those who call others immoral or unethical for nothing more than following the rules of pool. That's simply glaringly hypocritcal.

You're still in denial: "To stick to the letter of the law but forget the spirit of it" - that is hypocrisy. To think that the purpose of the corpus juris, or a set of billiards rules, is meant to be dissected looking for loopholes to justify not one's ignorance of what they're meant to convey, but one's very abnegation of what they're meant to convey, that is hypocrisy! Of course I realize I'm not telling you anything new: that you continue to be on the defense says it all. You know.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti