Originally posted by: Heinrich
"Taking the moral high ground" describes a hypocritical situation such as a Christan promoting going to war regardless of the loss of innocent lives and clarity of purpose. Or a politician talking about promoting family values when he himself has been divorced a few times. That's "taking the moral high ground."
I am not "taking the moral high ground". I am describing a process of 'voting with my money' in a more complex way than caring about MYSELF and ME. Try it sometime. I find it rewarding to pay a little extra money at a privately owned restraunt instead of eating at Ruby Tuesdays or Outback.
i was following you till the above ^
i DO care about MYSELF and ME ... that's WHY i got an intel CPU instead of the
inferior AMD offering
i ALSO cared about MYSELF enough to order an AMD HD2900xt today for $320 because there is NOTHING in that price range from nvidia that will touch it performance-wise
and i care SO MUCH about MYSELF i do
all my own gourmet cooking
and this definition is close enough
http://www.colorado.edu/confli.../treatment/moralhg.htm
Soldiers have traditionally recognized that the high ground (a hill or mountain top) provides a significant military advantage. The term "moral high ground" applies the same principled persuasive (rather than military) power. Parties seeking the moral high ground simply refuse to act in ways which are not viewed as legitimate and morally defensible by the larger the society. The most common example is people who refuse to use violence against an opponent. Nonviolent actors generate an enormous amount of sympathy among outsiders, as they clearly are not threatening their opponents (at least not physically). Therefore, any physical force used against them appears to be highly illegitimate and immoral. In addition to generating outside sympathy, by taking the moral high ground, disputants can generate a sense of guilt among their opponents, which will greatly lessen their opponents' effectiveness.
In addition, parties that take the moral high ground protect themselves from efforts of their opponents to use moral arguments to mobilize supporters. The other obvious advantage of pursuing a moral high ground strategy is that it encourages parties to "do the right thing." (This assumes, of course, that the parties are pursuing interests and strategies which are genuinely morally defensible. If a party acts in an immoral way, while pretending that their actions are morally justified, the result is likely to be much less successful.
there is NOTHING about AMD that is "morally better" than intel ... Exxon is no more evil than BP or any OTHER oil company
AMD is not less "reprehensible" than nvidia
it is a COMPANY that make products ... currently an INFERIOR product to intel ... when it makes BETTER products, then it makes sense for ME to support them
i do not want to reward stupidity and incompetence .. and AMD has demonstrated both clearly and obviously in their willingness to lie to their fans and supporters
yet their product HD2900xt IS compelling
to me and i DO want to reward that engineering effort
Facebook
Twitter