Foxy, Bronwyn, CJ, Davidf,
It appears that I am missing two or three screens of this topic can any of you bring me up to speed on how economics and Baroness has anything to do with the question of the efficacy of stealing.

Col is a dedicated accountant and as such it is understandable that he want’s to have all topics ultimately related to financial/economics clearly his perceived area of expertise. I see no real reason to doubt that but the relevance alludes me.

Out side of a few ideologically bent individuals she has/will sink into the background noise to be rightfully forgotten “as just another right extremist” that had their day in the sun at the expense of others then were deposed for the good of the country.

Seriously, I know of no Philosophy, Economics, and Sociology or Ethics course in any university that teaches/advocates her practices/ ideology etc.
One might as well quote Sir Harry Gibb, William Hughes, Lionel Murphy or Andrew Fisher for all the relevance they offer to the topic.

Societies were there before current failed economics ideologies (We are in a financial crisis which was the making of that system) and will be around after.
Oh yes ethical topics like the one we were discussing will still have resonance.

I note with some mild interest that having accepted an apology I am now being vilified and used as example of what? So much for accepting an apology. Apparently it means nothing.
At the time I thought I may have been unfair to Col because of up until then he appeared to be toning his act down and answering him on past actions may discourage his attempt to be reasonable. But no he simply moves his target. Bronwyn is right too much effort is wasted on someone so bitter that all his fun comes in abusive conflict

Come on guys, give the man a chance.
He took my teasing, and my ditty, rather well I thought.
It shows that he does have a sense of humour.
He came right back at me with what I thought was a
rather clever retort. So I've got to give credit,
where credit's due.

As for Maggie Thatcher - leave her alone.
That's Col's passion - and the Lady is beyond
reproach in his eyes. Each of us has our own passions,
that we'd be upset if anything derogatory was said.

Col,

No I don't want to go another round with you.
There's no need. You've matched me pretty well!
It was well played!

Just reading through these posts and the way people justify themselves is pitiful to to say the least. Scriptures assessment of all being corrupt is highlighted even in the 'nice' posters. The sad part is that many don't believe they are corrupt. And to think we are all commenting on a moral issue. Maybe we need to distinguish between being mostly honest (which I am sure most are) and corruptible which we all are. Thank God for the only incorruptible One.

Dear runner,

You must have a sense of humour - surely?

I'm sure God does. He created us didn't he?

Anyway, as Oscar Wilde said,

"I can resist everything, but temptation!"

And, temptation was given to us for a reason,
as was our conscience.
I think it's called choice.

Foxy I appreciate not going another round either and I also appreciate your comments on my behalf.

And yes accountants do have a sense of humour,

We also make the best lovers

- We have to have something to think about all day when we are at work (wink)

To Examinator “he (me) want’s to have all topics ultimately related to financial/economics”

Not at all, I did not push this thread into that arena.

My posts were confined to the matter of Pelicans ethical issues in dealing with stealing,

It was others who pushed in the direction of finance/economics and I merely responded to their “pushes” in the manner,

“when push comes to shove, I shove back.”

Especially when someone tries to award themselves a free kick at my expense or more importantly the expense of my chosen profession and then I feel entitled to shove and when I shove it is always without regard to any “proportional response”.

Foxy “I'm sure God does.” (have a sense of humour)

You bet. I refer you to the Hole Bible

Genesis 1:27 (King James version of course… none of that republican modernist stuff)

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

And he has been laughing ever since.

But from that, I am not sure what he used for the female…. One is tempted to postulate, his mother…and then we are back to chickens and eggs.

I am sure the feminists would suggest the male was merely an early prototype, upgraded by the model fashioned from Adams rib.

But I will resist going to places where I should not venture on a “venerable” thread, such as this, devoted solely to the serious matters in hand.

Bronwyn, a friend recommended the same movie. I am planning to see it soon. I would imagine stealing in this situation is more than justified and any discussions of ethics (by the well-fed middle classes) grossly overrated and irrelevant from that perspective.

Good poitns by CJ and Stg
ie. that the concept really lies within 'ethics' rather than justification. We can all justify actions in our own mind, but are the actions ethical. Ethics is a complex topic and (as per Wikipedia) is more than just the analyzing of right and wrong.

Thanks all for your comments.