Moral Problem: Dune Encyclopedia From UI Library

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-04-28 04:52pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Salm, does it matter that I said I'd pay the fine?

no

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-28 04:52pm

salm wrote:ok, where i come from an egoist is a person who cares only for himself. spanky wants to STEAL a book which other people want to read as well from a library. after stealing the book other people wont be able to read it anymore. what the hell? if that´s not egoistic what else could wanting something so badly that you deny it to others be?

Eh, I guess. But egotism really refers more to the complimenting of intangible traits, such as intelligence, bravery, virtue, etc. I think "hedonistic" is a better term. But whichever you prefer.

btw it´s not an adjective, it´s a noun!

From a semantics point of view, yes. But according to English syntax, the word "egoist" modifies "you" and is modified by "little." Under basic rules of syntax, it can only be an adjective.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-04-28 05:07pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
salm wrote:ok, where i come from an egoist is a person who cares only for himself. spanky wants to STEAL a book which other people want to read as well from a library. after stealing the book other people wont be able to read it anymore. what the hell? if that´s not egoistic what else could wanting something so badly that you deny it to others be?
Eh, I guess. But egotism really refers more to the complimenting of intangible traits, such as intelligence, bravery, virtue, etc. I think "hedonistic" is a better term. But whichever you prefer.

ok, if you say so.
egoism putting oneself into a better postition, no matter what others feel about. your ego is the most important thing for you. that´s the way it´s used here. since i´ve heard a lot of native english speaking folkes use it in the way you used it is looked it up in the dictionary and "egoismus" is translated with "ego(t)ism" and "egoist" with "ego(t)ist".
hedonism has a way too positve ring to use it in this case i think.

btw it´s not an adjective, it´s a noun!
From a semantics point of view, yes. But according to English syntax, the word "egoist" modifies "you" and is modified by "little." Under basic rules of syntax, it can only be an adjective.

semantics? it doesn´t modify "you". it declares "you" an "egoist". or compares the two. it´s clearly a noun.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-28 05:08pm

Don't hijack my thread into a semantics debate.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-04-28 05:21pm

Spanky, just download the book from Kazaa. If you want to physically hold it, you can print it out. That's still rather expensive, but nowhere near the E-Bay price.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-04-28 05:25pm

I recommend that you return the book and find it on the net

The net has just about anything you could ever want

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-28 06:50pm

salm wrote:semantics? it doesn´t modify "you". it declares "you" an "egoist". or compares the two. it´s clearly a noun.

::Shakes his head:: Nope. It's still semantics. "egoist" describes "you," as in "you are a little egoist."

According to the rules of syntax, words like "going," which are normally verbs (as in "He is talking,") are given semantic meanings by context (as in "Talking is a form of communication.") The word is still an action word, and therefore a verb, but in the second example it is treated as a noun. Syntax is an attempt to erradicate those incongruities by looking not at the word and its meaning, but at its placement in the structure of a sentence.

In the original example, "you little egoist" has an implied verb (to be, as in "you are a little egoist"). "You" is the subject. "Are" is the verb. Normally, "a little egoist" would be considered a noun phrase (or NP... and if you really want to get technical, it's an NP -> N'). But because the word "egoist" is comparitive and relates back to "you," it functions as an adjective modifying a noun. For all intents and purposes, therefore, it is an adjective.

Hope that helped.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-04-28 08:10pm

Queeb, look up egoist, it's a noun. The adjective is egotistic.

If you can't be bothered: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=egoist

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-28 08:19pm

Hobot wrote:Queeb, look up egoist, it's a noun. The adjective is egotistic.

If you can't be bothered: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=egoist

You're misunderstanding me. That's the semantic definition. The syntactical definition is different. Here, lemme quote dictionary.com:

<theory> The meaning of a string in some language, as opposed
to syntax which describes how symbols may be combined
independent of their meaning.

I wasn't commenting on what the word Egoist MEANS. I know what it means. It's meaning is semantics. Its USAGE and its RELATIVE MEANING are syntactic.

::Sighs:: But I suppose we're arguing semantics about semantics... which is weird. Let's just drop it, shall we?

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-04-28 08:26pm

But just think about it, by your logic, in the sentence:

"you little pumpkin"

pumpkin would be an adjective!

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-28 09:14pm

Hobot wrote:But just think about it, by your logic, in the sentence:

"you little pumpkin"

pumpkin would be an adjective!

A) It's not MY logic. It's syntax.

B) Yes, you're right. In that case, pumpkin is a syntactic adjective!

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-04-28 11:00pm

Imagine if you were looking for a hard to find book in the library, and you find out that it's been lost (actually stolen), would you be very happy about it? Probably not (I certainly wouldn't be happy about it), so return the book, and keep your eyes open for a cheap copy of the book.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-28 11:12pm

Return it Spanky. It would break my heart to hear it was available then find it was missing. I fully understand your motivations, however.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-29 12:15am

First off, Queeb, Hobit: shut the fuck up and keep your God damn semantics debate out of my bloody thread.

Getting back to the REAL topic of the thread, I have decided to return the book tomorrow.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-04-29 12:27am

Spanky,

Hey, perhaps your library knows of a way for you to get a copy of that book.

XPViking

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-29 01:29am

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Well, considering you'd be paying the fee they're asking for as appropriate compensation, I don't see it as stealing.

You should have gone in and asked how much the fee would be. If it turned out it was way more than what you were willing to pay, just return the thing tomorrow.

In the library where I work, the lost book fee is a flat $50 punitive fee. It doesn't matter if you lose a $15 copy of The Tempest or a $300 engineering text or a priceless 1850 edition of Democracy in America. If your library does the same, then paying the replacement fee wouldn't make it not stealing. At any rate, the point is moot since Spanky's doing the right thing and returning the book.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-04-29 08:18am

*sigh* I'm so glad I don't ever feel bad about victimless crimes. What I would do is return the book. Then I'd steal it while it wasn't checked out to me, so that I wouldn't have to pay the fine.

Problem solved.

Seriously though, I've never had a problem stealing from the library, because they don't make any money. Of course, back in high school I used to steal from Barnes & Noble too, and they do make money.

But I don't recommend that anybody else have my ethical standards. It only works if I'm the only person who steals. Otherwise everything'd go to shit. So all you people, drink milk, stay in school, don't do drugs, and above all else, stop fucking stealing.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-04-29 08:29am

this entire thread is about helping spanky rationalize theft in such a manner as to not feel like the petty thief he will be if he does this. I thought there was a policy stating that discussion of illegal activity would no longer be tolerated here. that being said, Spanky, if you want to be a petty thief take the book. if you don't want to be a petty theif, don't take the book.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-29 09:31am

Crackpot, if you read my post above, you'd see that in the end I have decided to return the book to the Library.

Besides, taking a book from a library isn't agaisnt the law.

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-04-29 09:35am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Okay, earlier this month, I checked out The Dune Encyclopedia from the Main Library of the University of Iowa. As some of you know, this book has been out of print in English for years, and can fetch anywhere from $100-$300+ on places like eBay, and is a pretty rare find in general.

Or you can find it at Amazon.com for $99.99
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

The thing is, the book is due tomorrow, but I REALLY want to keep it. Now, I am willing to pay for the fee of "losing" the book, and my parents don't really have a problem with me doing something like that (my mom once did the same thing for a book from a local public library).

You are apparently okay with being a thief, a parasite that lives off of society because you are too damned lazy to work for it. No you aren't getting any pity from me, I can't believe you actually posted this.

You don't even want to hear what I have to say about your parents.

So, I'm wondering what the general opinion here would be. Should I tell them that I lost the book and pay the fine, return it and try to find it somewhere else, or return it and wait until next term (Fall 2003) to decide what to do?

There shouldn't even be a question in your mind as to what to do, but here you are asking if it is okay to be immoral and steal that book. I seriously suggest you return to the library and research such topics as honor, integrity, and honesty.

Usually the easy thing to do isn't the right thing to do.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-29 09:38am

Damn it, people, read the whole thread before you respond!

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-04-29 09:59am

yeah, i missed that post. sorry. but that doesn't change the fact that you started this thread so you could use the group to rationalize theft! come on man, you're better than that.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-29 10:01am

I had already rationalised it for the most part, Crackpot. I just wanted to see what the opinion of the board was.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-29 10:11am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Salm, does it matter that I said I'd pay the fine?

If I took something you had no intention of selling and gave you money for it would that make it any more acceptable to you? It's still theft and a shitty as hell thing to do. Just buy the damn book legitimately.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-29 10:14am

Storm, I said I AM GOING TO RETURN IT.

Jesus, I'd expect a mod, of all people, to read through a thread before responding...

Am I the only person here that actually does that?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Moral Problem: Dune Encyclopedia From UI Library

What should I do?

Re: Moral Problem: Dune Encyclopedia From UI Library