Originally Posted by Billy Brown
First, the greediness thing isn't my perspective. It is a possible perspective. See that I agree with most of you.
All moral points are nebulous. That's exactly what I was saying. There is no objective basis on which we can clarify them. That's why a 75 year man who has plenty of "common sense" and experience in the world will have a completely different moral position than another 75 year old man. I was exaggerating the greediness thing to make a point. But from many perspectives, concern with material possessions (whatever they may be, including trails) instead of human life and obligation to other humans is "greed." That is pretty conventional.
My post does have a conclusion. You are insulting someone who is trying to learn from you. He vacillitates on his position, because he is trying to incorporate what you are saying. I don't care that you insult. Just pick on someone your own size.
I find your assessment of what is and is not greed to be somewhat off kilter and not conventional in the least.
As for a insulting someone who is "trying to learn from [me]" I don't buy that for a minute. Perhaps you are correct in that the tone should have been kept a bit more civil however, we are on a MB here and, until it is exposed, we do not know, and cannot tell, the age or intellect of the people who are posting with us. Therefore, we have to treat each poster as though they can handle the argument/discussion in which they find themselves lest we insult them by talking down to them (many posters whose first language is not English may appear to sound unintelligent when, in fact, they are simply struggling through a second language.)
You appear to have chose a "moral high-ground" on this issue because it puts you somewhat in the minority therefore allowing you to argue without disagreeing upon the primary issue at hand; interesting tact.