Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2011 21:55:31 GMT -4
Aren't I a native American? I was born in Denver.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 9, 2011 22:34:21 GMT -4
My answer is always that I drive just fast enough.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 9, 2011 22:33:14 GMT -4
Or "you know how it seems warmer than it did before, and there seem to be a lot more hurricanes? Yeah, that's because carbon emissions from our cars and power plants are heating up the Earth and if we don't stop burning fossil fuels right away it will get way worse. In fact it may already be too late."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 7, 2011 18:35:25 GMT -4
fatty, ka9q has demonstrated why the astronauts didn't need to get out their sextants in order to rendezvous with Colombia in #33. Can you point out where he is wrong?
And would it really be "simple" to use a sextant with one of those helmets on?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 7, 2011 14:53:06 GMT -4
I have been consistant in my position as regards the astronuats for years. They lied and participated in a fraud, but that does not make them bad people and their actions in my mind were very understandable. I do not see them in a negative light. If "living and participating in a fraud" doesn't put someone in a negative light then I see no reason to object to people calling you an "alleged doctor."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 7, 2011 11:13:27 GMT -4
For Lunar Orbit, an example of name calling, there are many others. this from randombloke " If you can't understand something as simple as that please leave this board, resign your alleged position as a doctor and go back to high school, where you can join a debate team and start again". That's not especially polite, but I don't see any names there. (Is "alleged" a name?) Really, the way to get along is to back up what you say rather than just make vague handwaves. Pose the question of, "why did the doctors for Apollo do x and y instead of z, which I would have expected?" instead of just a bald opinion that "It's obvious to any medical professional that Apollo was fradulent."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 6, 2011 11:05:23 GMT -4
What would happen if everyone in China got up on a chair of the same height and then jumped down to the ground at the same moment?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 5, 2011 18:02:03 GMT -4
It would seem easier to me to measure harm and benefit objectively rather than good and evil. Even before they can be measured, they must be defined. So how are benefit and harm to be objectively defined? Admittedly not easily in some cases. Possibly the best measure would be whether a person's ability, knowledge, and/or freedom had been increased or decreased by the action in question. To some extent, yes. But green and red are, of course, subjective measures, so that analogy has a serious flaw. An action's morality is dependent in part on the circumstances surrounding it. A person's motive is simply one of those circumstances. Perhaps I should have said "given sufficient time". By accurate predictions of the potential. This may require techniques we have not developed yet. But that was the point of my analogy - that different commands are given at different times because they are dependent on a given audience's ability to comprehend and obey. The objective standard remains the same but what is required of mankind by diety changes with mankind's ability to meet the standard - just as what I require of my daughter will change as her ability to comprehend and obey changes. On the contrary, murder is immoral by definition. Killing, on the other hand, can be either moral or immoral.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 30, 2011 14:16:48 GMT -4
Your analogies suck, Jason! Can it be compared to God commanding someone to destroy a town, kill every male in it, capture the women and loot everything of value? I don't think so. Actually I thought that was a pretty good analogy, and the "flaw" DataCable pointed out is really just a nit. How can a loving father be morally consistent when he gives contradictory advice/commandments? When he's giving it to different people with different capabilities at different times. When is it right to destroy a town, kill every male in it, capture all the women, and loot everything of value? The simple answer is: when the more harm will be done by not destroying a town, etc.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2011 15:19:06 GMT -4
Example: My daughter is almost 14 months old. It is an absolute rule of her world that she cannot open the doors under the kitchen sink to play with the cleaning products stored there. When she is 14 years old, I expect I will encourage her to open the doors under the kitchen sink and use the cleaning products stored there often. I have emphasized the flaw in your example. The actions described at ages 14 months and 14 years are not congruent. Opening the cabinet doors is not the relevant action, but what she does with the cleaning products. I expect you would not encourage, much less require, your 14-year-old daughter to play with cleaning products. Point taken, but the commandment to the 14-month old is indeed "thou shalt not open the cabinet door." Opening the cabinet door is sufficient for me to remove her from the situation - before she even reaches for the cleaning products, which is of course my real reason for forbidding her from opening the cabinet. And the commandment to the 14 year old to do her chores will of necessity contradict the earlier commandment, even if I don't specifically tell her that it has been rescinded.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2011 14:13:24 GMT -4
This definition seems to lead us right back to the original issue: How to objectively measure "benefit" and "harm." It would seem easier to me to measure harm and benefit objectively rather than good and evil. No. But harm to a single bacteria could not be viewed as equal to harm to a human being. I would say that rather than "predictable consequences," would be "motivation." If someone intended to harm others with their action but beneficial consequences were the result, their action could still be described as immoral/evil because of their motivation. We're speaking of an objective reality independent of whether we can actually measure it. But an action cannot be considered in isolation when it results in the loss of an acting agent (and therefore all of their future actions). Lost potential for good or evil by the victim in either case could be used to determine if the action was good or evil.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2011 11:59:40 GMT -4
One of the reasons I do not believe in God (at least the "God" as presented in major religions) is that the moral standard seems to be corrupt. "Seems" might be the most important word in that sentance. Is it the moral standard that changed, or is it what God required of a specific people at a specific time in history that changed when he spoke to another group of people at another point in history? Example: My daughter is almost 14 months old. It is an absolute rule of her world that she cannot open the doors under the kitchen sink to play with the cleaning products stored there. When she does so I forcibly remove her from the area and either give her something else to do or place her in her play pen for a time. When she is 14 years old, I expect I will encourage her to open the doors under the kitchen sink and use the cleaning products stored there often. In fact it may be one of her regular chores to do so, and she may get in trouble if she doesn't. Because I tell her one thing when she is 14 months old and something completely contradictory when she is 14 years old, have my standards of acceptable behavior changed?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2011 15:09:41 GMT -4
An answer would require a clear definition of what distinguishes "good" actions from "evil" actions, which doesn't involve a rote list of examples. Maybe wiggling one's pinky finger in a westerly direction is the most absolutely evil action one can perform, but with no objective metric, the definitions fall back into the realm of arbitrary opinion. It's an old philosophical question, of course. How about "good actions are those actions which produce an absolute net benefit, either to the action-taker or others, whereas evil actions are those which produce an absolute net harm, either to the action-taker or to others?" By "absolute" I mean without regards to time, so if an action only provides its benefits in the far future, hundreds of centuries after it was taken, it is still a beneficial, and therefore good action. I also mean without regard to the recepient's opinion on whether the action and its consequences was ultimately good or evil. By "net" I mean that an action can cause both good and evil consequences, but when taken in total with the evil "subtracted" from the good the final result will be one or the other - good or evil. The possibility exists for an absolutely morally neutral action, and such an action could then not be described as either moral or immoral. I tend to agree. If the morality described is to be truly "objective" then the presence or absence of enforcement is irrelevent.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 27, 2011 17:29:37 GMT -4
At its most basic level: are some actions "wrong" or "evil" and others "right" or "good" regardless of the opinion of any given observer or participant?
On a somewhat more nuanced level: Is some sort of enforcement - society, God, family, or some other agent - required in order for actions to be moral or immoral?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 27, 2011 17:24:11 GMT -4
I think the idea is to prevent existence of whole generations of people who have no connection to the country at all, but who are nonetheless citizens. Specifically to prevent someone who has no real connection to the country of holding its highest executive office. Rather like how congressmen are supposed to be residents of the state they nominally represent.
|
|