This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Winy
Pages: 1 ... 878889 9091 ... 106
2641
« on: September 27, 2015, 09:47:29 PM »
The ad is probably meant to simulate ONI propaganda, this video's contents likely take place during the course of Halo 5's campaign; they're lying to the public and saying he's dead instead of explaining what's actually happened.
Chief obviously isn't going to die.
But the one detail is that the date thay said was 2560 not 2558 when we know Guardians takes place exactly 2 years just about to the day in fact, Is this just a mistake or are 343 hinting at something?
Maybe there's a time-skip in the game?
2642
« on: September 27, 2015, 09:44:53 PM »
Obviously she meant that they just love memes.
Are you guys retarded?
2643
« on: September 27, 2015, 09:43:34 PM »
The ad is probably meant to simulate ONI propaganda, this video's contents likely take place during the course of Halo 5's campaign; they're lying to the public and saying he's dead instead of explaining what's actually happened.
Chief obviously isn't going to die.
2644
« on: September 27, 2015, 08:25:36 PM »
hopefully something promising about water
It is, read the abstract.
ooh, sounds good, i was hoping more on the confirmation of finding actual water, but this is good, too
Well, I mean, we've known water was on Mars for a long time, this is just confirmation that it actually does saturate the ground as the seasons change. There's flow of the water because of its salinity, which lowers it freezing temperature.
2645
« on: September 27, 2015, 08:22:37 PM »
In about forty-five minutes (10:00 PM EST), there will be a Lunar eclipse. Part of Earth's shadow is already covering a good chunk of the Moon. Really rare event, because it's happening the same time as a "Super Moon" (When the Moon is at its perigee, so closest to the Earth), and it looks pretty damn awesome. Go check it out!
2646
« on: September 27, 2015, 07:19:54 PM »
Film > Music > Video games > Everything else > Pornography > Watching paint dry > Sports
I've tried so hard to get into watching sports. I can't do it. Going to shoot around with friends at the basketball court? Awesome. Watching a basketball game? I'd rather bottle my own farts.
2647
« on: September 27, 2015, 07:17:14 PM »
The food has already been made, there's nothing you can do from an ethical standpoint. There's no good in throwing it out, and in the position you've found yourself in, it's probably the most sensible to just eat it.
2648
« on: September 27, 2015, 07:15:07 PM »
Music. I thrive off of it.
2649
« on: September 27, 2015, 06:55:26 PM »
Ew
2650
« on: September 27, 2015, 06:49:58 PM »
I like most whitefish, crab (Sometimes, depending on the type of dish), and shrimp, but I'm not a fan of lobster.
2651
« on: September 27, 2015, 06:27:39 PM »
If only
2652
« on: September 27, 2015, 06:12:24 PM »
hopefully something promising about water
It is, read the abstract.
2653
« on: September 27, 2015, 06:09:15 PM »
The scientists involved in this announcement are mostly geologists. Nobody should be getting their hopes up, because it's not aliens. They probably found further evidence solidifying the presence of liquid water on Mars in the past, or greater concentrations of subsurface water than they previously thought. Like every major discovery in this field, the public isn't really going to care and, if they do, it will be for maybe a week.
Geologists you say?
Well I deffo will be. Clear evidence for water on Mars currently makes any manned mission to it slightly easier.
And if there's subsurface water (like there had been hypothesised for the last few years), it gives chance of life underground albeit bacteria or single celled organisms.
Guess the announcement came early: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC2015/EPSC2015-838-1.pdfIt is actually quite exciting; confirmation of modern-day salt water flow on Mars. I remember reading about subsurface seasonal flowing a couple months back, but I don't remember them saying anything about the nature of the water itself. Here we have it.
2654
« on: September 27, 2015, 04:46:24 PM »
I too watch Vsauce
I wasn't aware there's a Vsauce video about the library of Babel. We used it in one of my stats classes as an example of discrete infinite random variables.
It's his latest video, "Messages from the Future". The one video I decided to skip on <_<
Why?
>22 minutes
Not "skip" as in never ever watch, I mean... I saw it in my subscriptions, and I was like, "Oh, shit, I can't watch this right now."
I thought you meant it as "I've watched every Vsauce video, but this one? No, no way."
2655
« on: September 27, 2015, 04:31:17 PM »
I too watch Vsauce
I wasn't aware there's a Vsauce video about the library of Babel. We used it in one of my stats classes as an example of discrete infinite random variables.
It's his latest video, "Messages from the Future". The one video I decided to skip on <_<
Why?
2656
« on: September 27, 2015, 04:08:05 PM »
MyNameIsCharlie
No actually
Yes, I've caught you.
2657
« on: September 27, 2015, 04:04:12 PM »
MyNameIsCharlie
2658
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:50:23 PM »
So far all you have established is why one option is morally superior, but that's not why we're talking. It kind of was. We're talking because you made the claim that the decision to kill them is unacceptable. You did not substantiate anything that justifies when a decision that is morally inferior becomes unacceptable other than through popularity. That I've needed to repeat myself so often is part of the reason why I no longer want to have this discussion with you. When the chance of a beneficial outcome greatly outweighs the chance of a negative one, that decision becomes favorable. When the chance of a negative outcome greatly outweighs the chance of a beneficial outcome, it becomes unfavorable. We have already established that there is no concrete scale on which this decision can be perfectly weighed- There is no finite line that can be referenced, there is no percentage that can be measured. You must use logic, mathematics, and intuition to make an informed decision in such a situation. It is a flawed system that, as I've stated, requires a degree of arbitration; like everything anyone, including you, ever does (A concept you've quietly ignored every single time I've brought it up). "Will the puppies go to a good home if I give them to a shelter?" "Yes, very likely." Then you do it. Simple. I cannot fathom how you've made this concept so needlessly contrived.
2659
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:24:02 PM »
That boils down to "this is unacceptable because the majority of people think it is". Which is a purely toxic mentality.
I think I'm going to pass on respecting a judgement that garners its authority from being commonplace rather than being rational. My siding with the decision isn't because most people share that view; it's because of the mathematics involved in considering what will most likely happen given the situation. I referenced its popularity because I wanted to establish that it would seem most people share this mentality, contrasting your unique view of the situation. Stop pandering to yourself and acting like there isn't any logical rhyme or reason to what I'm telling you. Choosing on a constraint that involves chance isn't automatically made irrational because of its partial arbitration. You make decisions with this constraint every day, and yet you don't seem to be bothered in the slightest.
2660
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:18:27 PM »
I'm gonna gloss over the physical defects point though, mostly because that is something I'd rather not get worked up over at 1am. I'll just say this, don't lump physical and mental handicaps in together for christ's sake.
I'm talking extreme cases.
I really shouldn't but go on, I'll bite.
How extreme are we talking? And any mental comorbid conditions? or just straight up extreme physical?
Detaaaaaaaaaaaaails.
Surgery can sort out two of those cases with relative ease, the middle of the three images isn't clear what the ailment is. Someone born with extra limbs or a parasitic twin isn't doomed to a miserable life courtesy of modern surgical expertise.
There are very few physical conditions that would warrant abortion of an otherwise healthy foetus. Even the ones that previously could have been used as a point here are generally treatable today.
I didn't research anything beyond "Horrible birth deformities," because the point I'm trying to get across doesn't need anything to be acknowledged other than that the deformities I'm referencing are either unable to be fixed, or suggest an incredibly high chance of a major loss in quality of life. The fact that the images I chose didn't meet those parameters was just bad luck, because I know nothing about what any of the children involved here suffered from. If it meets those qualifications, though, then I would abort it.
That would be part of my point in general then, when looking at this sort of issue it doesn't really pay to make examples with no real basis because all it does it make a nice shiny polished hypothetical that has no sway in the real world.
That's the point of this discussion to me. I'm not concerned with real-world applications to this issue. I'm arguing from a principle standpoint assuming these methods exist, because that expresses adequately my view on the subject.
Alrighty well have fun with that then, hypotheticals in this vein struggle to hold any value to me. Especially ones that simply don't translate into the real world, nor will they ever.
We'll see
2661
« on: September 27, 2015, 01:42:37 PM »
but the same dynamic exists between raising them himself and the shelter. the shelter is obviously morally inferior because it needlessly consumes the shelter's resources when the man could raise the dogs himself.
yet, you do not say that the shelter is an unacceptable option, even though it is morally inferior to other alternatives. Shelters exist for the purpose of overseeing dogs until they are given to owners, or they need to be euthanized. It's not wrong to "Dump" them into their hands; those people do so willingly. They don't have to work at an animal shelter, it's their job. Just because raising the puppies is the most selfless and moral act of the bunch, doesn't mean it's equidistant in terms of moral value as the difference between giving them to a shelter, and killing them. Raising the puppies —— Giving them to a Shelter ————————————————————————- Killing them (Where the line is a hypothetical moral spectrum) a double standard exists here, either you have to recognize that it is unacceptable to dump them on a shelter, and that he ought to raise them himself, or you say that giving them a quick painless death is an acceptable solution. There isn't a double standard here, because one option being inferior to another does not make it "Unacceptable" until it crosses that partially-arbitrary threshold into "This is the wrong thing to do, given the circumstances." In this situation, to me, and I would certainly imagine to the vast majority of people put in the man's situation, killing them when you could give them to a shelter crosses that threshold.
2662
« on: September 27, 2015, 01:04:14 PM »
Then why is it acceptable to dump the responsibility of the pups on a shelter, meaning resources that could be utilized elsewhere have to be allocated to them, when instead the man could opt to raise the pups himself. Why isn't dumping them on a shelter a not acceptable choice in comparison to that just as killing them is apparently not an acceptable choice in comparison to the shelter? The man opting to raise the pups himself would be great, but sending them to a shelter, where they will most likely be picked up and loved by a family, is also nice. Both of those options are fine to me, assuming the man raised them well, which I can't know for sure. So shelter > Other options So you are saying that the man's action in this situation were objectively wrong given the circumstances? Because when you say that something is "not acceptable", that implies that there is a sense of authority on the matter that the man defied. I'm not going to repeat myself again. The "personal" assessment is where you draw the line of what is acceptable probability. Obviously, if there were a 50/50 chance of a negative result, your consideration of that action is drastically altered. But where does that begin? Surely you also wouldn't be so eager to take a 40/60 split, or even a 25/75 split. Where then do we draw the line? The truth is that is a personal assessment one has to make in relation to their values. That personal assessment, because it relies on your values, cannot be rationally applied to other party's who may not share your values. You clearly have an very outlandish view on what would qualify as a high-enough chance to consider the option viable, in comparison to vast majority of people put in the same situation. I've made apparent that there is no formal, concrete "Scale" on which you can place the hypothetically "Perfect" weight on the morality of one choice versus another. Literally everything you ever do could cause a butterfly effect and end up horribly mangling someone and ruining their lie. The chance that the puppies would end up in an abusive home is small. Very small. So small that I, and the majority of people, would not even consider that options while sending them to an animal shelter. You do. I don't understand why you have such a unique method of mentally weighing options, but that's your own choice. If there were a game of chance where it was a 999/1000 chance of winning a billion bucks, but included a 1/1000 chance of instead having your legs chopped off with a rusty spoon, you could make that decision all you want for yourself, afterall, it's most likely to produce a positive result is it not? But most sensible people will realize that that is not a decision you should be making for other parties. Puppies can't make decisions about this, and we know the situation's possible outcomes infinitely better than they do. I was making that conclusion off the assumption that the unlikely negative outcome does not happen, which should at least favor your side. Both scenarios eliminate suffering. You don't like giving straightforward answers, do you? Anyway, I'm done with this.
2663
« on: September 27, 2015, 12:49:15 PM »
I'm gonna gloss over the physical defects point though, mostly because that is something I'd rather not get worked up over at 1am. I'll just say this, don't lump physical and mental handicaps in together for christ's sake.
I'm talking extreme cases.
I really shouldn't but go on, I'll bite.
How extreme are we talking? And any mental comorbid conditions? or just straight up extreme physical?
Detaaaaaaaaaaaaails.
Surgery can sort out two of those cases with relative ease, the middle of the three images isn't clear what the ailment is. Someone born with extra limbs or a parasitic twin isn't doomed to a miserable life courtesy of modern surgical expertise.
There are very few physical conditions that would warrant abortion of an otherwise healthy foetus. Even the ones that previously could have been used as a point here are generally treatable today.
I didn't research anything beyond "Horrible birth deformities," because the point I'm trying to get across doesn't need anything to be acknowledged other than that the deformities I'm referencing are either unable to be fixed, or suggest an incredibly high chance of a major loss in quality of life. The fact that the images I chose didn't meet those parameters was just bad luck, because I know nothing about what any of the children involved here suffered from. If it meets those qualifications, though, then I would abort it.
That would be part of my point in general then, when looking at this sort of issue it doesn't really pay to make examples with no real basis because all it does it make a nice shiny polished hypothetical that has no sway in the real world.
That's the point of this discussion to me. I'm not concerned with real-world applications to this issue. I'm arguing from a principle standpoint assuming these methods exist, because that expresses adequately my view on the subject.
2664
« on: September 27, 2015, 11:17:32 AM »
Just as it's morally acceptable to dump the responsibilities of the pups onto a shelter rather than taking care of them himself, the fact that something isn't "as moral as can possibly be" does not make it an immoral choice or not acceptable. It does make it not acceptable when there are options that express a greater sense of morality. I don't understand where the confusion is here. but I'm not the one claiming that one action is objectively wrong while another is not based on a personal assessment of risk. You are using subjective values to conclude objective morality. I have yet to use the word "Objectively" throughout this entire argument. I never stated shooting the puppies was "Objectively wrong," there are circumstances where that would be the best course of action. This is not one of them. I'm not making a "Personal" assessment of the risks involved, I'm being logically sensible. The statistical certainties you're asking for do not exist, and I acknowledge that. But through consensus and study, you can suggest which outcome will have a greater chance of beneficial results. I would care about this argument on your end if this was something more controversial and uncertain, but it isn't. This is a case where one option is quite clearly better than the other. I can't say definitively which is the right choice which was my stance from the very beginning of the topic. I can however assert that both choices solve the problem and (minus the circumstances of external harm done by the depressed persons death to loved ones, because that isn't present in the pup situation) don't cause anyone harm.
Stop saying "Both solve the problem" as if you know what's going to happen; you're doing precisely what I asked you not to do while answering the question. The point of the question is that you have no foresight into the future other than your intuition and reasoning. Pick an option. Shoot the depressed person, or help them out of the rut.
2665
« on: September 27, 2015, 11:12:18 AM »
I'm gonna gloss over the physical defects point though, mostly because that is something I'd rather not get worked up over at 1am. I'll just say this, don't lump physical and mental handicaps in together for christ's sake.
I'm talking extreme cases.
I really shouldn't but go on, I'll bite.
How extreme are we talking? And any mental comorbid conditions? or just straight up extreme physical?
Detaaaaaaaaaaaaails.
Surgery can sort out two of those cases with relative ease, the middle of the three images isn't clear what the ailment is. Someone born with extra limbs or a parasitic twin isn't doomed to a miserable life courtesy of modern surgical expertise.
There are very few physical conditions that would warrant abortion of an otherwise healthy foetus. Even the ones that previously could have been used as a point here are generally treatable today.
I didn't research anything beyond "Horrible birth deformities," because the point I'm trying to get across doesn't need anything to be acknowledged other than that the deformities I'm referencing are either unable to be fixed, or suggest an incredibly high chance of a major loss in quality of life. The fact that the images I chose didn't meet those parameters was just bad luck, because I know nothing about what any of the children involved here suffered from. If it meets those qualifications, though, then I would abort it.
2666
« on: September 27, 2015, 10:24:43 AM »
The scientists involved in this announcement are mostly geologists. Nobody should be getting their hopes up, because it's not aliens. They probably found further evidence solidifying the presence of liquid water on Mars in the past, or greater concentrations of subsurface water than they previously thought. Like every major discovery in this field, the public isn't really going to care and, if they do, it will be for maybe a week.
2667
« on: September 27, 2015, 10:22:20 AM »
Weightlifting and art.
2668
« on: September 27, 2015, 10:21:36 AM »
You never explained that the alternative to curing them was killing them but now that I realize that then yes they are similar situstions.
And I can solidly say the difference between B and A isnt a matter of absolutes because in the end both solved the problem of his suffering. Sure, one will probably work out better, but it still doesn't make the two choices polar ends of the morality spectrum. Some people are coming to realize this in the real world what with that Belgian woman I think she was who was given the go ahead for assisted suicide for chronic depression. The importance of the idea I was talking about was less centered on the idea of killing them as an alternative, and more so centered around your supposed philosophical hold on the idea that helping them increases the chance of a possible outcome. To me, this negative outcome is so outlandish and ridiculous that it needn't be considered when weighing options. To you, it seems like it is. I fundamentally disagree with your perception of this type of decision-making- Which is almost certainly a pessimistic one. I never stated that the decisions were on, "Opposite ends of the moral spectrum." I said one was clearly better than the other, and that inference can be made without one being the polar opposite of its alternative in terms of possible outcome. And you still didn't answer the question, because your response included in it the existence of foresight; as if you were looking back on it. That isn't how real-life decisions work- you cannot predict the future that accurately. Tell me what you would do in the situation I gave you. Do you help them, or kill them now?
2669
« on: September 27, 2015, 12:31:36 AM »
The conditions the subject is left in should your preferred actions not take place are most certainly relevant concerns when considering the morality of making a decision on someone's behalf. That's the entire point of this, and I never divulged from that discussion. I think you need to reread what I hypothesized, because I think you've lost the point of it. This argument is convoluted and pointless, we need to return to the original problem. Actually, no, I'm just going to simplify it. I'm not running the risk of you misinterpreting my posts: This is the hypothetical- Somebody is depressed. You are presented with two options in this situation. A. Help them out of their depression through support, medication, etc, but run the risk of marginally increasing their chance of being mangled and their life destroyed in a possible car accident down the line because of their increased social activism B. Kill them right now and terminate the chance of their potentially ruined life. Now you tell me. Which do you chose? And don't say "But this is isn't relevant, because x, y, z." That isn't the point. Just answer the question.
2670
« on: September 27, 2015, 12:16:03 AM »
What did you say about my mother?
"Big knockers," I think?
Pages: 1 ... 878889 9091 ... 106
|
Show Posts
