Man "shot by pupies"

Tsirist | Ascended Posting Frenzy
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Tsirist
IP: Logged

499 posts
 
I don't think it's fair to compare those two when one is leaving someone in a state of misery and the other is putting them in a state in which it is [seemingly] impossible for them to [humanly] experience negative [human] emotions.
edited appropriately
GET YOUR SPIRITUALISM OFF MY BOARD
REEEEEEEEE
spiritualism? just an awareness of the extent of my ignorance

and even the extent to which i am not aware of my own ignorance
Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 09:06:13 PM by Tsirist


Deleted | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: ChaosMetalDragon
IP: Logged

10,766 posts
 
Quote
spiritualism

Oh lord, what did I miss in this thread


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
Banking on the high probability of a very beneficial outcome is not irresponsible. It's the wiser choice when given the option in this circumstance- your philosophy about this is so extreme that it borders on outright pessimism. From your perspective, it could be argued that curing somebody's depression would be a morally irresponsible act, because there's a chance that as a result, they will go out live their life more exploitative and happily, and therefore end up being killed brutally in a car accident while on their way to a social event that they would not have attended if they were still depressed. The worry of "Yeah, but x could happen" is rationally acceptable if the chance is high that no harm will come to them.
I don't think it's fair to compare those two when one is leaving someone in a state of misery and the other is putting them in a state in which it is literally impossible for them to experience negative emotions.
That actually doesn't matter. To get my point across, I'll just shift the scenario, because the argument permits that.

The car accident is terrible brutal, gory, and that person cannot walk, talk, or function properly for the rest of their life. They are a shell of their former selves, and are miserable. Was I still in the wrong for taking the shot at helping them get out of their depression? 


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
Banking on the high probability of a very beneficial outcome is not irresponsible. It's the wiser choice when given the option in this circumstance- your philosophy about this is so extreme that it borders on outright pessimism. From your perspective, it could be argued that curing somebody's depression would be a morally irresponsible act, because there's a chance that as a result, they will go out live their life more exploitative and happily, and therefore end up being killed brutally in a car accident while on their way to a social event that they would not have attended if they were still depressed. The worry of "Yeah, but x could happen" is rationally acceptable if the chance is high that no harm will come to them.
I don't think it's fair to compare those two when one is leaving someone in a state of misery and the other is putting them in a state in which it is literally impossible for them to experience negative emotions.
That actually doesn't matter. To get my point across, I'll just shift the scenario, because the argument permits that.

The car accident is terrible brutal, gory, and that person cannot walk, talk, or function properly for the rest of their life. They are a shell of their former selves, and are miserable. Was I still in the wrong for taking the shot at helping them get out of their depression?
That didn't change anything, your situation is fundamentally different because depression is characteristically different than being dead. The alternatives to your preferred actions here are therefor characteristically different too, a depressed person suffers, while a dead person does not.

And please don't repeat again that the inability to experience happiness is somehow a negative experience in itself. That just makes so little sense, a thing that does not exist cannot assess the net value of anything, it doesn't exist.
Do we try to assert that we deprive non-existent people that can potentially be made and therefor say we ought to stop committing such an injustice against them when we don't bringing them into existence?
no because thats stupid
Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 11:46:33 PM by eggsalad


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
That didn't change anything, your situation is fundamentally different because depression is characteristically different than being dead. The alternatives to your preferred actions here are therefor characteristically different too, a depressed person suffers, while a dead person does not.
It seems like you either ignored, or completely misread my post. Depression isn't the focus of that hypothetical, it's the resulting consequences. You're responding to the wrong aspect.

Quote
And please don't repeat again that the inability to experience happiness is somehow a negative experience in itself.
Where did I say that?


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
It seems like you either ignored, or completely misread my post. Depression isn't the focus of that hypothetical, it's the resulting consequences. You're responding to the wrong aspect.
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. I don't see how you can say that it isn't. You are weighing the costs and risks, the costs of not doing something will always be a factor in the value of a decision. And your analogy has a different cost than the situation we're talking about here.

Quote
Where did I say that?
Assumption I made based on someone saying that the ending of a life is an inherently bad thing. Could have been someone else MB.


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
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.


Deleted | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: ChaosMetalDragon
IP: Logged

10,766 posts
 
Thread is super Derailed

Lock please


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,942 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Mattie G Indahouse | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: BerzerkCommando
PSN: BerzerkCommando
Steam: BerzerkCommando
ID: BerzerkCommando
IP: Logged

9,047 posts
Did he say glass of juice or gas the Jews?
👶🏽:h..

👨🏽:honey, he's gonna say his first words

👩🏽:!!

👶🏽:hhh...

👶🏽:here come dat boi 🐸!

👨🏽:o shit waddup 😂💯

👩🏽:💔
Thread is super Derailed

Lock please
Why not just leave it be and let the people posting in it have their fun?


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
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.
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.


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
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?


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
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.
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.

And the reason I consider these unlikely probabilities relevant is because I am not the one who has to suffer the consequences if by chance it goes awry. You have yet to establish the authority to assess for other people what is an acceptable probability and what is not. I'm not claiming to know it either, 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.

Quote
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?
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.
Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM by eggsalad


 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

37,629 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Thread is super Derailed

Lock please
Threads belong to the People.

Bitch.


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
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.

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?
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
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.

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.

Quote
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.
wat
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.
Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 11:36:21 AM by eggsalad


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
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

before you leave
we have this morality gradient

raising them himself > shelter > quick painless death > painful death by neglect > actively torturing them

shelter : acceptable
quick painless death : unacceptable

why precisely?

yes you said it's because the shelter will likely produce a better outcome (happy dogs > dogs cant be happy), and thus makes death the morally inferior option.

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.

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.
Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 01:24:22 PM by eggsalad


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
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)

Quote
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.


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
i agree with the above, they are indeed not equidistant, but the premise of there being any definitive border between unacceptable and acceptable is flawed
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.
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.
Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 02:07:47 PM by eggsalad


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
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.
Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 02:24:45 PM by Winy


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
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.
So far all you have established is why one option is morally superior, but that's not why we're talking. 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.

Popularity is not proper authority. People can use part rational part arbitrary assessments in order to come to bogus moral conclusions all the time. They shouldn't be given weight because they can interpret facts into their conclusion, because how they interpret and weigh facts is based on personal values, which are subjective and arbitrary in nature.


Winy | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Phasenectar
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Winy
IP: Logged

3,164 posts
 
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.
Quote
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.
Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 02:52:06 PM by Winy


eggsalad | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: eggsalad
ID: eggsalad
IP: Logged

2,495 posts
 
because you fail to realize there is a difference between "this would have been better" and "this needs to be done this way"
which you then failed to apply to similar circumstances
and then tried excusing that inconsistency with an appeal to popularity

"Will taking care of the puppies myself mean that shelters have more resources they can distribute to other animals in need and thus better the conditions of others?"
"Yes, it likely will."

Then you do it. Simple. I cannot fathom how you've made this concept so needlessly contrived.