Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 30 Jan 2007 16:02 T Wake wrote: > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:epnm4l$df5$4(a)blue.rahul.net... > >>In article <45BE8D83.976CEBA6(a)hotmail.com>, >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>[.....] >> >>>>Same question could be asked of Cain and Abel. Although every time I try >>>>asking priest or vicars they get annoyed with me. >>> >>>I just discovered he lived to be 950 yrs old too ! Maybe he was a space >>>alien ? >> >>If you assume as I do that some confused months and years, he made it to >>79 which is old enough to get remarked on. > > > This is close to special pleading. The holy text is specific enough at > times, yet for something quite simple like days and nights it gets confused? How many translations/transcriptions in ~5000 years?
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 16:03 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:5900c$45bf48db$4fe71bb$1240(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: <snip> >> >> As I see it, the only problem with the example is there is more >> information needed. > > > Actually no. > > When these questions are properly posed, as this one was, > they provide the reader with the minimal information > necessary to make an informed judgment call. I disagree. > In real life, when the call to action, in a scenario not > nearly so extreme as the example, comes, there's usually > not a whole lot of time available for research and soul > searching. The answer has to come out of a process that > "cuts to the chase" rapidly and accurately. Which is why more information is required. Everyone has a lifetimes experience and understanding which is immediately available when they make that rapid decision. Simple things like was I elected to that post, was I sent there to save people or represent people (etc) would be known without complex soul searching. I am some one who has been pulled of the street and put in that position without any one else knowing? All this is required (IMHO) for a judgement call to be made. These are things which, each time you make a judgement call which effects others, you know. > In this button pushing exercise it was clear from the outset > that there are two sides and that the reader's responsibilities, > as the button pusher candidate, are to himself and his group. Far from clear. > How that leadership position came to be is of no consequence, > only the fact that that relationship exists is important. I disagree. If people willingly put me in that position, when they had the choice to choose others, then my own values can take the lead. > The demographics of the population are also unimportant. At > this level all humans are equal. Interestingly enough part > of this entire jihad thing is justified by assigning right > to live values based on criteria other than complete equality. > Equally interesting is that on "our side", in "the enlightened > culture" are people who also judge the same issue on some basis > other than complete equality. Don't take this personally, Wake, > you're not alone. I have never pretended there is complete equality. I suspect any one who says there is, is lying, and for complete equality to exist the choice in your example would have to be taken on the throw of a coin. The example is reasonable within a given set of limitations, but it does nothing other than identify that most people will kill others to survive (which is rarely surprising). > To put the purpose of the exercise into modern day business > and political context, the decisions that a leader makes > usually don't carry quite so extreme a set of consequences, > but the mere act of buying or selling a company, or signing > a proxy for a friend, can mean the loss of many a job, closing > of a large business or factory, and the exchange of many millions > of dollars. > > Leaders have to have a very good grounding in precisely the > sort of problem this button pushing exercise has at its core. > They have to do it quickly and accurately while considering > the consequences on the people whose jobs, money, and in some > cases lives, are in their care. > > How many lives have been lost because a certain government > decided it was inconvenient to admit that HIV leads to AIDS? > It seems like a simple question to us, but the life/death > ramifications in a particular political setting made for > a decision affecting the lives and premature deaths of many. > > Once that sort of decision has been made it becomes difficult, > if not impossible, to reverse short of a major upheaval or > revolution. > > Getting it right the first time is important. Awakening people > in future leadership positions to the sorts of dilemmas they > must eventually face isn't a waste and isn't simply a study > of morality and ethics. I never said it was. > It is designed to provide skills to > make the best possible decision in circumstances where none of > the alternatives look very good, and to make good decisions > in a timely manner. Every day, people make decisions which impact others and dont always have a "good answer." In your example, if you have complete equality, then there is no correct (or incorrect answer) and if you dont have complete equality then the correct and inccorrect answers are totally dependant on how you view that inequality. <snip> >> >> >> Maybe so. There are many variations of ethical dilemmas and they are all >> things that every one's ideas are equally valid for. One which was common >> during my youth was along the lines of: your city is under siege by a >> vastly superior force, the walls are about to be breached and resistance >> is crumbling. You are given the choice - torture and kill 1 in 20 and you >> will all be spared, if you don't 75% of your population will be tortured >> and killed. >> >> Another example which may be more relevant how many innocent people are >> you prepared to punish to ensure a guilty person is also punished? I would be interested to see how you answer the above.
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 16:11 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:5eaf0$45bfb26f$49ecf90$3729(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> news:epnm4l$df5$4(a)blue.rahul.net... >> >>>In article <45BE8D83.976CEBA6(a)hotmail.com>, >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>> >>>>>Same question could be asked of Cain and Abel. Although every time I >>>>>try >>>>>asking priest or vicars they get annoyed with me. >>>> >>>>I just discovered he lived to be 950 yrs old too ! Maybe he was a space >>>>alien ? >>> >>>If you assume as I do that some confused months and years, he made it to >>>79 which is old enough to get remarked on. >> >> >> This is close to special pleading. The holy text is specific enough at >> times, yet for something quite simple like days and nights it gets >> confused? > > How many translations/transcriptions in ~5000 years? That is the special pleading. The plea that Commandment X has survived and is the word of God, but Y has suffered a transcription error.
From: unsettled on 30 Jan 2007 16:33 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:5900c$45bf48db$4fe71bb$1240(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: > > <snip> > >>>As I see it, the only problem with the example is there is more >>>information needed. >> >> >>Actually no. >> >>When these questions are properly posed, as this one was, >>they provide the reader with the minimal information >>necessary to make an informed judgment call. > I disagree. >>In real life, when the call to action, in a scenario not >>nearly so extreme as the example, comes, there's usually >>not a whole lot of time available for research and soul >>searching. The answer has to come out of a process that >>"cuts to the chase" rapidly and accurately. > Which is why more information is required. Everyone has a lifetimes > experience and understanding which is immediately available when they make > that rapid decision. Simple things like was I elected to that post, was I > sent there to save people or represent people (etc) would be known without > complex soul searching. > I am some one who has been pulled of the street and put in that position > without any one else knowing? > All this is required (IMHO) for a judgement call to be made. These are > things which, each time you make a judgement call which effects others, you > know. The point is that none of this needs to be known. You're given a very simple choice with the *only* difference being which of the two groups dies. The only reasonable choice is to save those lives that you can be assured of you can save, and that's your group. They're also the group depending on you to save them, while the other group has their investment in their own button pusher guy, not in you. >>In this button pushing exercise it was clear from the outset >>that there are two sides and that the reader's responsibilities, >>as the button pusher candidate, are to himself and his group. > Far from clear. Don't ever try to be a leader. >>How that leadership position came to be is of no consequence, >>only the fact that that relationship exists is important. > I disagree. If people willingly put me in that position, when they had the > choice to choose others, then my own values can take the lead. No, you have a fuducuiary relationship with them regardless how the relationship came about. >>The demographics of the population are also unimportant. At >>this level all humans are equal. Interestingly enough part >>of this entire jihad thing is justified by assigning right >>to live values based on criteria other than complete equality. >>Equally interesting is that on "our side", in "the enlightened >>culture" are people who also judge the same issue on some basis >>other than complete equality. Don't take this personally, Wake, >>you're not alone. > I have never pretended there is complete equality. I suspect any one who > says there is, is lying, and for complete equality to exist the choice in > your example would have to be taken on the throw of a coin. Simply false. > The example is reasonable within a given set of limitations, but it does > nothing other than identify that most people will kill others to survive > (which is rarely surprising). The answer remains the same even if you, as button pusher, expect to die of cancer the very next day. >>To put the purpose of the exercise into modern day business >>and political context, the decisions that a leader makes >>usually don't carry quite so extreme a set of consequences, >>but the mere act of buying or selling a company, or signing >>a proxy for a friend, can mean the loss of many a job, closing >>of a large business or factory, and the exchange of many millions >>of dollars. >>Leaders have to have a very good grounding in precisely the >>sort of problem this button pushing exercise has at its core. >>They have to do it quickly and accurately while considering >>the consequences on the people whose jobs, money, and in some >>cases lives, are in their care. >> >>How many lives have been lost because a certain government >>decided it was inconvenient to admit that HIV leads to AIDS? >>It seems like a simple question to us, but the life/death >>ramifications in a particular political setting made for >>a decision affecting the lives and premature deaths of many. >> >>Once that sort of decision has been made it becomes difficult, >>if not impossible, to reverse short of a major upheaval or >>revolution. >> >>Getting it right the first time is important. Awakening people >>in future leadership positions to the sorts of dilemmas they >>must eventually face isn't a waste and isn't simply a study >>of morality and ethics. > I never said it was. We're in a public discussion, so not everything is directed *at* you. >>It is designed to provide skills to >>make the best possible decision in circumstances where none of >>the alternatives look very good, and to make good decisions >>in a timely manner. > Every day, people make decisions which impact others and dont always have a > "good answer." As I said, "the best possible decision". > In your example, if you have complete equality, then there is no correct (or > incorrect answer) and if you dont have complete equality then the correct > and inccorrect answers are totally dependant on how you view that > inequality. Sure there's equality in the value of lives across the board. You've already indicated that there's a sort of inequality in saving one's own life in the process, and that's a difficult argument to overcome. However, the responsibility to those on whose behalf you're acting is the trump card. > <snip> >>>Maybe so. There are many variations of ethical dilemmas and they are all >>>things that every one's ideas are equally valid for. One which was common >>>during my youth was along the lines of: your city is under siege by a >>>vastly superior force, the walls are about to be breached and resistance >>>is crumbling. You are given the choice - torture and kill 1 in 20 and you >>>will all be spared, if you don't 75% of your population will be tortured >>>and killed. I'd have no difficulty at all with that decision. All lives have equal value, maximum life savings would have to be the deciding factor. I might make myself the last of the 1 in 20, can't say for sure, I'm not faced with it. That would help minimize any guilt feelings I might have, so it is a possible choice. >>>Another example which may be more relevant how many innocent people are >>>you prepared to punish to ensure a guilty person is also punished? None. Guilty people get away with stuff all the time. No sense wasting good lives to go after bad. If the guilty one never offends again then what's the purpose in killing anyone. If he offends again the circumstances are bound to be different and chances are I'll catch him for punishment. > I would be interested to see how you answer the above. Done.
From: Phil Carmody on 30 Jan 2007 16:35
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [...] > >>Read what you wrote. You are claiming you have seen > > > > Heard. > > OK. Does that change the fact it is incorrect? No. > > >> reports that some > > > > One. > > You wrote: " I thought some of them got their training in Al queda camps in One is lead to suspect that one does not have to go as far as the third word in the sentence before reaching the falsity. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |