Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 30 Jan 2007 16:39 T Wake wrote: > "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. We don't know that there weren't more or fewer commandments. We don't know that today's commandment X is anything like the original, if there was one. ad nauseum
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 16:54 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:e2d22$45bfb9bc$49ecf90$4084(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >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. It does if I am making the decision. > 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. No. You can be just a sure to save the lives of the other 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. See, this wasn't really mentioned in the example scenario. When you say depending it creates the impression the people know their lives are in my hands - which wasn't mentioned. >>>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. OK. >>>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. I really do disagree. My understanding of a fiduciary duty is that it is a legal relationship which implies a duty of care and I have a duty to not put myself in that position where personal standards will conflic with the interests of the people I represent. This is why, remember, I asked what the circumsances which brought me there were. As I said, and I am sorry if it upsets the neatness of your scenario, the information provided is artificial and arbritary. It is enough for *you* to view a decision possible, but you have pre-assumed information which is not stated. >>>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. Really? I think you need to re-examine what you see "compete equality" as meaning. As soon as you ascribe a different value to one set of people living you have removed the complete equality - saying your people are more valuable than theirs. >> 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. No it doesnt. There is no "correct" answer so at best you can only say "your answer" would remain the same. >>>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. OK. I was simply highlighting this was not something I agreed with and not necessarily directing the response to 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. It depends on how you view that responsibility. Even so, this is saying the lives of your people are more important to save than the lives of the other side because you have assumed responsibility for them. >> <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. While this is, again, a question with no right or wrong answers there is a moral value dimension. There will be some "heroes" who will give up their lives to save others, but what about the ones who are kicking and screaming, demanding to be allowed to live? How would you select the 1 in 20 to die a painful death? >>>>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. So then, punishing people before their guilt can be properly proven would be a no-no? >> I would be interested to see how you answer the above. > > Done. Thank you.
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 16:55 "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:87k5z4p59t.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > "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. Possibly very true.
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 17:01 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a557c$45bfbb21$49ecf90$4084(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "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. > > We don't know that there weren't more or fewer commandments. > We don't know that today's commandment X is anything like > the original, if there was one. > Exactly. The devout will claim that (for example) Homosexuality is the one sin the Catholic Church can *never* condone (lets ignore the priests for now). Yet this is based on the transcriptions / translations and interpretations which have taken place in the last 2000 years. Given that they get errors in fundamentals (who was Cain's wife? Who was Abel's wife? etc), why do they assume that the doctrine they are going on about (homosexuality in this example) is actually what they think it is?
From: unsettled on 30 Jan 2007 18:57
T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:e2d22$45bfb9bc$49ecf90$4084(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>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. > > > It does if I am making the decision. > > >>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. > > > No. You can be just a sure to save the lives of the other group. Wrong. When you blow up the other side, that includes the other guy with the button. Your side is saved when you blow up the others. > > >>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. > > > See, this wasn't really mentioned in the example scenario. When you say > depending it creates the impression the people know their lives are in my > hands - which wasn't mentioned. This is one of the conclusions you're supposed to reach, not a given. >>>>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. > > > OK. > > >>>>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. > > > I really do disagree. My understanding of a fiduciary duty is that it is a > legal relationship which implies a duty of care and I have a duty to not put > myself in that position where personal standards will conflic with the > interests of the people I represent. That's correct up to a point. But remember that you placed your desire to do no evil and thus not to push the button, which placed your personal interests before those who, whether they wanted to rely on you or not, were in fact relying on you to save their lives. "A person in a position of great trust and confidence, as the relationship between principal and broker." www.hawaiimlshomefinder.com/realestateglossaryf.asp > This is why, remember, I asked what the circumsances which brought me there > were. They don't matter. The relationship exists whether you wanted or not, whether they wanted it or not. This is one of the issues that the original problem is designed to get the person to sort out. > As I said, and I am sorry if it upsets the neatness of your scenario, the > information provided is artificial and arbritary. It is enough for *you* to > view a decision possible, but you have pre-assumed information which is not > stated. More exposure to these sorts of problems/issues will doubtless change your views. That's the reason such puzzles exist in the first place. >>>>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. > Really? I think you need to re-examine what you see "compete equality" as > meaning. > As soon as you ascribe a different value to one set of people living you > have removed the complete equality - saying your people are more valuable > than theirs. >>>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. > No it doesnt. There is no "correct" answer so at best you can only say "your > answer" would remain the same. Best solution = right answer. >>>>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. > OK. I was simply highlighting this was not something I agreed with and not > necessarily directing the response to 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. > It depends on how you view that responsibility. Even so, this is saying the > lives of your people are more important to save than the lives of the other > side because you have assumed responsibility for them. No. The loss of lives in both possible outcomes is identical. The fact is you have a responsibility to the people who depend on you, so you protect them. >>><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. > While this is, again, a question with no right or wrong answers there is a > moral value dimension. There will be some "heroes" who will give up their > lives to save others, but what about the ones who are kicking and screaming, > demanding to be allowed to live? How would you select the 1 in 20 to die a > painful death? Since all lives have equal value, so does all suffering. There is no "selection". You simply do what is easiest. Some will sacrifice themselves, perhaps enough. If not, then whoever is closest or easiest. Very Machiavellian, but as you say, sometimes there are no "good choices" and it is a leadership exercise. >>>>>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. > So then, punishing people before their guilt can be properly proven would be > a no-no? Not the same question or issue. When you pick up an idiot with a rifle or grenades or explosives or an RPG or a SCUD in a combat zone it is fair to incarcerate him. The mere fact he is in possession of such is enough to subject him to interrogation and punishment. Consider "what is a trial" and "what is a tribunal" under those circumstances. They aren't the same as civilian trials in your country or mine. See how justice is dealt out in places like Spain and Italy. >>>I would be interested to see how you answer the above. >>Done. > Thank you. |