pre-depression business practices seem to suggest that either minimum wage, or widespread unionization (or both?) are neccessary to stop "lower class" from being equal to "those starving people." though, things may have changed, i'm not sure.
yes, long-term analysis shows that economically screwing over your target market will eventually lead to no customers. thus, wages should be kept at a decent level to ensure the continuity of demand. this, however, gives far too much credit to companies to make smart long term plans. you can't sell anything if the eco-system crumbles, yet we still need environmental regulations to keep companies from getting too rediculous with pollution. that seems to suggest that even if they knew about the whole "we need people to have money so they can give it back to us" concept, they wouldn't do anything about it.
essentially, i support minimum wage because i have little-to-no faith in companies to exact smart socio-economic policies.
Ah, yes. Curious how everything started to become a problem when the massive influx of non-caucasoid peoples into this country started happening. Before then, yes, there were problems, but none anywhere near the multitude of problems that are occurring now because of the "melting pot"...
Do you know what one of the most diverse things in existence is?
A land-fill. Full of a mixture of all substances that are not alike in any way but that which forms their constituent elements. Beautiful, eh?
most sociological studies, engineering practices, evolutionary theories, formalized creative processes, marketing plans, literary constructs, and business models agree: diversity is strength.
(you may also note, that point was made stronger by diversifying the fields/disciplines that support the idea.)
also, to extend the example you gave. what is the point of garbage? i submit that the pupose of garbage is to be hazardous, unusable, and offensive. given this criteria, there is nothing on the planet better at "being garbage" than the contents of a land-fill. this distinction is due to the diversity of the contents. of course, it is still difficult to analyze the analogy since the "good result" is "being bad."
consider an army. the cheapest possible modern army consists of nothing but lowest-ranked infantry armed with rifles. this army is not only bad, but completely non-functioning since without supply and support the troops will run out of ammo and starve to death. allready, diversity of roles is not only beneficial, but neccessary. to go further, to add more functionality and higher survivability we should include reconnaisance, medical care, a command structure, transport, and specialized units. hey look, diversity made it better. what a shock.
sorry for the snide tone at the end there, but it really is a straightforward concept. diversity helps almost anything (or any group) become stronger. the only way to believe otherwise is to ignore 99% of the things in the world and focus solely on racist propaganda.
best: david bowie (though i'd also be happy if dr.dre won)
worst: dashboard confessional (mommy won't let me go to the cut-cut-bleed concert, my life is pain)
Concepts like propriety, ethics and morality are rapidly declining as behavioral guidelines and are being replaced by pure legality.
i don't believe this is the case. compliance with the law is regulated by the legal system, but compliance with ethics is regulated by society. social interaction (amongst those involved, or in the know) following an event is the primary tool we have to judge if what we do is in line with the group's ethics.
essentially, no matter how many laws they make, i will still treat jerks poorly and treat nice people well.
And what's with the lack of Clash love? I mean, everyone was saying how great the Beatles were, for defining pop music and being experimental and all that... The Clash did that for punk and more. No punk band has ever measured up to The Clash. And it's not even like you can say "oh I don't like punk" because the clash weren't punk because of their music, but because of their lyrics.
coldplay, for me, is just annoying. they have some decent lyrics, and even some good melodies/rhythmic arrangements. the problem i have is in the execution. i get annoyed pretty quickly by falsetto vocals (note, not with high pitched vocals, i like mindless self indulgence and prince, but specifically the half-whispered style). i also find the songs to drag quite a bit. i'd love for a punk band to redo "speed of sound" just so i could hear it at a decent tempo. they, however, choose to do the songs at a snail's pace.
as for the clash? i respect what they did for music, but i don't really enjoy listening to them for too long. one song usually is enough for me. i'd put them near the top of "most influential" but not "best."
best: coal chamber (ccr is good, but not nearly as dynamic as dez and crew)
worst: coldplay (double the tempo and lower the vocals by an octave and you've got some decent punk songs, as it, they're awful)
sorry i got in on this late, i know they don't count anymore, but my previous votes would have been:
a-best: a perfect circle
a-worst: ac/dc (i guess i should justify this since they were voted best. i literally can't distinguish between their songs when they play on the radio. party anthems are fun, but not exactly "greatest band" worthy, especially when done in an unimaginative and generic fashion)
If "fate" is going to kill you it would do it if he got the operation or not.
Quote from generatrix »
if it were his fate to die, it would not be treatable. if it were his fate to contract the illness, then his fate is allready fulfilled, and bears no weight on seeking treatment.
this is what i meant when i said "fate" was too vague. people have an idea of what fate is, but it is not universally defined (like christianity or islam) so people will apply their understanding of it to the situation.
i believe people's answers may change if instead of "fate" it was "a random unnamed religion that says getting treatment is immoral."
i'm a quotation nut, so i can't limit myself to just one:
"keep on dreaming boy, cause when you stop dreaming it's time to die."
-blind melon (change)
"you'd be better off teaching [kids] that there are acceptable times and places for certain kinds of words, instead of trying vainly to keep them from using them. but that would require parenting, and isn't that what we have tv for now?"
-ed the sock
"be formless, shapeless, like water... you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot... now water can flow, or it can crash, be water my friend."
-bruce lee
"the revolution will not be televised."
-gil scott-heron
"religion is voluntary. forcing it on society has the opposite effect."
-mohsen kadivar (jailed iranian cleric)
and the most appropriate:
"i guess it's pretty sad that the internet, by far the most factually incorrect, illiterate, immature, idiotic form of communication in the history of mankind, seems to be setting the trends which other media outlets vigorously pursue."
-rich "lowtax" kyanka (something awful)
i use firefox at home (on my mac, i too dislike safari). i use i.e. at work becasue it's the company standard.
as a web developer, i'd have to say i despise i.e. and it's pseudo-css. basically with most major web technologies there's a standards organization, so instead of complying with the standards (like other browsers do) microsoft simply renames the technology, then uses it however they feel (for more on this, look up the difference between javascript and jscript).
the problem is that i.e. has such a huge market share that when something that works there doesn't work on other browsers, people blame the other browsers, when technically it's i.e. that's "broken."
this is, though, the only beef i have. for anyone other than a programmer/developer, there is almost no difference.
To address the issue of fighting oppression by resisting the oppressor:
Is this an incredibly heroic act? Certainly. Is it also a stupid one? Frequently. The fact is that oppression is a situation under which no man finds himself with an easy heart. However, until there is a sufficient groundswell to actually do something about the oppression, your death will be futile. Maybe someday others will point to your sacrifice and it will motivate others. But, until then, it seems like it was kind of a bad idea.
two points:
1. heroism is little more than well-intentioned stupidity, but still a positive force.
2. if others point to the sacrifice and become motivated then the death is not futile (in fact it will have accomplished exactly what it was supposed to).
Obviously, situation A is based on a real event currently going on. Situations B and C were included so that certain people (:D) would force themselves into logically inconsistant positions.
...
So do I. A person can't be expected to act on information he doesn't have. It's acting on information you don't really have as though you had it with absolute certainty that I am calling irrational.
i'm having difficulty equating A/B with C, as you seem to be doing. this is probably due to the fact that the first two cases dealt with governments and (fairly) well defined and understood religions, while the third dealt with an illness and a poorly defined and seemingly arbitrary belief in fate.
as i originally stated, based on my understanding of the concept of fate, the decision was completely irrational (i gave my reasoning).
i think the vaguety of the third option is causing the debate to steer in directions you did not intend, as we can derive from your posts that you intended for the three situations to be anagolous.
perhaps the third option could be replaced with a more specific example. instead of saying that he believes the illness is due to fate, you could say that the treatment of the illness would violate his faith (e.g. a jehovah's witness who needs a blood transfusion to live).
this may have only happened once before, but i'm about to defend furor. i'm scared too, it's ok...
Quote from WarEmblem (to Furor) »
It seems to me that you are operating under the principle that an action is always rational so long as the individual doing the action believes with certainty (or near certainty) that the beliefs causing him to act that way are true.
add in the premises that the individual is not insane and chooses the more beneficial option, and this principle is correct. rationality is relative, and it is unfair to impose your socially biassed view as universally rational.
imagine there are aliens watching us. they know that if we stop breathing air, and force pure hydrofloric acid into our lungs that we will end up with amazing superpowers with no downside. we, of course, don't know this. given our situation, i still think that continuing to breathe is a rational decision on our part.
in response to mortal wombat, carrion pidgeons, and petear griffin suggesting that the whole point of drinking/bars is to get drunk:
it is possible to drink without getting drunk. most of the mature people i know do not drink to "get plastered," but go for a much, much lower level of intoxication. people who are obviously drunk are dangerous to themselves and others, and the public drunkenness laws that exist try to minimize this danger.
the proximity of retail has nothing to do with the legality of dangerous outcomes. trying to argue that this law doesn't apply in a bar is like trying to argue that murder laws don't apply in a gun store.
Though it clearly isn't the point of the scenario, I'd imagine the best route would be to turn the gun he has given you on the dictator himself.
good call.
i would chose to shoot one person, and save 19. this is assuming that i believe the dictator (which, the rest of the scenario suggests, i can). as far as i see it, one of the people is allready dead, and i have an option to save the rest. as far as the random unfortunate one goes, i don't see much difference between myself or the dictator pulling the trigger (except that i can attempt to minimize the pain).
yes, long-term analysis shows that economically screwing over your target market will eventually lead to no customers. thus, wages should be kept at a decent level to ensure the continuity of demand. this, however, gives far too much credit to companies to make smart long term plans. you can't sell anything if the eco-system crumbles, yet we still need environmental regulations to keep companies from getting too rediculous with pollution. that seems to suggest that even if they knew about the whole "we need people to have money so they can give it back to us" concept, they wouldn't do anything about it.
essentially, i support minimum wage because i have little-to-no faith in companies to exact smart socio-economic policies.
most sociological studies, engineering practices, evolutionary theories, formalized creative processes, marketing plans, literary constructs, and business models agree:
diversity is strength.
(you may also note, that point was made stronger by diversifying the fields/disciplines that support the idea.)
also, to extend the example you gave. what is the point of garbage? i submit that the pupose of garbage is to be hazardous, unusable, and offensive. given this criteria, there is nothing on the planet better at "being garbage" than the contents of a land-fill. this distinction is due to the diversity of the contents. of course, it is still difficult to analyze the analogy since the "good result" is "being bad."
consider an army. the cheapest possible modern army consists of nothing but lowest-ranked infantry armed with rifles. this army is not only bad, but completely non-functioning since without supply and support the troops will run out of ammo and starve to death. allready, diversity of roles is not only beneficial, but neccessary. to go further, to add more functionality and higher survivability we should include reconnaisance, medical care, a command structure, transport, and specialized units. hey look, diversity made it better. what a shock.
sorry for the snide tone at the end there, but it really is a straightforward concept. diversity helps almost anything (or any group) become stronger. the only way to believe otherwise is to ignore 99% of the things in the world and focus solely on racist propaganda.
worst: dashboard confessional (mommy won't let me go to the cut-cut-bleed concert, my life is pain)
we have a prime minister, not a president.
rakdos would be an improvement though, so i'm in:
rakdos for prime minister!
i don't believe this is the case. compliance with the law is regulated by the legal system, but compliance with ethics is regulated by society. social interaction (amongst those involved, or in the know) following an event is the primary tool we have to judge if what we do is in line with the group's ethics.
essentially, no matter how many laws they make, i will still treat jerks poorly and treat nice people well.
coldplay, for me, is just annoying. they have some decent lyrics, and even some good melodies/rhythmic arrangements. the problem i have is in the execution. i get annoyed pretty quickly by falsetto vocals (note, not with high pitched vocals, i like mindless self indulgence and prince, but specifically the half-whispered style). i also find the songs to drag quite a bit. i'd love for a punk band to redo "speed of sound" just so i could hear it at a decent tempo. they, however, choose to do the songs at a snail's pace.
as for the clash? i respect what they did for music, but i don't really enjoy listening to them for too long. one song usually is enough for me. i'd put them near the top of "most influential" but not "best."
worst: coldplay (double the tempo and lower the vocals by an octave and you've got some decent punk songs, as it, they're awful)
sorry i got in on this late, i know they don't count anymore, but my previous votes would have been:
a-best: a perfect circle
a-worst: ac/dc (i guess i should justify this since they were voted best. i literally can't distinguish between their songs when they play on the radio. party anthems are fun, but not exactly "greatest band" worthy, especially when done in an unimaginative and generic fashion)
b-best: b.b. king
b-worst: brittney spears
this is what i meant when i said "fate" was too vague. people have an idea of what fate is, but it is not universally defined (like christianity or islam) so people will apply their understanding of it to the situation.
i believe people's answers may change if instead of "fate" it was "a random unnamed religion that says getting treatment is immoral."
"keep on dreaming boy, cause when you stop dreaming it's time to die."
-blind melon (change)
"you'd be better off teaching [kids] that there are acceptable times and places for certain kinds of words, instead of trying vainly to keep them from using them. but that would require parenting, and isn't that what we have tv for now?"
-ed the sock
"be formless, shapeless, like water... you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot... now water can flow, or it can crash, be water my friend."
-bruce lee
"the revolution will not be televised."
-gil scott-heron
"religion is voluntary. forcing it on society has the opposite effect."
-mohsen kadivar (jailed iranian cleric)
and the most appropriate:
"i guess it's pretty sad that the internet, by far the most factually incorrect, illiterate, immature, idiotic form of communication in the history of mankind, seems to be setting the trends which other media outlets vigorously pursue."
-rich "lowtax" kyanka (something awful)
as a web developer, i'd have to say i despise i.e. and it's pseudo-css. basically with most major web technologies there's a standards organization, so instead of complying with the standards (like other browsers do) microsoft simply renames the technology, then uses it however they feel (for more on this, look up the difference between javascript and jscript).
the problem is that i.e. has such a huge market share that when something that works there doesn't work on other browsers, people blame the other browsers, when technically it's i.e. that's "broken."
this is, though, the only beef i have. for anyone other than a programmer/developer, there is almost no difference.
two points:
1. heroism is little more than well-intentioned stupidity, but still a positive force.
2. if others point to the sacrifice and become motivated then the death is not futile (in fact it will have accomplished exactly what it was supposed to).
i'm having difficulty equating A/B with C, as you seem to be doing. this is probably due to the fact that the first two cases dealt with governments and (fairly) well defined and understood religions, while the third dealt with an illness and a poorly defined and seemingly arbitrary belief in fate.
as i originally stated, based on my understanding of the concept of fate, the decision was completely irrational (i gave my reasoning).
i think the vaguety of the third option is causing the debate to steer in directions you did not intend, as we can derive from your posts that you intended for the three situations to be anagolous.
perhaps the third option could be replaced with a more specific example. instead of saying that he believes the illness is due to fate, you could say that the treatment of the illness would violate his faith (e.g. a jehovah's witness who needs a blood transfusion to live).
add in the premises that the individual is not insane and chooses the more beneficial option, and this principle is correct. rationality is relative, and it is unfair to impose your socially biassed view as universally rational.
imagine there are aliens watching us. they know that if we stop breathing air, and force pure hydrofloric acid into our lungs that we will end up with amazing superpowers with no downside. we, of course, don't know this. given our situation, i still think that continuing to breathe is a rational decision on our part.
it is possible to drink without getting drunk. most of the mature people i know do not drink to "get plastered," but go for a much, much lower level of intoxication. people who are obviously drunk are dangerous to themselves and others, and the public drunkenness laws that exist try to minimize this danger.
the proximity of retail has nothing to do with the legality of dangerous outcomes. trying to argue that this law doesn't apply in a bar is like trying to argue that murder laws don't apply in a gun store.
good call.
i would chose to shoot one person, and save 19. this is assuming that i believe the dictator (which, the rest of the scenario suggests, i can). as far as i see it, one of the people is allready dead, and i have an option to save the rest. as far as the random unfortunate one goes, i don't see much difference between myself or the dictator pulling the trigger (except that i can attempt to minimize the pain).