On 5/1/2009 7:31 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
> news:49fa99fe$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 4/30/2009 8:58 PM, somebody wrote:
>
>>> Besides, consistency is not a virtue.
>> ?
>>
>> It isn't?
>
> No. Would you like to be consistently wrong, for instance?

Assuming I have the ability to learn, than yes I would.  Inconsistency 
would result in sheer random chaos.  Consistency, even if inaccurate, 
puts a measure of control on it.

Once consistency has been achieved, in other words we are in control of 
our own selves, then I would suggest that we set to work ironing out the 
wrinkles, and correcting are faulty logic.  This would be impossible 
without consistency.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbb6fa$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Not quite. But let me ask you this: What philosophical school of thought
> > would you say that the average Joe on the street belongs to?

> Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is
> espoused by the state.  Other than that, probably apathy,

I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

> but some might not consider that a "school of thought".

I cannot say I blame them. Reality is too dull for philosophizing.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more 
akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and 
admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if 
"chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

>> but some might not consider that a "school of thought".
> 
> I cannot say I blame them. Reality is too dull for philosophizing.

I'm tempted to make exactly the opposite claim, but I suppose dullness 
is in the eye of the beholder.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:49fbb052$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
> >> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
> >> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
> >> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
> >> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
> >>
> >> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think
he
> >> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> >
> > I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the
> > self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or

> And how do you suddenly declare that being concerned about the universe
> a few hundred years from now is "not benefiting the self".

You got me there, if I'm reading you right. It can of course benefit someone
if the act/thought of being concerned about the universe a few hundered
years from now makes the person warm and fuzzy inside. Homeopathy, to
incorporate another recent thread, benefits the individual if that
individual is under the illusion that it works. But if the cat is out the
bag, it stops working, and you cannot will the cat back in. I can no more
pretend that caring about the state of the universe hundered years from now
can make me feel good inside, and more than I can pretend that homeopathy
can cure my ailments. If caring about supernatural (universe in 200 years)
makes you feel good, more power to you. But that's as irrational to me as
(correct my assumption here if wrong) homeopathy is to you.

Similarly, I'm quite convinced that believing in various gods makes people
happy, and even successful. However, I still call them irrational, for their
belief is not based on the rational realization (*) that the benefit of
beliveing in god(s) is feeling good. It's a catch 22. You cannot belive in
god for rational reasons and still feel good, for the moment you realize
those reasons, the magic, that is, the reality of god, disappears. Placebo
doesn't work if you know it's saline solution.

> It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
> definition) for others.

I have only my definition to judge others by. Pretending to use any other
definition would be dishonest.

(*) There are those who, out of rational reasons, *pretend* to belive in
god(s). "Belief" and "pretend belief" are very different, of course.

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbc5ba@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
>> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
>> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
>> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
> 
> Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

I'm not sure I catch your point.  Are you arguing that others should be 
apathetic but admit that you don't do it yourself?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
> > my case.

> I'd say that this kind of reasoning is untypical for law abiding, god 
> fearing poor people. I would more associate this with rich people and 
> desperados. But it is a reasonable position.

  I honestly can't see the connection between wealth and this kind of
thinking. On the contrary, most rich people are worried what is going to
happen to their wealth and their family after they die. That's why most
of them have very specific testaments.

> >   (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> > Maybe nihilism?)

> Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in 
> a flamewar, so I won't. ;)

  For as long as I remember the word "capitalism" has had a negative
connotation to it. And I have lived in more than one different culture.

  When people say "capitalism" the only thing they think is the multinational
megacorporations abusing poor countries because of their cheap workforce.

  However, that's only a very small side-effect of what encompasses
capitalism. That's like saying that the western schooling system is
completely corrupt because there have been cases of school shootings.

  As far as I can see, capitalism seems to be the model of economy which
works the best, especially in countries where there's a rational government
controlling it. Common aspects of capitalistic countries include things
like freedom, human rights, social security and all kinds of public services.

  One thing which seems to be relatively common in non-capitalistic
countries is the lack of freedom of its people. It seems relatively common
that in non-capitalistic countries people are opressed and basically forced
to submit.

  Capitalism might not be perfect, but as far as I can see, from all the
possibilities it seems to work best.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is
> > espoused by the state.  Other than that, probably apathy,

> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.

  That sounds to me a bit like nihilism.

"Nihilism is the philosophical position that values do not exist but
rather are falsely invented. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in
the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without
meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that
morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no moral values
with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over
another."

  Might also have undertones of fatalism.

"Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of
all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination.

Fatalism generally refers to several of the following ideas:

[...]

   4. That acceptance is appropriate, rather than resistance against
inevitability. This belief is very similar to defeatism."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other 
> species is perfectly natural.  I am quite sure that many of the species 
> to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until 
> another species came along and bumped them off.

> The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any 
> right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time. 
> Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.

> As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during 
> the time of the earth's existence, from many causes.  This time around, 
> man happens to be one of those causes.  That is no more wrong than for a 
> shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to 
> cause a massive die-off as well.

> And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place 
> for any other species to arise.  We owe our own existence to the fact 
> that our niche was vacant when we came along.

  You seem to be justifying man's abuse of the environment for his own
selfish purposes, disregarding all other life.

  Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
avoidable.

  I think you are comparing two things of completely different categories.
A meteor striking Earth and humans destroying the Earth are *not* the same
thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbcdba$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> >> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something
more
> >> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
> >> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
> >> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

> > Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

> I'm not sure I catch your point.  Are you arguing that others should be
> apathetic but admit that you don't do it yourself?

Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I firmly
belive it's irrational for any individual to vote. I never did, won't.
However, I cannot advocate not voting. For while voting is irrational,
*advocating* not voting is also irrational (present company is too small,
and in any case, I have no delusions of convincing anyone even if I tried my
best). Advocating voter apathy is irrational because if too few voted, the
ensuing instability would likely degrade my quality of life. This is where
narrow definitions of consistency fail.

Of course, I may be posting here for edutainment, not because I care much
about the issues, which would eliminate the apparent paradox altogether.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I firmly
> belive it's irrational for any individual to vote.

  While it wasn't really the point of your post (but just an example),
I'm curious to know why you think voting is irrational.

  There's a widespread misconception (maybe an intentional one), that
people can't really affect what happens in their country by voting, and
thus voting is useless and a delusion.

  Practical examples contradict this notion. Voting has caused changes,
and people have voted against mainstream and had got some effect on what
happens.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2009 8:51, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
>>> my case.
> 
>> I'd say that this kind of reasoning is untypical for law abiding, god 
>> fearing poor people. I would more associate this with rich people and 
>> desperados. But it is a reasonable position.
> 
>   I honestly can't see the connection between wealth and this kind of
> thinking. On the contrary, most rich people are worried what is going to
> happen to their wealth and their family after they die. That's why most
> of them have very specific testaments.

Then you have met other people than me, have watched other TV programs 
and/or chose to remember other things from those encounters. That is to 
be expected.

>>>   (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
>>> Maybe nihilism?)
> 
>> Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in 
>> a flamewar, so I won't. ;)
> 
>   For as long as I remember the word "capitalism" has had a negative
> connotation to it. And I have lived in more than one different culture.

The 'neo' was relevant here.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2009 6:29, somebody wrote:
> "Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
> news:49fbc5ba@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.
> 
>> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
>> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
>> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
>> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
> 
> Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.
> 
Note to self: add 'somebody is not a Muslim' to database.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>  I think you are comparing two things of completely different categories.
> A meteor striking Earth and humans destroying the Earth are *not* the same
> thing.

Unless, of course, you're an Evil Mad Scientist who directs a large asteroid 
towards the Earth for that very purpose...

*echoey manaical laughter, lightning flash*

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49fbfa7c@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I
firmly
> > belive it's irrational for any individual to vote.
>
>   While it wasn't really the point of your post (but just an example),
> I'm curious to know why you think voting is irrational.
>
>   There's a widespread misconception (maybe an intentional one), that
> people can't really affect what happens in their country by voting, and
> thus voting is useless and a delusion.

People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
general election by his or her vote, as far as I know. Likelihood of that
happening to me is not remotely worth the effort. In conclusion, voting for
me (or any individual) is irrational because: 1) I am not people, but a
person. 2) There are no legal consequences 3) There is no social pressure.

>   Practical examples contradict this notion. Voting has caused changes,
> and people have voted against mainstream and had got some effect on what
> happens.

I am certainly not against others (and by that, I mean those of the same
conviction as myself) voting.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
>> definition) for others.
> 
> I think there's two different definitions of "rational" at play here.
> You seem to use the one relating to logical consistency, where as
> somebody seems to use it more in the economic sense:
	
	I was merely using somebody's definition of rational. He said:

'I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the self".'

	And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.

	My *own* usage of the word is simply "based on reasoning/logic" -
consistency need not apply.

	I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
inconsistent with what most people consider rational.


-- 
(Ice rocks hit the hull)  "Captain, we are being hailed."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
> hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> general election by his or her vote, as far as I know. Likelihood of that
> happening to me is not remotely worth the effort. In conclusion, voting for
> me (or any individual) is irrational because: 1) I am not people, but a
> person. 2) There are no legal consequences 3) There is no social pressure.

  To some people voting is an act with a strong symbolism in it.

  There are countries where people don't get to choose who will rule them.
Many of such countries lack the most basic human rights, and people suffer
on the hands of the opressors who rules them by force.

  Regardless of what one might think of free democratic societies, people
who live in such countries are very lucky. To some people voting is not
just electing who will represent your opinion. The them, voting is a symbol
representing that freedom. It's like a symbol of appreciation. "I vote
because I *can* vote, because I live in a country where people can elect
their leaders, and I really appreciate that. Maybe my vote won't count much,
but just the fact that I *can* vote is a huge, huge thing. There are
countries where people can't vote nor elect their leaders."

  When someone doesn't vote because he doesn't care, it's like he doesn't
appreciate that he can vote in the first place, that he lives in a free
country not ruled by dictators. Many of these people would certainly miss
their right to vote if they lived in a country where they can't. Often
people don't miss something unless they lose it.

  Sure, one person voting might not in itself affect anything, and it may
even be that in some/many "free" countries the results of voting is
heavily influenced eg. by the media, and thus not completely fair. However,
that doesn't remove the symbolism inherent to suffrage.

  Some people also think that someone who doesn't vote doesn't have the
moral right to complain about the government nor the political situation
in their country because by not voting they have shown that they don't
care, and thus complaining afterwards would be hypocrisy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5/2/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:
> People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
> hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> general election by his or her vote,

By general, do you mean national?

There have certainly been cases where national elections have been 
decided by a few thousand votes, but I believe you're correct that it's 
never come down to a single vote before.

On the other hand, local elections (which arguably have a much more 
immediate effect on the voters) frequently do come down to a few dozen 
votes, and have on occasion been decided by a single vote.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 	And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
> changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
> actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
> person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.

Touche.  I should have read your post more carefully.

> 	I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
> inconsistent with what most people consider rational.

I agree with that.  I basically use the term only in your sense as well, 
and substitute some synonym when I mean in in the economic sense.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> country not ruled by dictators. Many of these people would certainly miss
> their right to vote if they lived in a country where they can't. Often

	Most people I know who can vote but don't feel differently.

	I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
legitimately feel knowledgeable about them. I really don't think people
should vote just to celebrate their right to.


-- 
Best file compressor around: DEL *.* (100% compression)


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
> the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
> species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
> avoidable.

It's not avoidable if it is in man's nature to be selfish and an ass.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
> legitimately feel knowledgeable about them.

  That would mean at least 90% of people wouldn't vote at all.

  The vast majority of votes are done for irrelevant reasons like "I have
always voted for this party", "my father has always voted for this party
and taught me to do so as well", "he made such a good speech" (without
ever hearing anyone else's speeches), "she is a woman, and as a woman I have
to support her", or even "he is so handsome". Reasons for *not* voting for
someone include ridiculous ones like "according to polls he won't win, so
I'm not going to waste my vote on him".

  Yeah, this is a sad state of affairs. But my point is that if you are
voting as a symbol of celebration for suffrage, then it's probably a much
better reason than most. (In fact, I would say that if you are doing it
as a symbolic act, you are very likely to be more aware of the politics
of your country than most other voters.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
> > the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
> > species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
> > avoidable.

> It's not avoidable if it is in man's nature to be selfish and an ass.

  Man's nature can change with proper education. The trajectory of a
meteorite can't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fc7bfa@news.povray.org...
> On 5/2/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:

> > People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the
other
> > hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> > general election by his or her vote,

> By general, do you mean national?

More or less. Anything with voters in the thousands or more.

> There have certainly been cases where national elections have been
> decided by a few thousand votes, but I believe you're correct that it's
> never come down to a single vote before.
>
> On the other hand, local elections (which arguably have a much more
> immediate effect on the voters) frequently do come down to a few dozen
> votes, and have on occasion been decided by a single vote.

Possible, since there are so many elections everyday somewhere, but highly
improbable for any single election that I had a right to vote.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
>> legitimately feel knowledgeable about them.
> 
>   That would mean at least 90% of people wouldn't vote at all.

	Dunno. Most people I know who vote seem to be fairly ignorant on many
of the issues. That's a side effect of the reason they don't vote -
they're just not interested in the issues.

-- 
Marge: "When I married you, I knew we wouldn't live in luxury."
Homer: "And I kept that vow."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other 
>> species is perfectly natural.  I am quite sure that many of the species 
>> to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until 
>> another species came along and bumped them off.
> 
>> The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any 
>> right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time. 
>> Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.
> 
>> As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during 
>> the time of the earth's existence, from many causes.  This time around, 
>> man happens to be one of those causes.  That is no more wrong than for a 
>> shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to 
>> cause a massive die-off as well.
> 
>> And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place 
>> for any other species to arise.  We owe our own existence to the fact 
>> that our niche was vacant when we came along.
> 
>   You seem to be justifying man's abuse of the environment for his own
> selfish purposes, disregarding all other life.

Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the 
effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a 
different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product 
of nature, this is illogical.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the 
> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a 
> different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product 
> of nature, this is illogical.

  Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.

  A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
a sentient malevolent being.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
> different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product
> of nature, this is illogical.

	Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK. The "natural is
good/OK" argument is a non-argument. It has no logic behind it.

	Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.

-- 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
> contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.

  I think his point is that since man is a product of nature (at least in
the atheistic view), then man cannot behave in unnatural ways.

  This goes down to the philosophical definition of a sentient being,
and whether sentience makes humans to be above nature (in the sense that
humans are capable of unnatural behavior and thus can be held morally
responsible for it).

  As I said, contrast a meteor smashing the Earth, and mankind making
the same kind of damage as a conscious, deliberate act (caused by
selfishness and greed). The meteor cannot be held morally responsible
because it's not a sentient being and thus doesn't make decisions, but
humans can.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> No prob.  Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
> 
> Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz  :)
> 

I was thinking more of the swine flu. :P

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 03 May 2009 14:29:01 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> No prob.  Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
>> 
>> Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz  :)
>> 
>
>I was thinking more of the swine flu. :P

Oh! But who gave the flu to the pigs?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>  A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
> a sentient malevolent being.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

But it is held responsible, and is punished by the extensive attempts to 
eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >  A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
> > a sentient malevolent being.
>
> You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
>
> But it is held responsible, and is punished by the extensive attempts to
> eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.

Besides, as Agent Smith well pointed out, our modus operandi is pretty much that
of a virus. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But it is held responsible

  Not in the moral sense.

> and is punished by the extensive attempts to 
> eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.

  Only in the same sense as people building houses to keep the cold out,
or building walls to stop floods from destroying crops.

  In human civilization punishment is a consequence of a crime, and a
warning to others about what will happen if they do the same. No such
thing makes sense with viruses.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Because, in the past, so called "extinction events" didn't happen that 
> quickly.

Would we know?

Maybe one species of dinosaur actually was intelligent enough to make spears 
and fished to extinction several species that were already scarce in the 
fossil record. How would you know?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as 
> possible.  I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of 
> kinds of life, here.

On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life, there's 
no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If you're not 
afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> assumptions that are not commonly shared.

Like the word "fair".  People only talk about whether something is "fair" 
when they're on the losing side of an arbitrary decision.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Man's nature can change with proper education. The trajectory of a
> meteorite can't.

It can if you educate Men to go out and change it. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> The meteor cannot be held morally responsible

So who is held morally responsible for the meteor?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as 
>> possible.  I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of 
>> kinds of life, here.
> 
> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life, 
> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If 
> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
> 
The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not 
object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it 
is of course nonsense.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-5-2009 22:45, andrel wrote:
> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as 
>>> possible.  I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of 
>>> kinds of life, here.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life, 
>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If 
>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>
> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not 
> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it 
> is of course nonsense.
modulo clerical errors

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as 
>>> possible.  I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of 
>>> kinds of life, here.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life, 
>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If 
>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>
> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not 
> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it 
> is of course nonsense.

That's not what I was trying to say.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
>> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
>> different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product
>> of nature, this is illogical.
> 
> 	Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK. The "natural is
> good/OK" argument is a non-argument. It has no logic behind it.
> 
> 	Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
> contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.

Prove that the behaviors you condemn are "contrary to nature."

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the 
>> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a 
>> different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product 
>> of nature, this is illogical.
> 
>   Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.

Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 8-5-2009 0:29, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much 
>>>> as possible.  I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but 
>>>> of kinds of life, here.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life, 
>>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If 
>>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>>
>> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not 
>> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form 
>> it is of course nonsense.
> 
> That's not what I was trying to say.
> 
Ok, then I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
>> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>
> Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?

Because it allows us to.

You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice 
because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.

You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because 
the person is capable of understanding morals.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient 
>>> species
>>> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>>
>> Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
> 
> Because it allows us to.
> 
> You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice 
> because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
> 
> You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because 
> the person is capable of understanding morals.

I am aware that man has the capacity for reason and volition, and 
therefore is a proper subject for moral judgment.

That does not necessitate that when man does X, it is better or worse 
than when nature does X.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 5/9/2009 12:43 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> I am aware that man has the capacity for reason and volition, and
> therefore is a proper subject for moral judgment.
>
> That does not necessitate that when man does X, it is better or worse
> than when nature does X.

Do you think that two different people, with different skill sets, 
should hold different positions within the same company?

In particular, a Software Engineer and a Customer Service rep both have 
very different job descriptions, and very different abilities.

Is it fair to say that they should each be held to different standards 
precisely because of their abilities and situations?

If so, then it is also fair to judge Man by a different standard than we 
judge animals by.  If not, then I wonder how you get on at work.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:4a059bca$1@news.povray.org...
> On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> >> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient
species
> >> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.

> > Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?

> Because it allows us to.
>
> You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
> because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
>
> You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
> the person is capable of understanding morals.

To nitpick, those are not analogous. A correct one might be:

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a06d749$1@news.povray.org...
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:4a059bca$1@news.povray.org...
> > On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> > > Warp wrote:
> > >> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient
> species
> > >> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>
> > > Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
>
> > Because it allows us to.
> >
> > You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
> > because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
> >
> > You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
> > the person is capable of understanding morals.

To nitpick, those are not analogous. A cat is not to mice as a man is to
man. A correct one might be:

You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice.
You cannot hold a man morally responsible for killing a family of cows. (In
most societies)
You cannot hold a man morally responsible for killing a family of dogs. (In
some societies)
...etc

Also, it's not about understanding morals, but establishing them. Cats (as
well as dogs/wolves) also have established behaviour. Those are much less
complex than ours naturally, but they also hold each other responsible, and
punish those who don't obey the rules.

But in the end, I agree with your main point: We have different expectations
from humans than we have from cats. It would be silly to try to apply the
same rules to different things and different situations.

Post a reply to this message