Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80

Thread: Laws without substantial reason

  1. #41
    Registered Senior Member heliocentric's Avatar
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post
    There are quite a few laws with emotional, rather than rational, reasons.
    More often than not, in my opinion, they are created to appease the emotions of the populous (whether or not that's a good thing).
    This does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic - many of these laws DO have popular support (or did when they were implemented).

    Seat belt laws are a perfect example.
    I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult.
    There is no reasonably conceivable way for me to hurt anyone other than myself by not wearing my seat belt.
    Laws should not be protecting me from myself.
    They are an example of government treating adults as children in a society that is supposed to be "free".
    I couldn't disagree with seatbelt laws any more than I do now - they disgust me.
    To be fair though, if you cant get it together to take the 1 second it takes to put your seatbelt on then i think you should be treated as a child by the government.
    Damn i knew to wear my seatbelt by the time i was 5.

  2. #42
    Registered Senior Member heliocentric's Avatar
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    Furthermore, the fact they use emotional reasons instead of rational ones should be, in my opinion, made illegal. I personally believe it to be a flaw in the law making system.
    Well you'll always need emotions within the process of law and legislation.

    The problem is if you purely use rationality to arrive at judicial conclusions then you can justify just about anything.
    It would be perfectlty rational for example a government to disallow their people access to certain media out-lets and materials, as certain materials may corrupt them and make them want to rebel against their society/government.
    This is in fact exactly how it works in China, and they actually do very very well as a society. You can only ever say what theyre doing is wrong because at an extra-rational level you sort of feel it isnt right to disallow freedom of information.
    The one-child policy (using China again as an example) is another example of how rationalism devoid of emotion can end up with atrocities being commited.
    Women have been reported in China to have had their children taken off them straight after having given birth and having them killed before their eyes.
    perfectly, absolutely rational - the population in China is one billion and rising, makes total sense to kill a newborn.
    Again the only thing telling you or informing your senses that 'hmm hang on though, despite being rational this still doesnt really sit right with me' is your emotionality telling you so.
    Last edited by heliocentric; 05-26-07 at 03:08 PM.

  3. #43
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by heliocentric View Post
    The problem is if you purely use rationality to arrive at judicial conclusions then you can justify just about anything.
    Sorry, you're confusing rationality with logic. Rationality uses emotions and logic to make decisions. Or rather, superrationality. Pure logic is what is in err, excepting instances of objectivity (which are few and far between).

    It would be perfectlty rational for example a government to disallow their people access to certain media out-lets and materials, as certain materials may corrupt them and make them want to rebel against their society/government.
    Except it isn't perfectly rational. For the greater good it especially isn't. What the fug are you on about?

    This is in fact exactly how it works in China, and they actually do very very well as a society. You can only ever say what theyre doing is wrong because at an extra-rational level you sort of feel it isnt right to disallow freedom of information.
    Except by rationality it isn't. Unless for a greater good of the people. In China's case, it's merely to prevent the super-mistakes of the government (and it's insane expenditures in everything but helping it's own people) from escaping into the general population.

    That is not rational. That's greedy. And flawed.

    The one-child policy (using China again as an example) is another example of how rationalism devoid of emotion can end up with atrocities being commited.
    Women have been reported in China to have had their children taken off them straight after having given birth to them and having them killed before their eyes.
    Which is a myth, actually. They're normally aborted long before birth. After they're born, the parents are merely fined heavily. The child can still be allowed life.

    And actually it is rational. China currently holds just over 1/5th of the worlds population (1.3bn). It's a ginormous resource drain just to keep it's current one child policy. If parents (stupid as most are) continue to pop babies we would have a SERIOUS population boom that neither china, nor the rest of the world, is willing/capable of handling.

    See, rationality is a good thing. But it's very clear you're not rational. Especially since you're botching rationality repeatedly.

    perfectly, absolutely rational - the population in China is one billion and rising, makes total sense to kill a newborn.
    Again the only thing telling you or informing your senses that 'hmm hang on though, despite being rational this still doesnt really sit right with me' is your emotionality telling you so.
    Except my emotions don't say so. My rationality is largely dictated by both emotion and logic. My pure logic instances are rare ones, since pure logic can be quite irrational (part of the reason why humans aren't meant to think in purely logical forms).

  4. #44
    Registered Senior Member heliocentric's Avatar
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    Sorry, you're confusing rationality with logic. Rationality uses emotions and logic to make decisions. Or rather, superrationality. Pure logic is what is in err, excepting instances of objectivity (which are few and far between).
    I see what youre saying, although i do read books on ethics/law which use rationality as a short-hand for non-emotionally lead reasoning, or reasoning which doesnt simply imploy emotionality atall.
    Pure logic might have been a better term to use though i agree, less open to interpretation i guess.


    Except it isn't perfectly rational. For the greater good it especially isn't. What the fug are you on about?
    Of course its counter-rational to the masses, rationalism almost never directly appeals to the needs and wants of everyone.


    Except by rationality it isn't. Unless for a greater good of the people.
    From the perspective of those in power its perfectly rational. which is kind of the whole point im making, rationalism never has to include 'whats good for you'.

    Which is a myth, actually. They're normally aborted long before birth. After they're born, the parents are merely fined heavily. The child can still be allowed life.
    Im pretty sure its not just myth and (no pun intended) chinese whispers, infact alot of children would be killed or rather 'left to die' much latter in their lives in some instances (around 3 years old)
    http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~p...s/c-wnhol.html

    And actually it is rational. China currently holds just over 1/5th of the worlds population (1.3bn). It's a ginormous resource drain just to keep it's current one child policy. If parents (stupid as most are) continue to pop babies we would have a SERIOUS population boom that neither china, nor the rest of the world, is willing/capable of handling.
    How far do you go to inforce such a rationale though, this is the whole point im making. Will rationality alone lead to a good descision?
    See, rationality is a good thing. But it's very clear you're not rational. Especially since you're botching rationality repeatedly.
    Im not sure why you think im attacking 'rationality' as a construct or process, im just illustrating its limits.

  5. #45
    Registered Senior Member Exploradora's Avatar
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by heliocentric View Post
    To be fair though, if you cant get it together to take the 1 second it takes to put your seatbelt on then i think you should be treated as a child by the government.
    Damn i knew to wear my seatbelt by the time i was 5.


    People are silly. There are much better laws to fight against, like the laws in some states that allow a husband to get a court order to force his wife to leave the state. Or the laws against street soliciting unless you have some amount of money in your pocket.

  6. #46
    Valued Senior Member Pandaemoni's Avatar
    Posts
    3,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    Okay. I'm going to kill you because I feel like it. See? that has basis. Therefore I can do it!

    According to your reasoning anyway.
    Yes. If you completely misread what I said. Legislatures do *not* make up laws because some legislator says "I feel like making this illegal today. It just spontaneously popped into my head and has no basis in anything that ever happened in the real world, but it's how I feel." That would be legislating in a vacuum and *that* would be analogous to the hypothetical you have posed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    I said "no cause" because stupid reasons basically denote "no cause". And when you mentioned gangs having knife fights, that's ridiculous. Banning knives over 3 inches because a gang has a knife fight? Lets ban automobiles because gangs use them as get-away cars.
    Anecdotal evidence has always been the basis of laws. Your notion of the scientific legislature engaging in statistical analysis is completely ahistorical. What legislatures actually do (and have always done) is they hear stories from their constituents like, "Some punk kid stabbed me" and they come up with laws to prevent it (like "No one can have knives on city streets.") It is legislating on the basis of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence is still "evidence", even if it's not conclusive. For the most part the system works without the need to engage in costly statistical analysis of every problem that might arise.

    The reason they ban knives over a certain length is that they recognize that knives are tools and therefore useful...the 3 inch rule is intended to allow people to carry knives for utility reasons, but to eliminate the ones that people carry with the intent to use them as weapons rather than as tools. Since katanas are more often in the "weapon" category and pretty much never in the "basic tool" category, they get caught up in the ban.

    This is also the reason why switch blades and gravity blades frequently get separately banned no matter what their length. Their uses as weapons tend to be more likely than their uses as lawful tools.

    Likewise, the "Oh noes!!!11!! Let's ban automobiles!!111!!!" canard, fails because automobiles are primarily tools used for the lawful transportation of people and only secondarily used to facilitate the commission of crimes. The primary use is so much more pervasive than the secondary that it changes the perceived cost-benefit analysis of a "ban."

  7. #47
    Registered Senior Member Mosheh Thezion's Avatar
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion View Post
    JEREMY....

    these laws... are not laws... they are statutes.

    statutory laws... are not real laws.

    real law... is derived from the Magna Carta, and it is called the Common Law.

    this is the only law which is constitutional...

    its the old world... NO HARM = NO FOUL = NO CRIME.

    IE... if you havent hurt anyone, or their property... then you have not commited a crime.

    to carry a lb of marijuana... or even coccaine... is not a real crime.
    since no one is getting hurt... its your drugs,,, you are a free man... you can do what you wish...

    the reason it is now... today possible for the Government to imposes the now.. 66 million statutory laws on the books....

    the reason they can do that... is because...

    because...

    because... we no longer have a constitutionally limited federaL GOVERNMENT.

    DO YOU GET IT?

    THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED TO LIMIT THE FED. thats what its for.

    but it doesnt anymore... do you know why?

    in 1933 they gave america a NEW DEAL.... do ya remember that from history class?

    a NEW DEAL.... that established a state of emergency, using the 'war and emergency powers act of 1873'... 187??? anyway..

    this act, states, that during times of emergencies, the federal government can put the constitution aside, and exercise any and all needed powers to protect the nation from whatever precieved threat.

    get it?

    we were in a depression.

    so the fed used the emergency powers act... to put the constitution aside and ... so... IT, THE FED... COULD NOW DO ALL THE THINGS, THE FOUNDING FATHERS TRIED TO PREVENT.

    UNDERSTAND?

    they threw out the old common law legal system, and replaced it, with a contract / tort system of maritime admiralty law....
    based on statutes...

    statutes.. they could now write... in endless numbers to control us all.
    66 million statute laws now exist.


    they also made it illegal for americans to own and use gold as currency.
    and they put us all... on a new dollar...

    a dollar based on our gdp... based on our labor... and they used all the gold americans owned to pay off the interest to foriegn investors.

    in this way... we can never go bankrupt... because we already are.
    and always will be... the problem, is.. this bankruptcy, means our nation is financed by those who actually have the gold...

    and our entire economy is used to generate the interest payments to payoff the investors who own our government.

    do ya get it?

    we dont have any of our constituional freedoms anymore....

    why??

    because after 1933.. the government forced all children born to have BIRTH CERTIFICATES... these certificates, make you all 14th ammendment citizens....

    but the constitution says... 14th ammendment citizens are UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE...

    WHY?

    because the 14th ammendment was written for slaves... who had no rights.


    so, by forcing all americans to become 14th ammendment citizens, you have been robbed of your consitutional rights.. and have been made a slave, who is then given priviledges and benefits from the new fed.

    the fed that owns you and your labor.

    it is estimated that each american will on average generate one million dollars worth of wealth derived from labor.

    this future wealth output, is the credit apon which our nations currency is backed.
    and our taxes, go to pay off the interest on the loans.


    dont you get it?

    you are all owned cattle... worker bees...

    you lost you consittutional freedom in 1933.

    free men... can own land.. without tax.. can own anything, without tax..
    and none of it, even if taxed, can be taken away without being compensated for it.

    in todays world... they take your land... your car.. all your belongings...

    and you are not compensated for it..... ever.



    you are not free... no one is.


    so get back to work..

    -MT


    COUGH... COUGH.......

  8. #48
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    386
    ...MT, when you learn to use proper english maybe, *MAYBE* I'll start replying. *bashes head into wall*


    Quote Originally Posted by Pandaemoni View Post
    Yes. If you completely misread what I said. Legislatures do *not* make up laws because some legislator says "I feel like making this illegal today. It just spontaneously popped into my head and has no basis in anything that ever happened in the real world, but it's how I feel." That would be legislating in a vacuum and *that* would be analogous to the hypothetical you have posed.
    Yes. If you completely misread what I said. To borrow that page from your book, if you don't mind.

    Anecdotal evidence has always been the basis of laws. Your notion of the scientific legislature engaging in statistical analysis is completely ahistorical. What legislatures actually do (and have always done) is they hear stories from their constituents like, "Some punk kid stabbed me" and they come up with laws to prevent it (like "No one can have knives on city streets.") It is legislating on the basis of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence is still "evidence", even if it's not conclusive. For the most part the system works without the need to engage in costly statistical analysis of every problem that might arise.
    Anecdotes do not make conclusive evidence. It's a logical fallacy (I'm not kidding, it's an official one. See HERE)

    The system largely begins to fail when anecdotal evidence completely lies (which is happening more and more often).

    The reason they ban knives over a certain length is that they recognize that knives are tools and therefore useful...the 3 inch rule is intended to allow people to carry knives for utility reasons, but to eliminate the ones that people carry with the intent to use them as weapons rather than as tools. Since katanas are more often in the "weapon" category and pretty much never in the "basic tool" category, they get caught up in the ban.
    Actually, they allow you to carry knives for self defense purposes. That was not why the law was created. As any size knife can be a weapon as well, it makes no sense to ban knives over 3 inches and expect any reduction in knife crime.

    Furthermore, my reference to a Katana was for traditional purposes. There are still people who would like to have one for self defense (it would probably scare off most people before they even bothered anyway), or simply because of their traditional backing. I included it because this law completely kicks those people in the ribs.

    Similarly, other laws do the same to minorities with little or no reason other then that anecdotal evidence. That is somewhat of a crime against humanity, if you ask me.

    This is also the reason why switch blades and gravity blades frequently get separately banned no matter what their length. Their uses as weapons tend to be more likely than their uses as lawful tools.

    Likewise, the "Oh noes!!!11!! Let's ban automobiles!!111!!!" canard, fails because automobiles are primarily tools used for the lawful transportation of people and only secondarily used to facilitate the commission of crimes. The primary use is so much more pervasive than the secondary that it changes the perceived cost-benefit analysis of a "ban."
    I expected this, but as I explained above the "tool" bit isn't entirely accurate. It basically relies on the belief that objects under a certain size can't be weapons.

    Furthermore, you misunderstood my inclusion of the automobile ban. I included it because such a small percentage of people use them for crimes, similar to knife/gun crimes, yet they are not banned as knives are. It's hypocrisy to ban something when such a pathetic amount of people (compared to total users) commit a crime using it.


    ------HELIOCENTRIC-------
    Quote Originally Posted by heliocentric View Post
    Of course its counter-rational to the masses, rationalism almost never directly appeals to the needs and wants of everyone.
    Except for super-rationality. Laws need to use this type of rationality because if they do not they begin to make laws that are unfair to everyone, and people who probably aren't even born yet.

    One must work for the people when in government and law making. If you only work for some of the people (or just the majority) then you have forgotten what it means to make a law. When you make a law, it's a question of what is now illegal/legal, and what groups it effects. Does it effect the minority that commits crime? Or does it seriously harm the majority of that minority that does not?

    Example: The majority of gun users are peaceful citizens. 0.005% of these commit gun crimes. Therefore, lets screw over 80 million+ gun owners to stop that 0.005%.

    Such reasoning goes against the peaceful majority, and is in the long run only harmful to the country. As the majority of owners do not want their guns banned. Similarly, the majority of people who carry knives for self defense don't want them banned either (these people outnumber the law breakers), yet they're still banned in most places.

    This is unfair lawmaking practices.

    From the perspective of those in power its perfectly rational. which is kind of the whole point im making, rationalism never has to include 'whats good for you'.
    If it doesn't, it's counterproductive in the circumstance of leading a country. Rationalism largely relies upon some measure of objectivity, and most assuredly not such subjective madness.

    How far do you go to inforce such a rationale though, this is the whole point im making. Will rationality alone lead to a good descision?
    It would vary from Chinese are a to Chinese area. Stories of babies being killed in such manner are largely specific to certain areas. Treatment most definitely varies when one changes location in China. So it's a case of subjective reasoning that brings about such cruel treatment (objective reasoning being that you have to curb the population in a peaceful manner).

    Im not sure why you think im attacking 'rationality' as a construct or process, im just illustrating its limits.
    I was illustrating how you are doing so improperly. You are using flawed reasoning instead of accurate reasoning to illustrate a supposed limit. I'm objecting to this in a very strong manner.

    Before you illustrate rationality and it's limits, perhaps it's best to first become a highly rational being. You still have a ways to go if you call such choices "rational" (this isn't an insult, merely stating what I perceive of your current ability).

    So I hope you understand why I'm objecting.

  9. #49
    Not as violent as it sounds Liege-Killer's Avatar
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post
    Statistics show smoking is dangerous, along with skiing, mountain climbing.
    Why are these not against the law?
    Laws need to take into account individual liberties when those liberties do not adversely affect the liberties or quality of life of others.

    I couldn't agree more.

    Very well said!

  10. #50
    Registered Senior Member heliocentric's Avatar
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    ------HELIOCENTRIC-------


    Except for super-rationality. Laws need to use this type of rationality because if they do not they begin to make laws that are unfair to everyone, and people who probably aren't even born yet.
    Ah ok, so super-rationality, is essentially a principle of cooperation.
    I can definitely buy into that, although i think theres also alot more than comes into play.
    I guess what im offering up is the idea of a fundamental intuitive morality underpinning law and legislation, without this intutive sense i think the problem is you can just end up playing a numbers game, using people as individual counters.
    Its sort of like the moral dilema proposed by Philipa Foot - if im onboard a tram and i see that at the comming junction there's 5 people walking on the track up ahead (but there isnt time to stop) is it morally permissible for me to steer the tram onto the other track on which one person is walking.
    Most people answer yes to that game, as 1 death is better than 5.

    However if you take the same concept, with the exact same numbers and outcome involved but switch the situation - lets say a doctor is working in a hospital and there are 5 people in his ward who are about to die, each needs an urgent organ transplant, but there are not any ograns available.
    Is it permissible for the doctor to grab a healthy visiter in the waiting room - kill him and harvest his organs and say the 5 people?
    Most people answer no to that one, even though the outcome would be exactly the same - 5 people saved, the idea is that these sort of hypotheticals tap into our moral intuitive sense of right/wrong, and illustrate how we arnt simply playing a numbers game in which we're always going for the maximum outcome.

    Im possibly preaching to the converted here though, as you did say you use logic and ethics together to arrive at your rational decsisions.
    In any case, i thought it would worth illustrating exactly what im on about anyway.


    Such reasoning goes against the peaceful majority, and is in the long run only harmful to the country. As the majority of owners do not want their guns banned. Similarly, the majority of people who carry knives for self defense don't want them banned either (these people outnumber the law breakers), yet they're still banned in most places.
    Well i look at the situation like this - more guns within a society statistically = more murders, murder is a highly negative consequence so its sensible to have either incredibly strict gun control or outlaw guns altogether.
    Of course some people arnt going to like that, but i dont see a lack of guns in a persons life as being a fundamental right, i see them as a luxory.
    Therefore the gains vastly outweight the losses, or at least justify them.


    If it doesn't, it's counterproductive in the circumstance of leading a country. Rationalism largely relies upon some measure of objectivity, and most assuredly not such subjective madness.
    Not sure what you mean by subjective madness.


    It would vary from Chinese are a to Chinese area. Stories of babies being killed in such manner are largely specific to certain areas. Treatment most definitely varies when one changes location in China. So it's a case of subjective reasoning that brings about such cruel treatment (objective reasoning being that you have to curb the population in a peaceful manner).
    Yep id agree with that.


    I was illustrating how you are doing so improperly. You are using flawed reasoning instead of accurate reasoning to illustrate a supposed limit. I'm objecting to this in a very strong manner.
    I think the issue was really just a difference of terminology if anything, if there is a flaw to my reasoning im happy to talk about where you think it is though.

    Before you illustrate rationality and it's limits, perhaps it's best to first become a highly rational being.
    Hey well, maybe i will when you decide to become one too!


    The problem with calling each other irrational is it doesnt really get you anywhere.
    It just ends up as an infinite regress of me saying youre not rational and you saying im not rational. I say we ditch the silliness and talk about what rationality means to us instead.


    You still have a ways to go if you call such choices "rational" (this isn't an insult, merely stating what I perceive of your current ability).
    And i'll respond to your opinions once you show me why you hold them, or even better why you believe yourself to be a far more advanced rational being than i.
    Last edited by heliocentric; 05-27-07 at 11:07 AM.

  11. #51
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by heliocentric View Post
    I guess what im offering up is the idea of a fundamental intuitive morality underpinning law and legislation, without this intutive sense i think the problem is you can just end up playing a numbers game, using people as individual counters.
    And that's a good thing. Numbers are important. So far legislation seems to be going on 99.9% emotion, 0.1% numbers.

    Its sort of like the moral dilema proposed by Philipa Foot - if im onboard a tram and i see that at the comming junction there's 5 people walking on the track up ahead (but there isnt time to stop) is it morally permissible for me to steer the tram onto the other track on which one person is walking.
    Most people answer yes to that game, as 1 death is better than 5.
    You're misapplying the moral dilemma. That dilemma doesn't take into account the specific things such legislation does. And I for one determine it by how useful the people are. If the 1 person is Einstein, and the 5 people are retarded, where do you steer?

    However if you take the same concept, with the exact same numbers and outcome involved but switch the situation - lets say a doctor is working in a hospital and there are 5 people in his ward who are about to die, each needs an urgent organ transplant, but there are not any ograns available.
    Is it permissible for the doctor to grab a healthy visiter in the waiting room - kill him and harvest his organs and say the 5 people?
    That is not the same concept whatsoever. You're making a fool of yourself. Not only does that mean killing people directly, but it also removes other variables like *shouting a warning to the people walking in the way of the moving tram*.

    Most people answer no to that one, even though the outcome would be exactly the same - 5 people saved, the idea is that these sort of hypotheticals tap into our moral intuitive sense of right/wrong, and illustrate how we arnt simply playing a numbers game in which we're always going for the maximum outcome.
    Except I am. Only when the situation is rational. Yours is irrational.

    Im possibly preaching to the converted here though, as you did say you use logic and ethics together to arrive at your rational decsisions.
    In any case, i thought it would worth illustrating exactly what im on about anyway.
    Yes, and the converted are telling you that you're preaching heresy.


    Well i look at the situation like this - more guns within a society statistically = more murders, murder is a highly negative consequence so its sensible to have either incredibly strict gun control or outlaw guns altogether.
    Of course some people arnt going to like that, but i dont see a lack of guns in a persons life as being a fundamental right, i see them as a luxory.
    Therefore the gains vastly outweight the losses, or at least justify them.
    You again completely remove other variables. I'll be posting an article on guns today.


    The problem with calling each other irrational is it doesnt really get you anywhere.
    It just ends up as an infinite regress of me saying youre not rational and you saying im not rational. I say we ditch the silliness and talk about what rationality means to us instead.
    I'm telling you why you're irrational.

    And i'll respond to your opinions once you show me why you hold them, or even better why you believe yourself to be a far more advanced rational being than i.
    My responses above show you why I hold them. Your continuing to use rationally flawed instances to prove your points.

  12. #52
    Registered Senior Member heliocentric's Avatar
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    And that's a good thing. Numbers are important. So far legislation seems to be going on 99.9% emotion, 0.1% numbers.
    Wow, pulling out made-up-on-spot completely devicive and unprovable statistics to make your point.
    Very rational, carry on down that road and im sure i'll be shown up as quite the fool.


    You're misapplying the moral dilemma. That dilemma doesn't take into account the specific things such legislation does.
    If moral dilemas cant be applied to politics (where morals are at stake more than anywhere else id imagine) im not quite sure where you think they should be applied.
    And I for one determine it by how useful the people are. If the 1 person is Einstein, and the 5 people are retarded, where do you steer?
    yes you can quite easy interchange the person with a genius, you can even add animals and virtually anything else into the equation too, and create endless variations.

    And ive no idea, which way do you steer and why?


    That is not the same concept whatsoever. You're making a fool of yourself. Not only does that mean killing people directly, but it also removes other variables like *shouting a warning to the people walking in the way of the moving tram*.
    No youre missing the whole point again, the point is both thought experiments are concerned with the permissiblity (or otherwise) of murder.

    Arguing against the two dilemas for not being exactly the same is utterally laughabe - thats why they produce incredibly different responses in people.


    Except I am. Only when the situation is rational. Yours is irrational.
    Whats irrational?
    Youre not one of these people who wastes others time by dancing round the specifics all day and chucking in a few ad homs here and there as a near-substitute are you?


    Yes, and the converted are telling you that you're preaching heresy.
    This is all really basic stuff, so again ive no idea what you think is heretic because you can never point to any specific.


    You again completely remove other variables. I'll be posting an article on guns today.
    And you managed to completely remove the sticky matter of high murder-rates in your polemic on the terrible abuse of gun-owners rights. Wanna call it even?


    I'm telling you why you're irrational.
    No youre not telling me why you think im irrational, youre just calling me irrational, there's a world of difference.

    This is the problem with alot of you on sci-forums you havent learnt to reason yet, youre still in the first primal stages of play ground name calling.


    My responses above show you why I hold them. Your continuing to use rationally flawed instances to prove your points.
    All ive gleaned from your post is that you think im irrational (but you cant point to any specifics of why this should be) and you think moral dilemas cant/shouldnt be applied to politics.
    Id argue against something if i could find it, but i just cant find anything of substance in anything youve said.
    Either produce something or stop flapping, youve encountered someone well educated enough to actually calll you out on your nonsense, so im afraid what passes for 'debate' amongst your friends associates really isnt going to cut the mustrard here.
    Last edited by heliocentric; 05-27-07 at 02:37 PM.

  13. #53
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by heliocentric View Post
    Wow, pulling out made-up-on-spot completely devicive and unprovable statistics to make your point.
    Very rational, carry on down that road and im sure i'll be shown up as quite the fool.
    *sigh* here we go...you missed the point of my saying so entirely. I made up that statistic because it represents what you and I both said. They're going based largely upon complete emotion instead of statistics and evidence.

    If moral dilemas cant be applied to politics (where morals are at stake more than anywhere else id imagine) im not quite sure where you think they should be applied.
    Quite simple: politics deal with entirely different systems then moral dilemma's. You have the majority of minorities to worry about, as well as the general majority and such. You should always make laws in favor of those majorities, and never kick them in the ribs.

    yes you can quite easy interchange the person with a genius, you can even add animals and virtually anything else into the equation too, and create endless variations.

    And ive no idea, which way do you steer and why?
    I'd steer towards the most worthless group. Numbers mean little when overall worth is nothing.

    No youre missing the whole point again, the point is both thought experiments are concerned with the permissiblity (or otherwise) of murder.

    Arguing against the two dilemas for not being exactly the same is utterally laughabe - thats why they produce incredibly different responses in people.
    Yes, laughable. Since they're not the same. One of which is an unavoidable instance, the second of which is an avoidable one. You can't stop the train, but you don't have to kill those people.

    Entirely different backing. Yes. They are the same. HAH. I believe you missed the point entirely.

    This is all really basic stuff, so again ive no idea what you think is heretic because you can never point to any specific.
    ...okay...so...you mean disagreeing with numerous points you made, including listing reasons for doing so, isn't "specific"? What do you want? A point-blank bullet fired into your brain?

    And you managed to completely remove the sticky matter of high murder-rates in your polemic on the terrible abuse of gun-owners rights. Wanna call it even?
    And you managed to be completely oblivious to the fact they're laughably low. Good show. Not.


    No youre not telling me why you think im irrational, youre just calling me irrational, there's a world of difference.

    This is the problem with alot of you on sci-forums you havent learnt to reason yet, youre still in the first primal stages of play ground name calling.
    I can't believe anyone is so dense. I've said why you're irrational. Many times. It's because of what you keep saying. Jesus christ man you're ridiculous! IF this continues I'm simply not going to reply!

  14. #54
    Registered Senior Member Mosheh Thezion's Avatar
    Posts
    2,650
    dumb..

  15. #55
    Registered Senior Member heliocentric's Avatar
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    *sigh* here we go...you missed the point of my saying so entirely. I made up that statistic because it represents what you and I both said. They're going based largely upon complete emotion instead of statistics and evidence.
    Righto.

    Quite simple: politics deal with entirely different systems then moral dilemma's. You have the majority of minorities to worry about, as well as the general majority and such. You should always make laws in favor of those majorities, and never kick them in the ribs.
    Its perfectly acceptable to use moral dilemas in dealing with political issues, yes the numbers are larger and youre right the variables are much wider in scope. But the point is they illustrate a mental facility that under-pins a hell of alot of legislation - whats murder, whats manslaughter, whats socially acceptable, whats not.
    All im really doing here is getting to grips with how we arrive at our commonly held laws, to what degree our ingrained moral sense plays a part ec. Which i sort of thought would was appropriate given the subject matter of this thread.


    Yes, laughable. Since they're not the same. One of which is an unavoidable instance, the second of which is an avoidable one. You can't stop the train, but you don't have to kill those people.
    You can address this problem with the next thought experiment in the series in which can 'push' someone onto the tracks to save the 5 people.
    Infact you could add a nice little twist whereby the 5 people on the track about to be hit are all geniuses and the man standing by the track (the one youre going to push) is retarded.
    Even given the 'greater good' outcome, people still (in very large numbers) choose not to push the man onto the tracks.
    It really doesnt tell you an awful lot about our sense of permissiblity.



    ...okay...so...you mean disagreeing with numerous points you made, including listing reasons for doing so, isn't "specific"? What do you want? A point-blank bullet fired into your brain?
    The problem is i still dont know what youre arguing in favour of - all im arguing is that emotionality plays a huge part in our decisions and our law making.
    Ive seek you nit-pick over correlations of thought experiments which actually exist within the same set, and ive seen you say the word 'irrational' but i havent seen you really show why emotionality isnt or shouldnt be part of the process of judicial conclusion.


    And you managed to be completely oblivious to the fact they're laughably low. Good show. Not.
    Anything can be 'low' without something else to measure it against, low in comparison to what?



    I can't believe anyone is so dense. I've said why you're irrational. Many times. It's because of what you keep saying. Jesus christ man you're ridiculous! IF this continues I'm simply not going to reply!
    The problem is youre saying im with out rational process, if i see irrationality in someone assertions i just point out my perceived irrationality in their statement, or if im feeling abit naughty i might say that theyre being irrational (i.e. in that instance).
    But youre trying to ramp it up to the degree of claiming i am entirely irrational (without rationality), You might not like where my rational process leads, and im quite sure you dont, but that is something very very different from me being irrational.

    This could all have been avoided if you could reason without imploying person attacks, it really is a massive waste of time.

  16. #56
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by heliocentric View Post
    Its perfectly acceptable to use moral dilemas in dealing with political issues, yes the numbers are larger and youre right the variables are much wider in scope. But the point is they illustrate a mental facility that under-pins a hell of alot of legislation - whats murder, whats manslaughter, whats socially acceptable, whats not.
    And normally with extreme subjective bias that shouldn't be part of the legislation. That's why a moral dilemma can't apply (see: Moral relativism).

    Even given the 'greater good' outcome, people still (in very large numbers) choose not to push the man onto the tracks.
    It really doesnt tell you an awful lot about our sense of permissiblity.
    I would. And yes, it does say a lot about our "sense of permissibility".

    The problem is i still dont know what youre arguing in favour of - all im arguing is that emotionality plays a huge part in our decisions and our law making.
    Ive seek you nit-pick over correlations of thought experiments which actually exist within the same set, and ive seen you say the word 'irrational' but i havent seen you really show why emotionality isnt or shouldnt be part of the process of judicial conclusion.
    I thought I made it clear. In prior posts I pointed out that using emotion in the judicial process to such extents is in err. I also provided examples where the statistics show the numbers are ridiculously low given over population. Or rather, I mentioned it. Since my thread on gun violence is now up (in the politics section) you can read my examples there.

    Anything can be 'low' without something else to measure it against, low in comparison to what?
    Both the population and the population of owners. As well as other types of crime and/or problems. As well as with other countries in total given the large population.

  17. #57
    one_raven:

    Quote Originally Posted by one_raven View Post
    I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult. There is no reasonably conceivable way for me to hurt anyone other than myself by not wearing my seat belt. Laws should not be protecting me from myself.
    You are entirely wrong.

    Now I know that the US health system is very poor, but I'm not sure just how poor it is. I assume that if you're injured in a car accident you will be taken to hospital and treated for your injuries. Who pays?

    In Australia, where I live, there is a compulsory contribution that every makes to the Transport Accident Commission. This is part of the registration fee for vehicles. It provides for no-fault compensation for injuries caused in vehicle accidents. Thus, if you are injured in a car crash, the government pays for ongoing costs associated with your injuries - possibly for life.

    Since it is taxpayer money that funds this, it is in the interests of all taxpayers (or vehicle owners) that there should be laws mandating the wearing of seatbelts. Without seatbelts, the number of serious injuries in motor vehicle accidents is far higher than when seatbelts are mandated by law. The resulting cost to society as a whole is therefore higher, and the money could be better used for other things.

    In short, if a person is too stupid to take care for his own safety, that is one thing. But to burden the rest of society is unconscionable. Hence, the small cost of enforcing seatbelt laws far outweighs the costs of failing to have such laws in the first place.

    Also, seatbelt laws don't limit your democratic freedom of choice. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, go right ahead. But be prepared to pay the fine. Chances are that this won't compensate society when you're badly injured in a car crash, but at least it's a small voluntary contribution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    As there are few people who don't wish to wear a seat belt anyway.
    Historically, the introduction of seatbelt laws in many countries was met by stiff opposition from the general populace, who made exactly the kinds of stupid arguments one_raven made.

  18. #58
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    386
    It's quite a simple compromise. If you're injured in an accident because you refused to wear a seat belt, you're exempt from the use of said tax payers money.

    You're thinking a tad too closed there, James R.

  19. #59
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    one_raven:



    You are entirely wrong.

    Now I know that the US health system is very poor, but I'm not sure just how poor it is. I assume that if you're injured in a car accident you will be taken to hospital and treated for your injuries. Who pays?
    You are quite correct. To answer that final question, everyone who eventually has a hospital stay winds up paying for that individual's stupidly in the name of "personal freedom." Yes, it's the hospital that's faced with the initial bill if Mr. Stupid doesn't have adequate insurance to pay for it (and that's too often the case since stupid in one area usually equates to stupid in other areas). But it's eventually passed along to ALL the rest of us in the from of higher health insurance rates, higher hospitalization charges, etc.

    So even without a true government-sponsored healthcare plan for everyone, we - as collective citizens living in the same country - STILL wind up with the bill in the end. And ANY reduction in motor vehicle injuries is a benefit to everyone.

  20. #60
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht View Post
    It's quite a simple compromise. If you're injured in an accident because you refused to wear a seat belt, you're exempt from the use of said tax payers money.

    You're thinking a tad too closed there, James R.
    Ha! Don't know what planet you live on but it certainly isn't in the USA on planet Earth.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •