|
I will point out that people who propose never to put their friends first at all over comparable strangers tend to have few friends. That too is a consequence.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Fangz posted:I will point out that people who propose never to put their friends first at all over comparable strangers tend to have few friends. That too is a consequence. Because all their friends were killed while they rescued other people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I will point out that people who propose never to put their friends first at all over comparable strangers tend to have few friends. That too is a consequence. I mean, on a personal level you have limited resources, both material and abstract. I can't improve everyone's lives, even if I want to, but I can avoid making other people's lives worse. Stratification of education (and healthcare) leads to inequality pretty directly, so it's immoral to do it. Also the "WHO WOULD YOU RESCUE ON TRAIN TRACKS THO" argument is loving asinine and implies some kind of moral equivalence between nepotism and rescuing people from old-timey movie villains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
quote:A Church of England bishop has apologised after accidentally voting against a controversial report on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. An amusing real life "username/post combo".
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Are they going to let the Episcopalian Church back in? e: Or if not, are they going to allow CoE clergy who support same-sex marriage become Episcopalian by accelerated transition, like happened with the RC Church over women bishops? Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
I identify as transatlantic
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/832205371699785729 Corbyn is less well regarded than both Foot and IDS, and therefore the worst performing leader of the Opposition in over three decades. Ipsos' data don't go back past the early eighties; if they did, I suspect they'd show him to be the least well-liked leader of the Opposition in postwar history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Um I think you'll find that the general election is four years away also he's won two elections also elections don't actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/832205371699785729 well blair was most popular and also the biggest war criminal soooooo???
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:well blair was most popular and also the biggest war criminal soooooo??? British public wrong about almost everything etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Corbyn is less well regarded than both Foot and IDS, and therefore the worst performing leader of the Opposition in over three decades. Ipsos' data don't go back past the early eighties; if they did, I suspect they'd show him to be the least well-liked leader of the Opposition in postwar history. Corbyn still unpopular, further updates to follow at hourly intervals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
jabby posted:Corbyn still unpopular, further updates to follow at hourly intervals. Yeah but he's like, really really unpopular. The most unpopular ever. That's got to be worth a mention, surely?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yeah but he's like, really really unpopular. The most unpopular ever. That's got to be worth a mention, surely? So his popularity finally broke the IDS record of -37 by one point. Does it represent a significant change from the status quo? Not really. Do people continue to post the tedious strawman that obviously Corbyn supporters don't realise he's unpopular/think all polls are a lie? Yes they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:This is what the poster I was responding to was advocating, adjusted for your use case: Did people really spend the night calling me racist for saying that its not automatically bad to love your country?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yeah but he's like, really really unpopular. The most unpopular ever. That's got to be worth a mention, surely? In a poll of me just now you are the most unpopular ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Carborundum posted:In a poll of me just now you are the most unpopular ever. A good example of why drawing on Corbyn's leadership election success to indicate his appeal makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No one ever thought there was a "universally held" moral system. Consequentialism is still a major school in ethics, though, and it does rule out saving your family first just because they are your family. I assume by "rules out" you mean it doesn't state that prioritising loved ones is the moral thing to do, meaning that all else being equal, to do so is as morally neutral as a coin toss? As opposed to "prioritising loved ones in such a scenario where all else is equal is actively bad, so you should always save the stranger in order to distance yourself from appearing to be biased by such moral failings as irrational love. Beep boop", which is literally what Paxman was advocating upthread. Because that would be, pardon my language, loving retarded, in every sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:A good example of why drawing on Corbyn's leadership election success to indicate his appeal makes no sense. A good example of why you make no sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
um no it's a monster's paw
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Carborundum posted:A good example of why you make no sense. If you're struggling to understand this shoot me a pm. Horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
No, gently caress that, I'm invoking death of the author. Everyone thought they were feet, Monster Claws did a whole no-brand cover and those were definitely feet. Society has semiotically coded them as feet that they are more foot than monster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Its all academic since monster much are obvectively and empirically shite imvho
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:I assume by "rules out" you mean it doesn't state that prioritising loved ones is the moral thing to do, meaning that all else being equal, to do so is as morally neutral as a coin toss? That is not literally what I was advocating. I said it would be morally wrong to save a relative "At least, if your decision was based on who you were related to (not on who you had the most chance of saving, or just tossing a coin, and the answer was your relative)." That doesn't mean "you should always save the stranger". I actually state directly that in some cases it would not be immoral to save your relative. Also note that the idea that "if everything else was equal" was not part of the statement I was objecting to. The original statement was that "we wouldn't consider it to be morally wrong for someone to save the life of a friend or family member instead of a stranger if they were somehow only able to save one of the two". Nothing about everything being equal. Which is why I said it might be better to consider factors like, who am I most likely to be able succesfully to save?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Apparently our brains have different ways of filling blanks; I automatically assumed "all else being equal" because it allows you to focus solely on what family is worth. Not assuming that will of course lead one to say "it depends on other factors", which is true, but seems a bit worthless in the realm of moral thought experiments. But then, "do you value family above anything and everything else" is also a valid question, which I didn't spot. Sorry for misreading you dude. spectralent posted:Also the "WHO WOULD YOU RESCUE ON TRAIN TRACKS THO" argument is loving asinine and implies some kind of moral equivalence between nepotism and rescuing people from old-timey movie villains. I propose that rather than wasting time scrutinising the morality of the person trying their best to save lives with limited time and information, we hunt down the moustache twirling fucker tying all these people down on tram lines. Renaissance Robot fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Space raiders, wheat crunchies, scampi fries. These are the crisps of the proletariat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
I can't believe they aren't feet
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Space raiders, wheat crunchies, scampi fries. These are the crisps of the proletariat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
#monstermunchgate
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:No, gently caress that, I'm invoking death of the author. Everyone thought they were feet, Monster Claws did a whole no-brand cover and those were definitely feet. Society has semiotically coded them as feet that they are more foot than monster. Nope. Way back in the late 70s/early 80s we thought they were "the yellow monster" shaped - they also had "the pink monster" shaped ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:I assume by "rules out" you mean it doesn't state that prioritising loved ones is the moral thing to do, meaning that all else being equal, to do so is as morally neutral as a coin toss? No, I mean consequentialism regards "they are my family" is an immoral reason, because the morally correct course is to consider the consequences of one's actions. (No one calls love a "moral failing", come on.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:Nope. Way back in the late 70s/early 80s we thought they were "the yellow monster" shaped - they also had "the pink monster" shaped ones. Provide some loving sources on this motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Space raiders, wheat crunchies, scampi fries. These are the crisps of the proletariat. On the one hand, I have to disagree when you say Monster Munch are crap. On the other hand, I got Monster Munch in my sainsburys lunch deal yesterday, so you seem to be right about this latter point. Still great though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
I'm the guy who pulls the lever marked "multi track drifting"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Let's be honest the majority of people itt will never have to make that critical of a moral choice. Hell I won't either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No, I mean consequentialism regards "they are my family" is an immoral reason, because the morally correct course is to consider the consequences of one's actions. Is the point supposed to be that being family does not actually suggest anything about what the person is really worth to you? And therefore to value family because they're family (rather than because you actually like them or whatever) is invalid? Sorry if that's a goony question. Also is "immoral" supposed to be the same thing as "not moral"? Suspect I may be having a semantic problem
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
This is bad for Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:And Monster Claws. There's no confusion about whether or not those are feet. Those are hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:30
|
|
