|
Tesseraction posted:*follows tube all the way to a wall socket* "how the fu-" I don't know if it was your intention, but thank you for reminding me that the Wetherspoons Piss Dungeon is a thing that existed. I needed a laugh/  this morning.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I like the implication that they only said sorry to him after blowing up his car, not that he'll get compensated at all. Is that not exactly what's going to happen though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:My Gran probably voted Brexit, she got really upset when a bunch of MUSLIM women were seen at the doctor before her. Even if you accept the racism at face value, Muslim immigrants mostly don't even come from the EU.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If you give people impossible ideals they discount the whole idea of reasoned ethics. Indeed, perhaps there is some median value of moral standard at which we will see a maximum return of moral behaviour, and asking too much or too little will result in a less moral society. Hang on, I think I've got a curve around here somewhere to illustrate this
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'd really really love to see private automobiles phased out and replaced with a combination of public transport and a fleet of publically operated electric self-driving cars, to be honest. Same. I'm keeping my motorbike though!  (if private vehicles are to be phased out, it should be because public/commons owned transport becomes the naturally better choice for the majority of people, in a way that doesn't involve making private ownership artificially unattractive or illegal)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
On the other hand, loving do it so I can live out the plot of Network Traffic
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:A very good post on why you never, ever want to invade Iran. An amazing post. I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know poo poo about Iran, and vaguely assumed (when I thought about it at all) that it must basically be the same as Iraq, what with the name being only one letter different and all  Pistol_Pete posted:I remember a few months back, there was a media fuss after some recently retired military bigwig publicly fretted about how Britain's current armed forces would struggle to defend us in the face of serious Russian aggression without the help of the United States and everyone was like: "as if the US would EVER step back from NATO! Silly old fool As I recall, the more common tune around here was "why in the gently caress would Russia ever try to stage a land invasion of the UK?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 12:55
|
|
"
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:I hope their investment burns down just as they exchange contracts. Be the change you want to see in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 18:08
|
|