Messages

991

iago's forum / Re: Well, that's it...

« on: February 01, 2006, 04:15:42 pm »

I know black people too! They're an interesting species. They stay out of trouble though, because when they're not, we have to punish them  . But it's fun!!

On topic: I'm 65% sure that many Star Trek DVD collections that have DS9 have had commentary.

992

Introductions! / Re: High I'm Graffiti

« on: February 01, 2006, 02:34:17 pm »

Your last post reminded me about this blog.

993

General Discussion / Re: Help me!

« on: January 27, 2006, 03:26:56 pm »

For Math: If you're in 10th grade, Algebra II, Or 11th, Calculus.
Science: Chemistry
English: W/E is required
Social Studies: AP World History
Foreign Language: Whatever you take
Elective 1: From what I see, Phys Ed?
Elective 2: AP Physics!

994

General Discussion / Re: The passive/active problem

« on: January 24, 2006, 06:18:31 pm »

No. In the last situation I answered, I was faced with killing people, or killing MORE people. I stuck with just killing people. If I was a suicide bomber, I would be faced with killing people, or not killing people. I would choose the latter. However, I would alter the question into asking: "If you were a suicide bomber/terrorist, and you were forced to kill either 50,000 people from afar, or 5,000 people with a suicide bomb, what would you choose?". My answer there would be suicide bomber, because it's killing less people, regardless of my life.

995

General Discussion / Re: The passive/active problem

« on: January 24, 2006, 03:37:58 pm »

1
You're driving a train.  Before you on the track, you see a person.  The only way to avoid hitting him is to change tracks.  Unfortunately, there is another person on the turn.  So there are two options:
- Do nothing and kill somebody
- Turn and kill somebody
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill somebody or if you let somebody die?

I would do nothing and kill somebody. I don't believe that it makes a difference if you actively kill someone or not, but why waste my time changing tracks when it will result in the same outcome?

2
Same situation, except the person in front of you is a child and the person on the other tracks is old.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill a child
- Turn and kill the old person
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill an old person, compared to letting a young person die?  Or do you make the decision that gives greater utility (overall happiness)?

As previously stated, I would just be wasting my time switching tracks. To me, a life is a life, no matter how long they have left.

3
This is more unrealistic, but bear with it.  In front of you there's 1,000,000 people.  On the other track is 50,000 people, and yourself.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill 1,000,000 people?
- Turn and kill 50,000 people and yourself?
What do you choose?  Why?

My life is not that important to me, so I would most likely turn and kill 50,000 people. Obviously, I wouldn't have to "live" with the guilt of killing people!

996

General Discussion / Re: How do you spend your spare time during finals?!

« on: January 18, 2006, 03:51:19 pm »

sn00d.

997

General Discussion / Re: Female President in Chile

« on: January 17, 2006, 10:26:14 pm »

If Kaleeko is 35, then ignore my post.

If you plan in dying within 19 years, that's your problem, not mine.

Just because you will die doesn't mean you plan to die. It is an inevitability. And what makes you think that im in that 97% anyway? 

998

General Discussion / Re: Female President in Chile

« on: January 17, 2006, 10:05:08 pm »

By the time you are eligible to be president, 97% of the users on this forum will be dead. How do I know? Stay tuned.

Why can't a woman run for president now?

If Kaleeko is 35, then ignore my post.

999

General Discussion / Re: Female President in Chile

« on: January 17, 2006, 08:26:44 pm »

Cute. Very cute.

I suppose you all will be incredibly disgusted when I'm president someday. Har har har. Har.

By the time you are eligible to be president, 97% of the users on this forum will be dead. How do I know? Stay tuned.

1000

General Discussion / Re: Female President in Chile

« on: January 16, 2006, 10:32:24 pm »

Maybe we should just have a black female Democrat as President for one term, just to get it over with.

Or maybe not... 

"yo my nigga we gotta help them poor black folk yo"

Not like an Indian president would be any better...

1001

General Discussion / Re: No longer Reverend Joe!

« on: January 16, 2006, 01:31:54 pm »

People like you are one of the main reasons many people in my school are atheists..

1002

General Discussion / Re: Morals and Ethics

« on: January 08, 2006, 08:55:02 pm »

What exactly do you mean by define? From a secular standpoint, most religions were created to explain incomprehensible events. It's pretty obvious that you can't have religion without society, as if a religion has only be followed by one person, most people would not call it a religion.

1003

General Discussion / Re: Morals and Ethics

« on: January 08, 2006, 03:45:36 pm »

It seems to me, and I might be misunderstanding you, that everybody who commits a murder, rape, etc. intentionally probably feels that way, otherwise they wouldn't do it.  Does that mean that, from their perspective it's ethical? moral? 

No, from what I've read, a key part of prosecuting a criminal depends if he knew he knew what was doing was wrong. Most criminals that I have seen know what they have done was morally wrong, in both their perspective, and the courts. They just don't care.

You make great points, but you never answered my core question: is what they do moral? ethical? both? neither?

From the views of most people today(including me), what the Greeks did was morally and ethically wrong and definitely should not be allowed in current times. But back then, when it was commonplace, was it wrong? From their views, I would think not.

Would you judge them by from their perspective, or yours? Personally, I would not condemn what they did, as it wasn't depraved or disgusting, but I wouldn't approve.

1004

General Discussion / Re: Morals and Ethics

« on: January 07, 2006, 09:15:11 pm »

Here's a situation:

The ancient Greeks (and, to a lesser extent, Romans) accepted pedophilic and homosexual behavior as normal.  It would be common for an older man to have a younger boy that he would be with romantically, before he married a woman.  It was common and accepted in their culture. 

Now, the question is: is romantic involvement with young boys moral? Ethical?  Was it moral for the ancient Greeks to do it?  Was it ethical for them? 

Depends. It would all depend on the setting and their culture. Today, ethics/morals as we see it are based on popular views. If most people think murdering is wrong (and most do), commonly, it would be accepted that murder is indeed wrong. However, if one person truly believed that murder was right, and if he was not a sociopath, he would still be prosecuted by the ethical code of the court. It should be safe to say that no principles are everlasting. To say that as people change, cultures change, and ideas change, that moral values would stay ever unfaltering and never diverge, would be in correct. Albeit most peoples views on noteworthy actions are the same (murder, rape, torture, etc) it isn't true to say that we, as the human race, will always believe that murder is wrong, or torture is immoral. Answering the main question, whether the Greek's men/boys homosexuality was just, I face the following questions:

1. What beliefs did the majority of Greece hold, pertaining to pedophilic homosexuality?

2. What beliefs does the majority of the world today hold, pertaining to pedophilic homosexuality?

3. Does the morality of views ever change?

Answers:

1. As iago previously stated, back then, it was generally accepted as normal to be in a homosexual and pedophilic relationship with a young boy.

2. Today, while the views on homosexuality have softened, I am pretty sure that pedophilism is not accepted by the majority of cultures today.

3. Also previously stated, morals can change, and each person's code will differ, and so any judgment passed onto the Greeks would not, and should not, be everlasting.

Final Conclusion: By the views of today, the Greek's liaison with boys would be viewed as wrong and immoral, but in their time, it would seem inherently right. I doubt anyone can get a more definite conclusion than that.

1005

General Discussion / Re: Morals and Ethics

« on: January 07, 2006, 03:10:49 pm »

Morality is the innate understanding between right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Ethics are theories and views that have been determined through the application of morals. I think..