11.24.2001
Muha! For those who care -- I got ddr!
posted by Diane @ 8:26:00 PM
A question: I really would like an mp3 of Sarah Mclachlan's (sp?) song Angel. Does anybody know where I could get one?
posted by Diane @ 7:10:00 PM
11.22.2001
Happy Thanksgiving indeed. Yay Turkey Day!
posted by Diane @ 3:21:00 PM
People who take silliness seriously ought to have their heads stuffed with bread crumbs and slow roasted.
And on that lovely note, happy Thanksgiving, y'all!
And on that lovely note, happy Thanksgiving, y'all!
posted by Anonymous @ 10:50:00 AM
Bo Decker?! Sweet!
posted by Anonymous @ 10:47:00 AM
Hmm, I was just being silly, Alex
posted by Anonymous @ 10:46:00 AM
11.20.2001
Sex?! Where?
posted by Anonymous @ 10:31:00 PM
11.19.2001
Hate to bring up the whole rape thing, but i just feel that a certain measure of clarification is necessary.
Sims, of course the situation described could never occur in real life, and was impossible and purely theorectical.
That's the fun of it. It isn't supposed to have vast practical applications (I hope). And part of the idea was to justify or not justify this action according to utilitarian views, partially because that was how GPaul initially presented it, but also because it serves to expose potential flaws and/or contradictions in utilitarianism philosophy. The point wasn't whether you liked utilitarianism or not. And, of course i am not a utilitarian. Those aren't my views at all, but in order to determine why one disagrees with an ideasone has to examine an idea, complete with its consequences, etc. Therefore, it is a worthy pursuit to examine the implications of Utilitarianism, regardless of whether i plan on becoming Mill or Bentham. Just to defend myself.
Sims, of course the situation described could never occur in real life, and was impossible and purely theorectical.
That's the fun of it. It isn't supposed to have vast practical applications (I hope). And part of the idea was to justify or not justify this action according to utilitarian views, partially because that was how GPaul initially presented it, but also because it serves to expose potential flaws and/or contradictions in utilitarianism philosophy. The point wasn't whether you liked utilitarianism or not. And, of course i am not a utilitarian. Those aren't my views at all, but in order to determine why one disagrees with an ideasone has to examine an idea, complete with its consequences, etc. Therefore, it is a worthy pursuit to examine the implications of Utilitarianism, regardless of whether i plan on becoming Mill or Bentham. Just to defend myself.
posted by Jane @ 9:44:00 PM
Alex: Can we say "your mom?" Yes, we most certainly can.
posted by Anonymous @ 6:02:00 PM
Tired, yes. Old, yes. Infinitely stupid, not at all. :)
posted by Anonymous @ 6:02:00 PM
Too bad. I like contradictions. See Unamuno for details.
posted by dyts @ 4:18:00 PM
11.18.2001
Also, I HATE MAPS!
posted by Anonymous @ 6:33:00 PM
I have come to the conclusion that there are no absolutes in the universe except for the fact that there are no absolutes. Oh, and there's an exception to every rule. There, two universal absolutes. :)
posted by Anonymous @ 6:33:00 PM
But Dyanne, you haven't shown how not having a reward makes an action more moral. Also, that priest is actually getting a reward - the satisfaction of knowing that his "selfless" act is not only extremely noble, but will guarantee him a place in the paradise that he believes lies after death. Yes, he may be starving himself and is certainly not getting any physical pleasure out of it, but he is getting a kind of... spiritual pleasure, if you will, that is more powerful, at least in his mind, than the physical discomfort he is experiencing.
Contradictions are about as bad as arguments without proof. So... pika! :)
Contradictions are about as bad as arguments without proof. So... pika! :)
posted by Anonymous @ 6:28:00 PM
I... have nothing to say.
posted by Diane @ 4:59:00 PM
Also, I have to say that the only thing I understood from Alex's post was that his kind of morality doesn't need to apply to anything in the real world except himself. Which is fine, really, since it's his philosophy. Let's give it up for contradictions! Yay!
posted by dyts @ 3:11:00 PM
And somebody who wasn't me killed all the pretty fonts. Come back, fonts!
posted by dyts @ 3:00:00 PM
Not all moral actions are done without reward in mind, silly. But there not being a reward in sight makes moral actions more moral; the personal satisfaction argument is weak in the first place, in any instances where one (not I) might say it could actually make a difference. Consider an example such as the priest in a WWII concentration camp who elected to be starved to death in the place of another man. It's reasonable to assume that you can't get a whole lot of satisfaction in anything when you're being starved to death, and at any rate, if you believe that one's own death is the greatest evil there is, you would have committed an infinitely greater moral evil in making such a choice. Start facing up to the contradictions, children!
Me, I like contradictions, so long as people stop insisting that there aren't any in their own arguments. Go, Invisible Man!
Me, I like contradictions, so long as people stop insisting that there aren't any in their own arguments. Go, Invisible Man!
posted by dyts @ 2:58:00 PM