- Protecting terrorists' rights is more important than preventing terrorism. Completely compromise the efforts to prevent terrorism rather than compromising terrorists' rights in the slightest degree (or even in appearance). Any other course of action (or even the discussion of it) is forbidden and evil.
- Courts and the media can do no wrong and are above scrutiny. Even discussions to the contrary are forbidden and evil.
- Bush is evil and you should believe anything bad about him, no matter how kooky, speculative, or outright false.
A "contents are hot" warning hardly alleviates the hazard, because that does not really convey the nature of the hazard.
Really? When someone warns you that something is hot, what do you think they're trying to say?
"Warning, cup may suddenly collapse and spill hot contents if lid is removed"
"so be careful removing the lid so you don't spill it. And if you do spill it, don't just sit there and let it burn you for a long time. Because the contents are hot and hot things burn and a burn is an injury and injuries are bad so we're warning you because we want to prevent injuries. Also, contents are a liquid and if you tip the cup far enough, the liquid will fall out of the cup in a way that a solid like ice cream might not. So leave the cup upright, don't spill the liquid because it's hot and hot things burn."
So, just get rid of all product liability lawsuits?
That would be better than the system we have now. I'd prefer a fair system though. Something with assumption of risk restored and some sort of a loser pays to prevent these kind of lawsuits from ever reaching a court.
Or should we present them to Your Majesty for judgement?
Because I'm against theft? There used to be a lot of people who were against theft and outright injustice, especially as part of a government-enforced regime to benefit a few elites (lawyers in this case). It's taken almost two generations of fomenting hate and envy to trick folks like you siding with them so they can take what they want.
And teaching people to injure themselves for a quick profit is responsible? Or is it teaching people that they don't have to bear the consequences of their own choices (or their own mistakes) that's responsible?
The courts will continue to function as long as there's a huge bonanza of profit in it for the greedy lawyers who control them. And as long as those lawyers donate to the political campaigns of the candidates that skew the rules in their favor.
It's legalized theft. I'm against it because stealing is wrong, even when a judge or jury says "go ahead".
Actually, according to the court, she was 20% at fault for spilling the coffee...
And that's all that should matter. If she's at fault even 1%, she shouldn't be able to collect damages.
There's no room in this world for "I spilled coffee on myself, give me $8 million". If the courts are an injure-yourself-for-profit venue, then they should all be closed immediately.
She was trying to take the lid off the cup of coffee.
And then she spilled it. She did that all by herself. No McDonalds employee spilled it on her. Spilling the coffee was 100% her fault, and McDonalds did not intend it to be spilled any more than they intended it for injecting via syringe.
Coffee should not be served at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in seconds.
What business is it of yours (or of anyone else)?
How about 3rd degree burns in a longer time? How about 2nd degree burns in seconds? How about minor scalding? How should it be prepared to make it safe to pour in a syringe and inject it? Or to pour in your nose and breathe it? Or to pour on the ground and not freeze into a slippery puddle?
How is spilling it on the ground less of an ordinary accident than spilling it on your crotch?
I'm not sure if you can even drink it at that temperature.
What difference does it make if you can drink it at that temperature? How is that relevant to spilling it on your crotch?
Congrats on being a greedy trial lawyer and/or a tool of greedy trial lawyers.
Coffee at whatever temperature is for drinking, not for pouring in your crotch. McDonalds should never be liable for misuse of their coffee, regardless of the temperature.
You can injure yourself with any temperature of coffee by doing various things with it:
- pouring it in your crotch - spilling it in the winter so it eventually freezes into slippery ice, then slipping and breaking your hip (Maybe it was too cold? It would have taken 2 minutes longer to freeze if it was regular McDonald's extra-hot coffee! I'm suing for $10 million!) - loading up a syringe with it and injecting it - pouring it in your nose so you asphyxiate (McDonald's fault because the coffee cup was too big?) - dropping it on someone from a tall building - or just drinking it instead of watching the road
You can make a reasonable case for this lawsuit if the woman was injured drinking the coffee. Since she injured herself misusing the coffee by spilling it on her crotch, there's no way this is McDonald's fault. They shouldn't have to pay a penny, the suit should have been thrown out, and she and her lawyers ought to have been severely sanctioned.
An anachronistic publication chooses a "man of the year" and we're supposed to care?
In other news, the Communist Party has named Fidel Castro it's man of the year again, just beating out Hugo Chavez. Slashdot names CmdrTaco man of the year. Microsoft names Major Nelson man of the year. I think the NY Times is going to make "the international terrorist" their person of the year. And international terrorists are going to name "the NY Times reporter" their person of the year, just beating out "the Associated Press reporter" despite the AP's recent efforts to catch up.
I'm nominating myself for my own Kohath man of the year award this year. I think I might win.
Pundits will continue to confuse "buzz" with reality. Professionals who work in a field will make choices based on getting their work done. Outside observers will base their knowledge on what seems new and trendy.
- Animal-rights wackos will complain about the animal testing involved. - Fat-haters will complain this lets fat people get away with being fat without worrying about dieing from diabetes. - And most of all, what about the hated drug companies who make a profit from this? How dare they expect to make a little money when all their drug does is cure diabetes? Greedy corporate bastards.
I actually agree with you that America can reasonably seem like a bully sometimes.
But:
Why should America care what your opinion is? There are a lot of countries that have basically never solved a single problem for anyone. America takes action to try to solve a problem and sometimes things go partly wrong. And then we get to hear a lot of crying about how America is bad because something went wrong. What good are the complaints from global spectators and enablers?
Furthermore, a lot of these complaints come from corrupt individuals who are profiting from drugs, terrorism, terrorism supporters, and authoritarian regimes. It's no wonder they complain. The former Sec. General of the UN is a good example.
Also, please enlighten us with your policy and action plans that will solve all the world's problems without anything ever going wrong. Make sure that your plans are so perfect that no one could ever complain about them, even for dishonest reasons. And they should include only actions that have a historical track record of working successfully. No magic "we'll talk to them and... and everything will work great".
My post was about "value" as a whole, not "sentimental value". Ethical value is a small part of that. People value things ethically, emotionally, practically, and in many other ways.
You can try to convince people that acting in their own best interest is unethical if you want. The rational choice for an individual is to choose an ethical code where that tends not to be the case. (And even then, people tend to violate their chosen ethical code when it benefits them.) So your argument probably won't be received too well.
It would accomplish the goal of inflating your own ethical superiority over others though. If that's your goal, give it a try. The one downside of inflated moral superiority is that it leads to the mistaken assumption that, being superior, one ought to make life choices for the benighted folks.
It's just before Xmas - I'm not sure that example is going to reliably elicit the response you're looking for.
That's why the examples continue. No one rational can continue to answer those questions contrary to their own benefit. That was the point. In the humans vs. animals argument, humans have to side with the humans. Siding with the animals is self-destructive and probably a symptom of a diagnosable mental illness.
There is a large difference between "If between my father and some stranger, I can only save one, so I save my father", and "To save my father, I'm going to kill a stranger."
I was answering the question about the value of humans vs. animals. It's not a "kill one to save the other" question as the original poster phrased it.
And to those who would claim that human life is more precious than animal life... why?
These are some example questions. Assume you're on vacation far away and none of this causes you any direct physical harm. Now the questions:
- Say there's going to be a huge tragedy and someone's family is going to die. If you could chose whether your family dies or someone other family dies, which would you choose?
- Say there's going to be a huge accident and a whole town or city is going to be destroyed (comet, bomb, whatever)? Do you want it to be the town where you live, or some other town?
- Say there's going to be a plague and a whole nation is going to die from it. It will be everyone who speaks a particular language. Do you want it to be your people, or some others?
Are you getting it yet? It's pretty obvious. Everyone else understands the point implicitly -- all the rational ones anyway. It's OK if you're not. Be insane all you want. Just stop recruiting.
You think those bonuses have anything to do with philanthropy?
No. I don't care about the motives. It's the results that matter. In this case, the result is "people in poor countries are better off". That's what's known as a good result.
I once heard someone say that they believed that senior executives, and especially these modern bonus taking CEOs are mostly if not all, sociopaths.
So you'd take away their bonuses and put the poor people in these underdeveloped countries out of the best job they ever had. Because you're a hater and you hate executives. And you're going to get back at them (those you hate) no matter who else it hurts.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a longer summary:
- Protecting terrorists' rights is more important than preventing terrorism. Completely compromise the efforts to prevent terrorism rather than compromising terrorists' rights in the slightest degree (or even in appearance). Any other course of action (or even the discussion of it) is forbidden and evil.
- Courts and the media can do no wrong and are above scrutiny. Even discussions to the contrary are forbidden and evil.
- Bush is evil and you should believe anything bad about him, no matter how kooky, speculative, or outright false.
A "contents are hot" warning hardly alleviates the hazard, because that does not really convey the nature of the hazard.
Really? When someone warns you that something is hot, what do you think they're trying to say?
"Warning, cup may suddenly collapse and spill hot contents if lid is removed"
"so be careful removing the lid so you don't spill it. And if you do spill it, don't just sit there and let it burn you for a long time. Because the contents are hot and hot things burn and a burn is an injury and injuries are bad so we're warning you because we want to prevent injuries. Also, contents are a liquid and if you tip the cup far enough, the liquid will fall out of the cup in a way that a solid like ice cream might not. So leave the cup upright, don't spill the liquid because it's hot and hot things burn."
The debate is on safety and reasonable danger, not anything else.
Coffee is safe for people who are responsible with it and don't spill it on themselves.
So, just get rid of all product liability lawsuits?
That would be better than the system we have now. I'd prefer a fair system though. Something with assumption of risk restored and some sort of a loser pays to prevent these kind of lawsuits from ever reaching a court.
Or should we present them to Your Majesty for judgement?
Because I'm against theft? There used to be a lot of people who were against theft and outright injustice, especially as part of a government-enforced regime to benefit a few elites (lawyers in this case). It's taken almost two generations of fomenting hate and envy to trick folks like you siding with them so they can take what they want.
And teaching people to injure themselves for a quick profit is responsible? Or is it teaching people that they don't have to bear the consequences of their own choices (or their own mistakes) that's responsible?
The courts will continue to function as long as there's a huge bonanza of profit in it for the greedy lawyers who control them. And as long as those lawyers donate to the political campaigns of the candidates that skew the rules in their favor.
It's legalized theft. I'm against it because stealing is wrong, even when a judge or jury says "go ahead".
Actually, according to the court, she was 20% at fault for spilling the coffee...
And that's all that should matter. If she's at fault even 1%, she shouldn't be able to collect damages.
There's no room in this world for "I spilled coffee on myself, give me $8 million". If the courts are an injure-yourself-for-profit venue, then they should all be closed immediately.
She was trying to take the lid off the cup of coffee.
And then she spilled it. She did that all by herself. No McDonalds employee spilled it on her. Spilling the coffee was 100% her fault, and McDonalds did not intend it to be spilled any more than they intended it for injecting via syringe.
So, if she'd suffered second- and third-degree burns to her mouth and esophagus, instead of her crotch, she'd have a case?
If she got them by using the coffee as designed -- by drinking it -- then maybe. It would at least be a question worth seriously considering.
Coffee should not be served at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in seconds.
What business is it of yours (or of anyone else)?
How about 3rd degree burns in a longer time? How about 2nd degree burns in seconds? How about minor scalding? How should it be prepared to make it safe to pour in a syringe and inject it? Or to pour in your nose and breathe it? Or to pour on the ground and not freeze into a slippery puddle?
How is spilling it on the ground less of an ordinary accident than spilling it on your crotch?
I'm not sure if you can even drink it at that temperature.
What difference does it make if you can drink it at that temperature? How is that relevant to spilling it on your crotch?
Congrats on being a greedy trial lawyer and/or a tool of greedy trial lawyers.
You people are ridiculous.
Coffee at whatever temperature is for drinking, not for pouring in your crotch. McDonalds should never be liable for misuse of their coffee, regardless of the temperature.
You can injure yourself with any temperature of coffee by doing various things with it:
- pouring it in your crotch
- spilling it in the winter so it eventually freezes into slippery ice, then slipping and breaking your hip (Maybe it was too cold? It would have taken 2 minutes longer to freeze if it was regular McDonald's extra-hot coffee! I'm suing for $10 million!)
- loading up a syringe with it and injecting it
- pouring it in your nose so you asphyxiate (McDonald's fault because the coffee cup was too big?)
- dropping it on someone from a tall building
- or just drinking it instead of watching the road
You can make a reasonable case for this lawsuit if the woman was injured drinking the coffee. Since she injured herself misusing the coffee by spilling it on her crotch, there's no way this is McDonald's fault. They shouldn't have to pay a penny, the suit should have been thrown out, and she and her lawyers ought to have been severely sanctioned.
An anachronistic publication chooses a "man of the year" and we're supposed to care?
In other news, the Communist Party has named Fidel Castro it's man of the year again, just beating out Hugo Chavez. Slashdot names CmdrTaco man of the year. Microsoft names Major Nelson man of the year. I think the NY Times is going to make "the international terrorist" their person of the year. And international terrorists are going to name "the NY Times reporter" their person of the year, just beating out "the Associated Press reporter" despite the AP's recent efforts to catch up.
I'm nominating myself for my own Kohath man of the year award this year. I think I might win.
Pundits will continue to confuse "buzz" with reality. Professionals who work in a field will make choices based on getting their work done. Outside observers will base their knowledge on what seems new and trendy.
You have no idea about the different between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes do you?
I predict they'll complain regardless.
I predict these complaints:
- Animal-rights wackos will complain about the animal testing involved.
- Fat-haters will complain this lets fat people get away with being fat without worrying about dieing from diabetes.
- And most of all, what about the hated drug companies who make a profit from this? How dare they expect to make a little money when all their drug does is cure diabetes? Greedy corporate bastards.
In the long run, compassion is in our best interest.
Yep. But unless you get through the short run and the medium run, the long run best interest is a non-factor.
Also, to put animals before humans is not compassionate. In fact, it's the opposite.
I'll just refer you to the teachings of the Buddha on that one
Yeah, if only he posted on Slashdot he'd be better able to contribute to the discussion.
I actually agree with you that America can reasonably seem like a bully sometimes.
... and everything will work great".
But:
Why should America care what your opinion is? There are a lot of countries that have basically never solved a single problem for anyone. America takes action to try to solve a problem and sometimes things go partly wrong. And then we get to hear a lot of crying about how America is bad because something went wrong. What good are the complaints from global spectators and enablers?
Furthermore, a lot of these complaints come from corrupt individuals who are profiting from drugs, terrorism, terrorism supporters, and authoritarian regimes. It's no wonder they complain. The former Sec. General of the UN is a good example.
Also, please enlighten us with your policy and action plans that will solve all the world's problems without anything ever going wrong. Make sure that your plans are so perfect that no one could ever complain about them, even for dishonest reasons. And they should include only actions that have a historical track record of working successfully. No magic "we'll talk to them and
My post was about "value" as a whole, not "sentimental value". Ethical value is a small part of that. People value things ethically, emotionally, practically, and in many other ways.
You can try to convince people that acting in their own best interest is unethical if you want. The rational choice for an individual is to choose an ethical code where that tends not to be the case. (And even then, people tend to violate their chosen ethical code when it benefits them.) So your argument probably won't be received too well.
It would accomplish the goal of inflating your own ethical superiority over others though. If that's your goal, give it a try. The one downside of inflated moral superiority is that it leads to the mistaken assumption that, being superior, one ought to make life choices for the benighted folks.
It's just before Xmas - I'm not sure that example is going to reliably elicit the response you're looking for.
That's why the examples continue. No one rational can continue to answer those questions contrary to their own benefit. That was the point. In the humans vs. animals argument, humans have to side with the humans. Siding with the animals is self-destructive and probably a symptom of a diagnosable mental illness.
There is a large difference between "If between my father and some stranger, I can only save one, so I save my father", and "To save my father, I'm going to kill a stranger."
I was answering the question about the value of humans vs. animals. It's not a "kill one to save the other" question as the original poster phrased it.
I thought I was remarkably restrained. Anti-human folks are monstrous. It's hard to imagine a more evil ideology.
Just in time for my Robonukah vacation.
And to those who would claim that human life is more precious than animal life... why?
These are some example questions. Assume you're on vacation far away and none of this causes you any direct physical harm. Now the questions:
- Say there's going to be a huge tragedy and someone's family is going to die. If you could chose whether your family dies or someone other family dies, which would you choose?
- Say there's going to be a huge accident and a whole town or city is going to be destroyed (comet, bomb, whatever)? Do you want it to be the town where you live, or some other town?
- Say there's going to be a plague and a whole nation is going to die from it. It will be everyone who speaks a particular language. Do you want it to be your people, or some others?
Are you getting it yet? It's pretty obvious. Everyone else understands the point implicitly -- all the rational ones anyway. It's OK if you're not. Be insane all you want. Just stop recruiting.
...you should feel bad about the cheap DVD player you bought...
So because the dolphins died, I'll be able to afford to watch a DVD documentary on their lives.
I'm not sure I feel "bad". More "sleepy" really. Can you wake me up when there's a less ambiguous tragedy?
You think those bonuses have anything to do with philanthropy?
No. I don't care about the motives. It's the results that matter. In this case, the result is "people in poor countries are better off". That's what's known as a good result.
I once heard someone say that they believed that senior executives, and especially these modern bonus taking CEOs are mostly if not all, sociopaths.
So you'd take away their bonuses and put the poor people in these underdeveloped countries out of the best job they ever had. Because you're a hater and you hate executives. And you're going to get back at them (those you hate) no matter who else it hurts.
We'll see in a couple of years whether or not India will be able to maintain what they've got now.
What if they can only keep part of what they have now? Say 75% or so? They're still better off than they were before the outsourcing.
Meanwhile, the next poorest country gets a huge boost. They're better off too.