Removing intellect from the equation doesn't change the farmer/cow analogy. Ants farm aphids for instance. The element of the Eloi being eaten was to introduce the necessary touch of horror to the story.
EG-- the people you live with are real people-- the people across town are an abstract conception.
Demonstrably untrue. You see and interact with people from across town all the time. So, unless you yourself are incapable of seeing them as real, your argument fails. If this *is* a failing of yours - don't project.
Not that I actually think you have that failing. I think you're conflating not knowing them personally with seeing them as an abstract conception. Solipsism, in short.
Like most blanket statements, that one doesn't hold water. My brother's company stood by him through four years of chemo. Some companies are not douches.
Certainly. Pretty much any question framed that way yields a 'Yes' answer. I've walked out on abusive bosses. Most notable was as a single dad and the SOB said I should bring my two year old daughter in evenings and on Saturday because he'd made promises that couldn't be kept. That company destroyed two marriages I know of.
BUT, have backup money or you're an idiot (especially in my circumstance). If no money, make sure you're walking right into another job.
This is a technical forum and you don't understand the difference between having an email account and setting up a private server? I hope to hell you don't have any responsibilities beyond coding what you're told to.
You share a large number of genes with plants. More with fungi, but it's not at all like plant genes only occur in plants and animal genes only occur in animals.
You need to educate yourself about why bananas are clones. Then continue on with apples and other fruits. Starter words -> scion, grafting. Bananas and apples were clones long before mega-corps.
This is the problem with all "thought experiments", they're not experiments at all as they start from an absurd position (see the trolly problem).
The main purpose of these experiments is to provide a mechanism for the questioner to place himself on a self-appointed higher moral plane while pointing out the moral failure of whatever response you give.
The best approach to the posed question is like the one you gave - question the question and questioner.
I dealt with the "If you could time travel back to kill Hitler as a child, would you?" in this manner.:
"No."
"Why not? "
" I would instead grab the child and bring him back with me."
"You can't do that."
"Why not?"
"Assume only one person can return."
"I would send the child back and stay there."
"Let's assume you can't."
"So you're forcing a dichotomous decision between two amoral choices where one didn't previously exist. That's unethical."
Let's add a bit more falseness to the presumption Rahwan makes. Asking people questions and examining real life episodes do not produce the same results. We have numerous examples of people actually choosing to hit a tree or building instead of people.
'Perhaps' is great for philosophy. In the real world, you gotta provide some evidence. We have evidence of the directional flow of time. Matches never compose from flame. If you're going to suggest that sometimes they do, you're also suggesting that the entire universe backs up a step in exact simultaneity. I'll have to agree with Occam's Razor on that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Removing intellect from the equation doesn't change the farmer/cow analogy. Ants farm aphids for instance. The element of the Eloi being eaten was to introduce the necessary touch of horror to the story.
Demonstrably untrue. You see and interact with people from across town all the time. So, unless you yourself are incapable of seeing them as real, your argument fails. If this *is* a failing of yours - don't project.
Not that I actually think you have that failing. I think you're conflating not knowing them personally with seeing them as an abstract conception. Solipsism, in short.
Nothing as long as I get to control what traits you pass on.
Like most blanket statements, that one doesn't hold water. My brother's company stood by him through four years of chemo. Some companies are not douches.
Certainly. Pretty much any question framed that way yields a 'Yes' answer. I've walked out on abusive bosses. Most notable was as a single dad and the SOB said I should bring my two year old daughter in evenings and on Saturday because he'd made promises that couldn't be kept. That company destroyed two marriages I know of.
BUT, have backup money or you're an idiot (especially in my circumstance). If no money, make sure you're walking right into another job.
When your argument is predicated on a lie (AWOL), you've lost your argument.
This is a technical forum and you don't understand the difference between having an email account and setting up a private server? I hope to hell you don't have any responsibilities beyond coding what you're told to.
Now cost out the robotic brake and steering systems.
Of course they have the right to sue. You're confusing the right to sue with your assumption that they'll lose.
#1 - They are correct. We can unplug the machines.
#2 - They are correct. There are no undead therefore there will be no undead apocalypse.
What was your point?
You share a large number of genes with plants. More with fungi, but it's not at all like plant genes only occur in plants and animal genes only occur in animals.
You need to educate yourself about why bananas are clones. Then continue on with apples and other fruits. Starter words -> scion, grafting. Bananas and apples were clones long before mega-corps.
Could you provide a link so we could verify what you've said or should we 'take your word for it' that you're telling the truth.
When you must resort to extreme hyperbole, your argument is pretty weak.
For info on a stance on illegal immigration and farm workers you might want to do a search on "cesar chavez anti illegal immigration".
"collapsing spiral staircase of lunacy" - Love it. I shall abscond with that.
Not what happens. They may provide the fix, but it's buried amongst things *they* want to foist on you.
This is the problem with all "thought experiments", they're not experiments at all as they start from an absurd position (see the trolly problem).
The main purpose of these experiments is to provide a mechanism for the questioner to place himself on a self-appointed higher moral plane while pointing out the moral failure of whatever response you give.
The best approach to the posed question is like the one you gave - question the question and questioner.
I dealt with the "If you could time travel back to kill Hitler as a child, would you?" in this manner.:
"No."
"Why not? "
" I would instead grab the child and bring him back with me."
"You can't do that."
"Why not?"
"Assume only one person can return."
"I would send the child back and stay there."
"Let's assume you can't."
"So you're forcing a dichotomous decision between two amoral choices where one didn't previously exist. That's unethical."
Just refuse to play their game.
Let's add a bit more falseness to the presumption Rahwan makes. Asking people questions and examining real life episodes do not produce the same results. We have numerous examples of people actually choosing to hit a tree or building instead of people.
'Perhaps' is great for philosophy. In the real world, you gotta provide some evidence. We have evidence of the directional flow of time. Matches never compose from flame. If you're going to suggest that sometimes they do, you're also suggesting that the entire universe backs up a step in exact simultaneity. I'll have to agree with Occam's Razor on that one.
Condescend much?
I don't mind ads if I'm not paying cash. If I'm paying cash and they start showing ads, I'll quit paying case. It's a bifurcation.
For that argument to stand that he simply hacked, one has to ignore that he also distributed the game.
You are incorrect: identity theft.
Hush. He's a nerd with an axe to grind against a certain language. Don't pop his delusional bubble.