The first time I heard this dilemma it was posed by a bible basher attempting to recruit me into his church. In that version the individual is your own child. The point is that God would flip the switch and sacrifice his son to save everyone else whereas a mere human would normally save their child. Why an omnipotent God could not break the rules and save both the individual and the group was left unexplained.
Disclaimer: Grandad to three. The instinct to protect your child can overcome the instinct to defend yourself, sacrificing a bunch of strangers to save your own child is a no-brainer for most parents.
Which is the justification for all sorts of terrible things that are actually done. We hold it as high praise that one is self-sacrificing for their relatives, but evolutionarily, we also have to understand that as a self-serving position.
Every other moral system makes claims it can't provide real justification for. Minimizing harm and maximizing benefit is the best you can manage(and sometimes you don't know enough to do that either)
Or something like that. The point being that your are historically inaccurate, segregation was outlawed in 1900's USA,
Most factually accurate correction, ever. I remember that George Wallace "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" speech from 1894, right?
"gregation does not equate with the USA having a Constitution, three branches of government, and governmental "checks & balances". Nor does it have any relationship to this stupid ruling, but that didn't prevent backwards "it was better in the old days" nonsense from coming in and stinking up the thread.
From my primitive understanding, the "bug-out" plan for anonymous is simply to go to another chan, like 420chan and take over, until that server is taken down too.
This all is predicated on the flawed understanding that anyone gives a shit about 4chan.
Don't worry, you can still find information about businesses that have gone under, details about restaurants including everything but their hours and prices, and reviews marked "most helpful" consisting solely of the phrase "I liked it"
Really, though, the tithes taken by the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints is mostly dedicated to running their missionary program(i.e. marketing department) and the salaries of religious figures. It's only charity because religious institutions are assumed to be de facto charities in the U.S. Calling it a scam is misleading and unkind, but calling it a charity is incredibly misleading as well.
I'm going to repeat this refrain every chance it even seems remotely applicable:
Party lines in the US form on the nonsensical boundaries they do because of winner-take-all elections and the over-importance of "go team" mentality that requires to succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny how it clearly didn't matter at all.
The first time I heard this dilemma it was posed by a bible basher attempting to recruit me into his church. In that version the individual is your own child. The point is that God would flip the switch and sacrifice his son to save everyone else whereas a mere human would normally save their child. Why an omnipotent God could not break the rules and save both the individual and the group was left unexplained.
Disclaimer: Grandad to three. The instinct to protect your child can overcome the instinct to defend yourself, sacrificing a bunch of strangers to save your own child is a no-brainer for most parents.
Which is the justification for all sorts of terrible things that are actually done. We hold it as high praise that one is self-sacrificing for their relatives, but evolutionarily, we also have to understand that as a self-serving position.
Ah, you caught me in my little joke. I didn't affirmatively make the implied claim that utilitarianism doesn't also fall into that category.
Being unable to attain a moral behavior, due to ones own needs, doesn't make it less moral.
Every other moral system makes claims it can't provide real justification for. Minimizing harm and maximizing benefit is the best you can manage(and sometimes you don't know enough to do that either)
Or something like that. The point being that your are historically inaccurate, segregation was outlawed in 1900's USA,
Most factually accurate correction, ever. I remember that George Wallace "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" speech from 1894, right?
"gregation does not equate with the USA having a Constitution, three branches of government, and governmental "checks & balances". Nor does it have any relationship to this stupid ruling, but that didn't prevent backwards "it was better in the old days" nonsense from coming in and stinking up the thread.
[Insert generic dig at the financial industry here]
Regarding you're sig: if it's a UDP opinion, doesn't that mean you don't want anyone to acknowledge it?
> And segregation, don't forget segregation.
Only for the first half of the 20th century.
3/4s but who's counting?
Sure, but the point of k6mfw's post was that "the constitution" were secured in the past, and it really wasn't in any meaningful way.
From my primitive understanding, the "bug-out" plan for anonymous is simply to go to another chan, like 420chan and take over, until that server is taken down too.
This all is predicated on the flawed understanding that anyone gives a shit about 4chan.
Shhh, you're ruining their carefully cleaned memory of a perfect past. Less than a decade after "I have lists!" McCarthy hearings either.
And segregation, don't forget segregation.
Virginia state penitentiary, of course.
Don't worry, you can still find information about businesses that have gone under, details about restaurants including everything but their hours and prices, and reviews marked "most helpful" consisting solely of the phrase "I liked it"
Yeah, the OPs attitude was my first impression, and yours is where I settled, quite quickly after reading the summary.
It's not really about the length of the ballot though. It's the game-theory problems with the electoral system that drives what we've got.
and the other half is "real" charity.
Possibly. It's certainly not worth prying into now private-citizen Mitt Romney's personal finances without evidence of wrongdoing.
Or maybe we shouldn't worry about people who get one small fact wrong.
Religion is just one of many many many ways to be wrong about the world, and getting upset that someone dares to make a mistake just seems silly.
Really, though, the tithes taken by the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints is mostly dedicated to running their missionary program(i.e. marketing department) and the salaries of religious figures. It's only charity because religious institutions are assumed to be de facto charities in the U.S. Calling it a scam is misleading and unkind, but calling it a charity is incredibly misleading as well.
If it has a video, it's an ad.
I'm going to repeat this refrain every chance it even seems remotely applicable:
Party lines in the US form on the nonsensical boundaries they do because of winner-take-all elections and the over-importance of "go team" mentality that requires to succeed.
Obama: not as bad as the active war mongers(TM).
Pretty much sums up your choices in the U.S.
Because manufacture doesn't necessarily mean design expertise?
Warning: Car analogy inbound.
Why can't the workers on the assembly line of a GM plant design a car?
In this particular case it's just that the UIs are the same.