I thought the context was clear from above. Murdering some members of a group in distress so the rest will survive.
---
You and 1 or more other people will survive if you kill the baby, mother or old person. ( suppose the weak people could also overpower and kill the strong person/person with the gun if they fell asleep).
Which are moral choices: For all to die, sacrifice yourself, murder someone else?
If people use more bandwidth, then providers will adjust prices, install new capacity, and then it will be fine.
I'm more concerned about IP addresses (which is not much) than I am about capacity issues.
If bandwidth cost to netflix increases, then they will slow down bandwidth (so maybe it takes 60 seconds to start a movie instead of 10 seconds). Or maybe they offer a lower bandwidth option.
I work with someone who can't accept anesthesia of any kind found so far. Either her BP drops, or she starts throwing up while unconcious, or her heart almost stops, or she develops a terrible rash from the numbing items.
I assume (outside of movie reality) that for some reason, none of these techniques would work for Kirk or he was unwilling to undergo them. So... glasses.
I had lasik in 1997? 1998? It has been FRAKKIN AWESOME!!!!! Never regretted it for a second. I can SEE at the beach. When I stop a downhill ski run I don't get fog on the inside of the glasses, fog on the outside of the glasses, and fog on the inside of the goggles (effectively blinding me in seconds). I never lose or worry about losing glasses. My nose and back of my ears never hurts after being up 18 hours. There's no ongoing expense of glasses.
For me (but not for everyone), eye surgery has been one of the best decisions of my life (I was -6.5, that's about 20/400).
You find someone with deep pockets associated with the video and sue the hell out of them. Repeat until everyone takes down the video/article/link.
The government can't suppress speech but businesses do it all the time.
I'm sure it's legal free speech. And who ever uploaded it could probably be fined for something. And You Tube could definitely be sued for hosting it after it was a known danger (probably before). Might not win, but they would likely fold under mild pressure for something repugnant like this.
Firstly... I can't moderate for some reason ( I have points but there is no "moderate" button right now).
Secondly.. I'm with you up to point 6.
6. The insurance mandate in the HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT was put there by the HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY. The HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY complained to Obama that they could not insure sick people, it would cost them too much money, so they needed to have healthy people be forced to buy health insurance to offset their cost of insuring sick people.
---
You understand the concept of "insurance" right?
100 people pay $1, the cost of a problem is $100, 1 person gets sick out of the 100 and is taken care of. If 2 people get sick then next year the premium is going to have to be $2.
Insurance is particularly susceptible to "adverse selection". Only sick people choose to pay for insurance.
If 100 sick people pay for insurance and 100 people get sick, then premiums have to be $100 to cover the cost (and probably $101 since the insurance plan becomes pure overhead at that point).
---
Where this went wrong is using insurance at all. The government should have just flat out taken away the first $5,000 worth of health care and made it free for everyone and paid for it out of income tax and property tax.
That would include basic shots, basic broken limbs, basic physical exams. "Basic".
Then if we want to handle more serious stuff (cancer can run $1 million-- for me it was $132,000 back in 1993), then we need to first decide
a) HOW MUCH ARE WE WILLING TO PAY IN. 10%? 12%? Whatever the amount is- that results in a fixed amount of money. Then we have to use the Kansas system. Once we are out of money, people start dying. next year do we increase the premium or are do we feel the death rate is fair? Because clearly we are not going to spend $1 trillion dollars to save one person. There must be a life time limit, a triage level where we say, "sorry but it's not going to happen.".
It should not go through insurance companies. And costs should be balanced against mean income and compared to other countries ( which by the way have MUCH lower costs for better coverage so having the government do things can be much more efficient than private companies).
The biggest problem we have is that we have huge corporations which have gotten undue influence and captured the government. This is where we are basically screwed. I don't think we can fix that problem. I have a very dark view of the future around that problem.
I absolutely filter (with my brain, not adblock) all advertisements that do get through. I literally can't remember them 10 seconds later. My eyes unfocus on the ads themselves. It started back when ads were "jittery" but now it's extended to magazines, newspapers and all other normal ads as well.
But- when I google looking for a product and I get a valid link to a vendor, I look at it. I have never clicked on a sidebar ad in google or face book.
And on top of that I also adblock and no script. The bandwidth for ads was getting way too high, there was a risk of virus and trojans AND on top of that, I hit a few "ads" that took over the frikkin browser and really pissed me off. I had to kill the browser and the ad server to avoid having it take over and require me to interact with the ad to get passed it. I would never buy a product from someone who did that to me.
By the time you vote, it's really already over. You are just putting a rubber stamp.
Politics has been made so expensive that unless the people with money give you millions of dollars AND don't activate their smear campaigns, you are never going to get a chance. Obama may have side tracked the process with all those small donations, but he's been effectively both coopted and neutralized.
Hell, one of the best investment after the insurance company written national health care plan is the insurance companies.
Think overpopulation is a problem? Shoot yourself first.
America, Love it or Leave it.
---
Your argument is a dumb 'shut down the argument' argument.
Using my free speech is much more effective than voting. Seriously- 15 years of voting and it has mattered at most once. And that was with preselected candidates in a highly gerrymandered district. We have nothing like the democracy of the 1950's and before. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.
Temple Grandin figured out a way to design stockyard mazes so that cows would peacefully go to slaughter. That's what our system has become. A large system for keeping us peaceful while we are really basically fancy slaves.
But how legitimate is the governmet of a country where 10% of the citizenry bothers to vote?
People have a right to grouse, even if they don't vote.
For the record, in the last 15 years, my vote has "mattered" one time. I was vote #31 for a state senator. It being 31 instead of 1 probably helped convince the incumbent to give up after several weeks of fighting it.
That had more to do with movie reality and Nimoy's agreeing to come back if spock died.
While realistic, it would have been movie-wierd to have some completely unknown ensign who'd never been in a movie heroically dying the exact same way.
Sort of like the away team being senior officers-- I'm sure there are lots of away teams without senior officers (in fact some of the shows portray this and they are always off camera)-- but the story doesn't follow them.
Except he wasn't order to do this. it was self sacrifice. and probably yet another emotional decision under the cover of logic (hell, I remember welling up seeing him die so nobly -- nimoy ate that scene up).
but yes, military commanders (for lives) and business leaders (for jobs) have the authority to morally kill/fire single individuals to protect the rest. Where it gets evil is the involuntary draft. But even during WWII, if you were willing to go to prison, you could avoid military duty and the possibility of being sacrificed.
And in war time, people repeatedly put themselves at risk and die for the rest of their group. The rest of the group isn't evil unless the death assignment was unfair. If it was just your turn, then it had to be done by someone.
If the alternatives are everyone dying or murdering a few (involuntarily killing them), then the only moral/good outcome is for all to die. That's what courts of law have found in the past too. There is a classic case of 4 sailors on a lifeboat who killed (and drank the blood of and some ate part of) a cabin boy who was sick and weaker than they were. They survived and went to prison.
The only moral option is for someone to kill themselves (or perhaps clearly voluntarily offer to be killed). Otherwise, if every dies, at least they died good and not evil.
Would you kill a 3 year old to survive? How about a young mother? Perhaps an old person- or as above someone who is "sick already". Seriously? Picture your self sliding a knife into their throat or strangling them so you could live. Could you imagine that as a "good" deed in any way?
If the enemy attacks my side and civilians are accidentally killed, it's not terrorism.
Terrorism has the express purpose of creating terror in the civilian populace by targeting the civilian populace.
A freedom fighter might scare the hell out of enemies, kill them by the thousands, burn them to death, drown them, etc. They cross the line to being a terrorist when they kill a four year old *because* it's a four year old to create terror in the hearts of parents. When they kill seniors in an old folk's home because they are seniors in an old folk's home. It would be completely different if the military had a valid target or there was a power station right next door to the daycare or seniors home and their deaths were accidental/or necessary but not the target of the attack.
We have rules of war that specify who valid targets are. OTH, I think "freedom fighters" have to break some of the rules of war because of the mismatch. I can grant them not wearing uniforms, attacking sneakily, etc. as long as the targets are valid.
---
To your end point, we have some ugly wars ahead and no one is going to be right. Hope I'm dead by then.
There is a difference between everyone having a chance and some being denied even a chance. There is a difference between poverty and being imprisoned without food until you starve.
However, it's a difference of degree. When it becomes clear that the only freedom you have is the "freedom" to starve, then you realize you are really under the law of the jungle and are free do what you have to do to survive.
ak freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Some governments start out that way. So far all but about 6 end badly in under 500 years.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now, my personal philosophy is based on the concept that unless you give your informed uncoerced consent that it's evil.
In the case you present-- it's my choice. If I decide to do so, it's good even tho I die (even if only one of them lived... even if only one of them lived for a few days and then died). Their life or death isn't the point. My consent is the point.
Humans make this kind of choice every day. It's pretty cool and noble. Do they dive into the freezing water to save someone, step in front of a bullet to protect someone, give up a kidney to give someone life?
Spock made the decision that he was willing to give up *his* life to save the many. His decision. His life. Not for someone else. Not about someone else's life.
--
Anyway, the exact question you propose is in that lecture series. It's a classic problem. Consent and intent make the difference between evil and good.
Sacrificing someone else is murder. Different definition of sacrifice.
I can choose to give up my life to save them. You can choose to give up your life to save them. If I choose to give up your life to save them without your consent, it's evil. (and some argue that I can't take your life without your consent- you have to take it yourself).
For example, in this case, I decided to exercise my free will by randomly selecting a statement from this set to respond to.
I could have decided afterwards, to disregard the dice roll as well (this is often how I make decisions when I lock up. I number the possibilities, randomly roll. If I find the roll acceptable (most often) but some times, when I see the roll, I realize i don't like that result and choose a different one.
Likewise, you can have someone who seems to be constrained by their particular social and material circumstances, and yet out of 100 similar people, they behave differently. You can predict the actions of populations, but you can't predict the actions of individuals except probabilistically.
Put another way, if you offered people a $20 bill, some would always reject it, some would always take it, but in the middle the rest would be unpredictable.
Despite all constraints, people sometimes do not even choose "a", "b", or "c" but instead choose "5". We wouldn't have creativity without free will.
Slashdot Mirror
That's part of why more people use the internet via 3g, 4g, and smartphones than linelines. (at least that's what I heard on bloomfield this morning).
I thought the context was clear from above. Murdering some members of a group in distress so the rest will survive.
---
You and 1 or more other people will survive if you kill the baby, mother or old person. ( suppose the weak people could also overpower and kill the strong person/person with the gun if they fell asleep).
Which are moral choices: For all to die, sacrifice yourself, murder someone else?
I see two moral choices.
The internet exists to be used.
If people use more bandwidth, then providers will adjust prices, install new capacity, and then it will be fine.
I'm more concerned about IP addresses (which is not much) than I am about capacity issues.
If bandwidth cost to netflix increases, then they will slow down bandwidth (so maybe it takes 60 seconds to start a movie instead of 10 seconds). Or maybe they offer a lower bandwidth option.
I work with someone who can't accept anesthesia of any kind found so far. Either her BP drops, or she starts throwing up while unconcious, or her heart almost stops, or she develops a terrible rash from the numbing items.
I assume (outside of movie reality) that for some reason, none of these techniques would work for Kirk or he was unwilling to undergo them. So... glasses.
I had lasik in 1997? 1998? It has been FRAKKIN AWESOME!!!!! Never regretted it for a second.
I can SEE at the beach. When I stop a downhill ski run I don't get fog on the inside of the glasses, fog on the outside of the glasses, and fog on the inside of the goggles (effectively blinding me in seconds). I never lose or worry about losing glasses. My nose and back of my ears never hurts after being up 18 hours. There's no ongoing expense of glasses.
For me (but not for everyone), eye surgery has been one of the best decisions of my life (I was -6.5, that's about 20/400).
How it works in the US is,
You find someone with deep pockets associated with the video and sue the hell out of them. Repeat until everyone takes down the video/article/link.
The government can't suppress speech but businesses do it all the time.
I'm sure it's legal free speech. And who ever uploaded it could probably be fined for something. And You Tube could definitely be sued for hosting it after it was a known danger (probably before). Might not win, but they would likely fold under mild pressure for something repugnant like this.
Firstly... I can't moderate for some reason ( I have points but there is no "moderate" button right now).
Secondly.. I'm with you up to point 6.
6. The insurance mandate in the HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT was put there by the HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY. The HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY complained to Obama that they could not insure sick people, it would cost them too much money, so they needed to have healthy people be forced to buy health insurance to offset their cost of insuring sick people.
---
You understand the concept of "insurance" right?
100 people pay $1, the cost of a problem is $100, 1 person gets sick out of the 100 and is taken care of. If 2 people get sick then next year the premium is going to have to be $2.
Insurance is particularly susceptible to "adverse selection". Only sick people choose to pay for insurance.
If 100 sick people pay for insurance and 100 people get sick, then premiums have to be $100 to cover the cost (and probably $101 since the insurance plan becomes pure overhead at that point).
---
Where this went wrong is using insurance at all. The government should have just flat out taken away the first $5,000 worth of health care and made it free for everyone and paid for it out of income tax and property tax.
That would include basic shots, basic broken limbs, basic physical exams. "Basic".
Then if we want to handle more serious stuff (cancer can run $1 million-- for me it was $132,000 back in 1993), then we need to first decide
a) HOW MUCH ARE WE WILLING TO PAY IN. 10%? 12%? Whatever the amount is- that results in a fixed amount of money. Then we have to use the Kansas system. Once we are out of money, people start dying. next year do we increase the premium or are do we feel the death rate is fair? Because clearly we are not going to spend $1 trillion dollars to save one person. There must be a life time limit, a triage level where we say, "sorry but it's not going to happen.".
It should not go through insurance companies. And costs should be balanced against mean income and compared to other countries ( which by the way have MUCH lower costs for better coverage so having the government do things can be much more efficient than private companies).
The biggest problem we have is that we have huge corporations which have gotten undue influence and captured the government. This is where we are basically screwed. I don't think we can fix that problem. I have a very dark view of the future around that problem.
I absolutely filter (with my brain, not adblock) all advertisements that do get through. I literally can't remember them 10 seconds later. My eyes unfocus on the ads themselves. It started back when ads were "jittery" but now it's extended to magazines, newspapers and all other normal ads as well.
But- when I google looking for a product and I get a valid link to a vendor, I look at it. I have never clicked on a sidebar ad in google or face book.
And on top of that I also adblock and no script. The bandwidth for ads was getting way too high, there was a risk of virus and trojans AND on top of that, I hit a few "ads" that took over the frikkin browser and really pissed me off. I had to kill the browser and the ad server to avoid having it take over and require me to interact with the ad to get passed it. I would never buy a product from someone who did that to me.
No we don't (any more).
By the time you vote, it's really already over. You are just putting a rubber stamp.
Politics has been made so expensive that unless the people with money give you millions of dollars AND don't activate their smear campaigns, you are never going to get a chance.
Obama may have side tracked the process with all those small donations, but he's been effectively both coopted and neutralized.
Hell, one of the best investment after the insurance company written national health care plan is the insurance companies.
Think overpopulation is a problem? Shoot yourself first.
America, Love it or Leave it.
---
Your argument is a dumb 'shut down the argument' argument.
Using my free speech is much more effective than voting. Seriously- 15 years of voting and it has mattered at most once. And that was with preselected candidates in a highly gerrymandered district. We have nothing like the democracy of the 1950's and before. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.
Temple Grandin figured out a way to design stockyard mazes so that cows would peacefully go to slaughter. That's what our system has become. A large system for keeping us peaceful while we are really basically fancy slaves.
I vote.
But how legitimate is the governmet of a country where 10% of the citizenry bothers to vote?
People have a right to grouse, even if they don't vote.
For the record, in the last 15 years, my vote has "mattered" one time. I was vote #31 for a state senator. It being 31 instead of 1 probably helped convince the incumbent to give up after several weeks of fighting it.
When you vote, you legitimize the process.
If you believe the process is inherently illegitimate, then you can't vote in good conscience. All you are doing is taking the red pill by voting.
You made the choice they wanted you to make and bought into the system which has been corrupted badly (probably irredeemably) over the last 40 years.
Candidates who are not bought and paid for are made to look like idiots by corporate controlled media (radio, tv, print and even web).
It's okay, So did the person that marked it a troll.
exactly...
And everyone chooses "A".
The noble candidate A, who will lower taxes, expand benefits, and is for a strong America
or
The candidate B, who voted for increased taxes and fewer benefits.
---
Do you want to vote for"
Corporate controlled sock... er "Conservative" Candidate A?
or
Corporate controlled sock... er "Liberal" Candidate B?
True.
That had more to do with movie reality and Nimoy's agreeing to come back if spock died.
While realistic, it would have been movie-wierd to have some completely unknown ensign who'd never been in a movie heroically dying the exact same way.
Sort of like the away team being senior officers-- I'm sure there are lots of away teams without senior officers (in fact some of the shows portray this and they are always off camera)-- but the story doesn't follow them.
Except he wasn't order to do this. it was self sacrifice. and probably yet another emotional decision under the cover of logic (hell, I remember welling up seeing him die so nobly -- nimoy ate that scene up).
but yes, military commanders (for lives) and business leaders (for jobs) have the authority to morally kill/fire single individuals to protect the rest. Where it gets evil is the involuntary draft. But even during WWII, if you were willing to go to prison, you could avoid military duty and the possibility of being sacrificed.
And in war time, people repeatedly put themselves at risk and die for the rest of their group. The rest of the group isn't evil unless the death assignment was unfair. If it was just your turn, then it had to be done by someone.
If the alternatives are everyone dying or murdering a few (involuntarily killing them), then the only moral/good outcome is for all to die. That's what courts of law have found in the past too. There is a classic case of 4 sailors on a lifeboat who killed (and drank the blood of and some ate part of) a cabin boy who was sick and weaker than they were. They survived and went to prison.
The only moral option is for someone to kill themselves (or perhaps clearly voluntarily offer to be killed). Otherwise, if every dies, at least they died good and not evil.
Would you kill a 3 year old to survive? How about a young mother? Perhaps an old person- or as above someone who is "sick already". Seriously? Picture your self sliding a knife into their throat or strangling them so you could live. Could you imagine that as a "good" deed in any way?
How he chose them is of the utmost importance.
There was no consent and he chose along eugenics/arbitrary/(probably racist) lines. It was genocide.
It's a difference of intent.
If the enemy attacks my side and civilians are accidentally killed, it's not terrorism.
Terrorism has the express purpose of creating terror in the civilian populace by targeting the civilian populace.
A freedom fighter might scare the hell out of enemies, kill them by the thousands, burn them to death, drown them, etc. They cross the line to being a terrorist when they kill a four year old *because* it's a four year old to create terror in the hearts of parents. When they kill seniors in an old folk's home because they are seniors in an old folk's home. It would be completely different if the military had a valid target or there was a power station right next door to the daycare or seniors home and their deaths were accidental/or necessary but not the target of the attack.
We have rules of war that specify who valid targets are. OTH, I think "freedom fighters" have to break some of the rules of war because of the mismatch. I can grant them not wearing uniforms, attacking sneakily, etc. as long as the targets are valid.
---
To your end point, we have some ugly wars ahead and no one is going to be right. Hope I'm dead by then.
There is a difference between everyone having a chance and some being denied even a chance. There is a difference between poverty and being imprisoned without food until you starve.
However, it's a difference of degree. When it becomes clear that the only freedom you have is the "freedom" to starve, then you realize you are really under the law of the jungle and are free do what you have to do to survive.
ak freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Some governments start out that way. So far all but about 6 end badly in under 500 years.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I recommend this free series of lectures-- it was recommended to me.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=5
---
Now, my personal philosophy is based on the concept that unless you give your informed uncoerced consent that it's evil.
In the case you present-- it's my choice. If I decide to do so, it's good even tho I die (even if only one of them lived... even if only one of them lived for a few days and then died). Their life or death isn't the point. My consent is the point.
Humans make this kind of choice every day. It's pretty cool and noble. Do they dive into the freezing water to save someone, step in front of a bullet to protect someone, give up a kidney to give someone life?
Spock made the decision that he was willing to give up *his* life to save the many. His decision. His life. Not for someone else. Not about someone else's life.
--
Anyway, the exact question you propose is in that lecture series. It's a classic problem. Consent and intent make the difference between evil and good.
Sacrificing someone else is murder. Different definition of sacrifice.
I can choose to give up my life to save them. You can choose to give up your life to save them. If I choose to give up your life to save them without your consent, it's evil. (and some argue that I can't take your life without your consent- you have to take it yourself).
There is always a random element.
For example, in this case, I decided to exercise my free will by randomly selecting a statement from this set to respond to.
I could have decided afterwards, to disregard the dice roll as well (this is often how I make decisions when I lock up. I number the possibilities, randomly roll. If I find the roll acceptable (most often) but some times, when I see the roll, I realize i don't like that result and choose a different one.
Likewise, you can have someone who seems to be constrained by their particular social and material circumstances, and yet out of 100 similar people, they behave differently. You can predict the actions of populations, but you can't predict the actions of individuals except probabilistically.
Put another way, if you offered people a $20 bill, some would always reject it, some would always take it, but in the middle the rest would be unpredictable.
Despite all constraints, people sometimes do not even choose "a", "b", or "c" but instead choose "5". We wouldn't have creativity without free will.
It's just a bad mod. Someone over-focused on your first sentence.