8/16/2003
| { | You guys are still all talking about 3 different kinds of predicaments- - Intention VS Action
- Hitler thought he was making Germany a better place (intention - MENTAL), but killed millions of innocents (action).
- Action VS Action (cause and effect)
- Kyp Durron needed to save the galaxy (action - desired EFFECT/end result), but had to kill thousands to do it (action again - cause).
- Ends VS Means
- Bruno won't shut up, but instead of asking hinm to start making some sense, DAMMIT, I cut his tounge out. He stopped talking, but was it worth relieveing him or his tounge? (any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental ;) )
PLEASE tell me you understand what I am saying.  PS: In my examples, the winner of Intention VS Action, Action VS Action, and Ends VS Means, may seem obvious, but not ALL of the problems of each type end that way. Like I've said, each conflict has to be looked at as its own thing. | } |
| { | I strangely have very little to say in this conversation. I find it very simple that the outcome of a situation is more important than both the actions taken and the intentions that were involved during the situation. if someone loses 100 people in a war but they win, that's good. the victory of the nation outweighs the deaths of the 100 people. if a man named bob blew up a train with someone who would kill the world on it, that's good. if he then goes on to destroy the world himself, that's bad. but he had still saved the world once but... I'm very indecisive on this topic | } |
| { | Ok. Here's a new example. Fred is a disgruntled man who decides he's going to bomb a train heading to Chicago. On the train is a man going to blowup the world trade center in Chicago and a man with a newly discovered fatal disease that is very contagious. Later, after the train explodes, these things are discovered. Would bob still be considered a horrible person if no one knew his intentions? | } |
| { | Sometimes sacrifices have to be made. If those people HAD to die in order for the world to be saved, then ROCK ON, Bob. However, I still think each case needs to judged on an individual basis. Either way, you are still talking about Action VS Action, not Intention VS Action. You are weighing against eachother two things a person did, not something a person thought and what they did. Do you get the distinction? | } |
| { | yeah zack, but I didn't mean that specific action, I mean---I'll try to craft a perfect example, Bob is here, he intends to go off and save the world, and he acts towards that, but while he is doing it he goes and kills thousands of people in an attempt to restore order, and tortures people----so somewhat---do the ends justify the means?? or--here, if history---a moral court---were to judge bob----was what he did inherently bad, or inherently good??? | } |
8/15/2003
| { | the actions almost always outweigh the intentions. boy and girl are going out. boy tells jim that he wants to break up with girl and have more summer fun. jim tells girl, and girl dumps boy. then they talk for 2 days straight and get back together. is jim a bad person? because of what he did, boy and girl are closer. they got to talk and almost renew their vows and stuff, so they're probably stronger for it, but jim did tell girl a secret from boy without boy knowing. was jim in the wrong? and should boy stay mad at jim even after he's back together with girl because they were apart for 2 days? | } |
| { | With Kyp Durron, it's action vs. action - was the destruction of the sun crusher worth killing thousands of people? | } |
| { | ok, zack, well let me rephrase----do you think it was an act of the dark side or the light side-----for that person--do you think that act was ultimately holistic or destructive towards their being---as a person---will they burn or go to heaven for what hye did---because if what you say is true---kyp durron (that example i used) will be on the light side, be holistic, and go to heaven (that conversation was a long time ago--if you want my real thoguhts on heaven look back at probably thwe very first posts on just think)----essentially for murder---is that right?? correct?? good?? | } |
| { | oops...o0k, i was reading the stuff from before the superblog move.....drat----so we do have a new topic---I liked the drug convo--even though it was rather short lived----that is something I feel strongly about----about abortion----could we get off teh topic----there is so little logical way to debate it--------it's just i think this is good cause I do, or i think this is bad for the same reasons (by the way I'm pro-choice)----anyway, I would like to get a drug convo going---if anyone wants to start a similat convo we could switch topics (maybe)...or, I thought of a cool topic while in london--- INTENTIONS vs. ACTIONS Hitler--bad guy. But from what I've read of what he thought, he honestly thought that Germany would be better off without the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays, etc. He really believed that he was making the world a better place--obviously what he did--his actions-were horrible. But was his cause noble? He wanted to make life better for teh German people. (And if you choose to answer this please don't say-duh it was bad--think about it objectively, or on a smaller scale to help to think objectively) One more example--from a story-star wars--Kyp Durron, a jedi, kills several people in trying to stop a new version of the death star (well, actually the sun crusher and it was already built, but let's be simple) from being built, now his thoughts were of teh dark side, he killed people, but he did it to save thousands of innocent lives---good or bad? ok, or what about actions being noble, but intentions not, a much smaller example, (i will not name names, but this actually happened at camp) George was teasing Bob, about silly, but nonetheless mean things. Now Billy stood up for bob. But later, talking to Billy I Found out that Billy was not standing up for bob for any good reason, no, he did it because he felt that George would make his time at camp worse, and would make HIS time unpleasant, not because of any kindness towards bob, he actually rather disliked bob (some details may have been fudged a little to make the story work better)----so which is better, doing a very good thing, for very wrong reasons, or a bad thing for the right reasons. (please don';t instantly say what you think, because the simple answer is obvious--thionk and go deeper). | } |
| { | I'M BACK! Moving on, I think what you're asking, Alex, is do the ends justify the means, or do the means justify the ends? Kindof. I think each case has to be judged separately. Actually I think I'm talking about actions vs. results. In the case of actions vs. intentions, actions carry the most weight, beacuse a persons intentions don't affect anything, but their actions do. More than 6 million innocent people died because of Hitler, and wether or not he thought he was doing the right thing, he definitely was NOT, and his intentions are no excuse for his actions. Similarly, wethter or not Billy intended to make Bob's experience better, he did, so though his intentions were self-serving, his actions were selfless, because George stopped teasing Bob. It doesn't matter what was SUPPOSED to happen, it only matters what came to pass. PS: If someone I loved did drugs, I would do my best to get them to stop, not just abandon them. I personally would never do drugs. PPS: I do not believe in fate. Sure you can look back and say, "oh, that was meant to happen, look at all the things that came together to create that circumstance," but in my opinion, if you're thinking that way, you have your cause and effect mixed up. Think about it. PPPS: PRO-CHOICE!!! It's the woman's choice and hers only. | } |
| { | oops...o0k, i was reading the stuff from before the superblog move.....drat----so we do have a new topic---I liked the drug convo--even though it was rather short lived----that is something I feel strongly about----about abortion----could we get off teh topic----there is so little logical way to debate it--------it's just i think this is good cause I do, or i think this is bad for the same reasons (by the way I'm pro-choice)----anyway, I would like to get a drug convo going---if anyone wants to start a similat convo we could switch topics (maybe)...or, I thought of a cool topic while in london--- INTENTIONS vs. ACTIONS Hitler--bad guy. But from what I've read of what he thought, he honestly thought that Germany would be better off without the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays, etc. He really believed that he was making the world a better place--obviously what he did--his actions-were horrible. But was his cause noble? He wanted to make life better for teh German people. (And if you choose to answer this please don't say-duh it was bad--think about it objectively, or on a smaller scale to help to think objectively) One more example--from a story-star wars--Kyp Durron, a jedi, kills several people in trying to stop a new version of the death star (well, actually the sun crusher and it was already built, but let's be simple) from being built, now his thoughts were of teh dark side, he killed people, but he did it to save thousands of innocent lives---good or bad? ok, or what about actions being noble, but intentions not, a much smaller example, (i will not name names, but this actually happened at camp) George was teasing Bob, about silly, but nonetheless mean things. Now Billy stood up for bob. But later, talking to Billy I Found out that Billy was not standing up for bob for any good reason, no, he did it because he felt that George would make his time at camp worse, and would make HIS time unpleasant, not because of any kindness towards bob, he actually rather disliked bob (some details may have been fudged a little to make the story work better)----so which is better, doing a very good thing, for very wrong reasons, or a bad thing for the right reasons. (please don';t instantly say what you think, because the simple answer is obvious--thionk and go deeper). | } |
| { | Well, it looks like I have returned home from england at the perfect time with fresh thoughts and a new TOPIC---YES, but that will be next post in like--oh 5 minutes=---but still on AI, I ahve figured out what AI is, PERFECT Ai is the ability to make irrational decisions (that may go against self survival) for some piece of something else----however to get this you do need that self-survival instinct-----so that's what you need, a self-preservation instinct, and the ability to ignore that when the need is great enough | } |
| { | I am strongly pro-choice. If an abortion is done properly and legally, then it is harmless to the mother AND harmless to the child because it cannot feel yet at the young age at which abortions are performed. And it is not like by having abortions rather than putting babies up for adoption women are robbing people who can't have childen of anything, because there are PLENTY of babies and children without homes as it is. Abortions should especially be allowed in rape cases, if nothing else. Besides, wouldn't it be better to abort a baby rather than bring it into a home where it is not wanted? And you cannot simply say that having a baby is no big deal and will not ruin a person's life. It is highly emotional and forcing mothers to have unwanted babies is more cruel than halting the birth of fetuses which cannot yet feel. Women may feel horrible having to let go of their babies to adoption, and if they keep them it might even be worse, if the woman is young or poor or any number of instances. Tons of children are homeless or starving as it is. I can perfectly understand if, religiously, one believes you are killing a person's soul or spirit or doing something unholy, but scientifically babies are not at all developed when they are aborted. | } |
| { | I can understand it being the woman's fault some times, but what about in the case of rape? then is abortion ok? it wouldn't be her fault then. but, even if it's the woman's fault, it might be an accident, and people should be allowed to be forgiven. she could always have another baby, but she couldn't remake her life. | } |
| { | i am against abortion because my religious teachers always told me that abortion is killing a persons soul, even if they arent born that doesnt mean they dont have a soul. It was the mothers fault if she got pregnant too young , and if someway it isnt her fault she should give the kid to a child care center or something rather than killing it. | } |
| { | ... that means you are against abortions, that you are against women having the right to choose whether or not they want an abortion and you are for the lives of the babies. | } |
| { | i dont really know what either of them means, but if i had to say anything, there is no choice at all with todays government...they believe they have the right to control all life, so i guess, pro-life... | } |
8/14/2003
| { | I'm pro-choice. but I disagree with bruno, there were amazing things that came out of bad families and orphanages. and it's not the kid who decides anyway. I'm pro-choice because a baby could ruin a mother's life if she's still in high school or didn't have her life all sorted out right, and if a baby can't thrive without the mother, it's still part of her, and it's her choice what to do with it. also, the end of the universe isn't more predetermined than anything else, because it could form a new universe or disappear in an infinite amount of different ways. we need some republicans to join so they can oppose us if we talk about politics | } |
| { | First I would like to say that the end of the universe is predetermined because at the end, it will either disappear or start a new universe. On abortion, I'm pro-choice. If the kid was going to be born into a bad family, or an orphanage, why even let that happen. | } |
8/13/2003
| { | ok it looks like we're moving on to a new topic but i haven't posted about fate yet so too bad! so. i just don't see how my thoughts were predetermined when the big bang occured. i'm not very informed when it comes to physics... and things.. like that.. but when the big bang occured i imagined it to create the BEGINNING of the universe, but the evolution that continued it's development after that was not predetermined. it's an interesting idea that everything we do and everything on earth is controlled by equations and things, and i'm not totally convinced that that's not true, but right now i'm too dumb to comprehend it and i don't really believe in fate because i don't like to feel like i'm not in control of my actions. i just can't see how every little movement i make and word i speak could possibly be predetermined. i wouldn't try to explain it to me cuz chances are i won't get it. okay trying to think of a new topic...... erm.........how about abortion. that's a pretty controversial topic, even among liberals. so are you pro-choice or pro-life and why? | } |
| { | How come everytime we talk about something i understand, it turns into something i don't! ::pout:: Ok it seems like everyone that posted believes in some kind of fate, is there anyone who doesn't?? Speak up! | } |
| { | park: you were caused to think the way you do about the universe when it started. so if you believe or don't, it's already in the chain reaction, because that's the way you had to think as a result of events starting at the big bang. how you think is all just a part of the reaction. I'm up for a new topic. | } |
| { | okk, someone start a new question, and kevin!...make my font much smaller, like a 10 or something | } |
| { | OK, my first post hahaha....im the only dumb one here because im the only real einstein kid. Ok, so the whole point to my babblings about time is to say that i do not believe in fate, because of the fact that because that if you know the future, it will change, thus if you believe in fate, it will automatically change. The time line does not actually curve, more or less actually break into new parts -The undisturbed line - ------------- - -The new line In refrence to Kevins big bang theory: The universe was set at the big bang, every event timed, planned, and set to how it would happen. However, it is according to your own belief of one factor. Do you believe, the universe is alreayd ultimatly set, such as it(the space time continuim) knows if we were to look into the future, and it was already set that way for all the disasters that would be caused because of that. Or do you believe as soon as we look further, then a new branch would be created. Either way, as soon as you look ahead, or find that one equation that determines the placing of atoms in the future, things would change, because you would either change it SOME how, or think you are changing it when it was really the final ending to begin with , making you all confusled and collapsing the space time continuim, or to be put it would become a space time dis-continuim | } |
| { | it's still possible for there to be real physics. even though the future can be determined, it still follows the rules of physics. that's what my whole theory is based on. when the laws of physics are complete and we find a way to position every atom in the universe in 0 time, we will be able to predict the future exactly by following the laws of physics. upon further thought, the future is probably more like a curve than a straight line, so we would need to know the equation of the universe to figure out exactly what would happen, and it would be impossible to get the equation because we don't know where the universe is headed. BUT, theoretically, if someone could find it, and knew all the laws of the universe (physics, stuff like that) the future could be predicted. we can only guess because it's impossible for us to know the equation of the universe. revised theory: someone within this three-dimensional universe cannot find the equation of our universe. but, (going back to my theory about universes and dimensions and stuff...look around in there and you'll find it) someone in the four-dimensional universe we're traveling through can see the path our dimension has carved, and go back and look at where all the atoms were throughout the life of our universe (since he could travel through or stay in one point in time, living in four dimensions). HE (or she) could find the equation of our universe, and would know our future. | } |
| { | Well. The future may be pre determined, but if that's true, is it not possible for there to be REAL psychics? And it's cool with me if this park dude joins. | } |
8/12/2003
| { | heh... I am truly a math-science magnet at heart. the atoms started a chain reaction that can't be changed. from the big bang, the path of the universe was set. and in response to park, (he posted a thought) that guy who discovered the future would still be bound to the movement of the atoms. what he would see would be the future after he changed it. it would happen, and it would be unchangeable, because that's just how the particles moved. either he would be forced to not like it and try but fail to change it, or he would just give in, but there is no way that it would be wrong. by the way... park is my friend from einstein... can he join? | } |
| { | Kevin, how does fate become atomic? you are a true math-science maget at heart... | } |
| { | we have been moved to tripod I believe that from the time of the big bang, everything was set becasue of the way the atoms were moving. if they moved slightly differently then everything would be all switched around and it would be completely different. so, anything in the future CAN be predicted, but ... at this instant, it's impossible to comprehend and understand all of the different variables going on, but eventually someone will understand everything and the universe will be as predictable as a function like f(x)=2x. it'll just be ... universe(8:56 AM july 21 3076)= the universe on july 21, 3076 at 8:56 AM. it would just be a really complicated, HUGE computer program with the state of the universe in it. all you would need is a matrix with the position of every atom in the universe at two points in time, and we'd be set. the problem is that it's impossible (with the level of technology now) to find out where every atom is at one point in time. it's impossible to measure something in 0 time. | } |
| { | Fate is about the only thing that i do believe in. But i don't believe in a fate handed to you from birth. I believe that the people you meet, the influence you exert and the relationships that we have with other people are fated. I believe that we are fated to help or support someone. I do not think that fate extends to things like wealth or profession. Let me give you an example. Say i have a kid in my drama class that is really quiet and insecure and i help this kid get a little louder and self confident. I would believe that it was fated for me to help him/her. But i don't believe that if the kid becomes a doctor that it was fate... does that make ANY sense (Nice topic Jefe!) | } |
| { | Kevin and Bruno-- i think the question is what is someone who liked you and you liked did drugs... what if i decieded to do drugs out of the blue.. that kind of thing. | } |
| { | Im with you guys on this whole drug thing. P.S. How do you do the picture thingy kevin? | } |
| { | I wouldn't be friends with someone because they did drugs, but if one of my friends did happen to start doing drugs i would still be their friend. I've had friends who have done drugs before but because of their friends they dont do drugs anymore. I know that when i have a problem the first people i goto are my friends, and i know that no matter happens in my life ill always have my friends to help me through it. | } |
8/11/2003
| { | people who do drugs don't like me. and patti's a member now. | } |
| { | I didnt say stop being friends with someone I said not be friends with someone. I wouldn't take it into concideration at all, though I might be concerned I would not say anything that would jeapordize a relationship with them unless it was extreemly serious and they were endangering thier lives. I feel like though I dont approve of drugs, I'm probably going to try them by the end of high school, and I'm probably going to get really drunk before senior year- but sometimes you do these things to experiment and we are in high school, where we should be learning these things while we have a safe place to go if things get out of hand and are a bit safer than at some college party where we dont know as many people and get ourselves raped...not saying that isn't possible now just saying I know more people here than I probably will in college so I have people to look out for me. The only time I might take drugs/alchohol into concideration is if someone was bragging and proud of it, i mean I understand if they say it was fun- but if they're talking about how they can't wait to do it again when I first meet them and use it to make them sound bad and cool...then I'd prolly rather hang out with someone else. | } |
| { | if no one can think of a better topic, this one's fine with me I wouldn't stop being friends with someone because they did drugs, but I would make sure they knew I thought it was stupid and I would try to get them to stop, but we'd stay friends. | } |
| { | I wouldn't stop being friends with them but if it became serious like if they got addicted or were endangering people by driving or something i would talk to them. They would probably get mad and not want to talk to me. But i wouldn't not be their friend. | } |
8/10/2003
| { | the picture wasn't important kevin, i was trying to figure it out. you and zack don't need to be so mean all the time, it's like could you chill up the atmosfere any more...try to be a bit nicer. ok i'm going to put up a topic, Would you not be friends with someone because they were doing drugs and/or drinking alchohol? | } |
| { | that topic was short-lived... | } |
|
