Marqq

This is the case in utilitarianism/consequentialism. This sort of ethics only accounts for the consequences to the person or group performing the judged action. It could still be considered wrong, from the frame of a whole-of-humanity POV. But to the national socialists or rioters alone, if they suffered less than they got out of it, the action was right and justified. There are situations as well wherein apparently good actions are judged as wrong because of the negative outcome (i.e. the first post here). rofl...At least this was somewhat appropriate....we'll call it reductio ad hitlerium or whatever this time.

They're straw-manning!!! If he had said 'gangsta' or 'thug' culture (cultcha?), they'd actually have to deal with his comments. Instead, they're focusing on the fact that he related the culture to black people (the ones who spawned it, in general). RnB is great...was great...when it was rhythm and blues. Gangsta culture is really based in fear and posturing, matched with a complete lack of respect for anyone who doesn't act at least as stupid. What's really horrid is how well it appeals to people too ignorant or stupid to use diplomacy, make compromises, etc. 'The masses' are hugely ignorant and stupid, as most here know. This thuggish mentality gives power to those without the intelligence to deserve it, and without any instance of requiring ethical behavior. As far as the drugs aspect, well, I believe many wars could be avoided with the consideration inspired by marijuana, but other drugs (alcohol included) are mostly destructive. As for the idea that it's spreading like an epidemic, I'd also have to agree. The attitudes are promoted on afternoon talk shows, in music videos, in movies, etc. I've seen many (given, anecdotal) examples of 'conversion' to this mentality crossing the generation line, and increasing in influence.

Honestly, I get that with dark red and blue next to each other, and it's just a matter of being red-green colorblind (60%). It's because my brain is only getting enough information every other cycle or so to distinguish the color.

Mormonism was founded on the idea that all other religions had it wrong, so the God and Jesus in their bible are different characters, however similar. Jacob Smith wrote a whole new bible, not just a translation or interpretation of the mainstream christian bible. As such, many of what are considered the main stipulations of Christianity were left out or changed. Here's one side of the debate (they're not xtian). Here's the other.

"If the majority of people acted a certain way, and accepted it as 'right' (i.e. looting/rioting), would it still be 'wrong'?" <-- Is that your question? If so, the answer is relative (as are all subjective judgements). What makes a good Viking (back in the day)? Who was the worst Viking (today)? It's all a matter of values. I value brains, so if you ask me, the insured shopkeepers were right. But yes, the majority does decide what is overall considered to be right in a given frame. The folly in this is often seen in business and politics, most often where they meet. "If a group of people act a certain way (i.e. pillaging/plundering), and suffered nothing they considered 'ill consequences', have they acted 'rightly'?" <-- Could it be this is your question? If so, again, the answer is relative (sorry, dude). The utilitarian or consequentialist would assert that this is enough to judge the action as right. Deontologists and pragmatists, though, would need to know more about what was expected by society or how it would affect society as a whole. "If I went looting and rioting, would my momma kick my arse?" <-- That's the only question you should be worried about. YOU BETTER DAMN WELL BELIEVE SHE WOULD!!!

No, no, no...only intellect separates us from the animals. Ethically, due to our intellect, we're simply more accountable. Even roaches are ethically superior to us--they know no better and have no conscious control. As far as being 'good people', do you really have to hold it against someone if it's built-in? If two people are differently 'programmed', but are equally nice, who the hell cares? Besides, it isn't hard-wired. You still have a choice, and many people ignore the natural impulse towards generosity.

The Terman Study was (and still is) being run, and one of its initial purposes was to dispel the belief that gifted individuals tended to be weak and socially awkward... Though it did find a tendency towards needing glasses (weird, huh?). I also found this neat paper with tons of citations you could look up on the topic. Personally, I think that being drawn to different levels of intellectual challenges lies at the root of our social walls. I can say for certain, though, that when you put your mind to it, relating to less academically intelligent folks is achievable, though not very rewarding IMHO. I was socially awkward until 9th grade, when I decided to stop 'reaching'; stop reaching my hand up to answer the teacher's questions, stop reaching for the perfect and accurate way to say precisely what I mean, and overall, to stop trying to sound intelligent. If you're invested in your friends' lives and troubles, you can give an absolutely brilliant answer and they'll love it...unless you ham it up with polysyllabickery. They know you're smart, no need to rub their faces in it. Also, and this seems less intuitive than it is, try sounding less confident than you are-- if you ask whether something will work for them, they get to judge it and proclaim their intellect, whereas if you assert it, they're more likely to resist and end up snapping at your 'toldyaso' face. Finally, as a smart person (according to my Mom ), who has to spend a lot of time around young children (seven kids under 6 y/o ), it's an absolute necessity that you find a group of non-idiots (and I say that with love) to hang out with. Shake out all the spongebob (for me) or TMZ or Hairspray idiocy and go argue with someone about politics, religion or philosophy. Get yourself into a brain-yoga group at least once a month, clear out the cobwebs and all of a sudden, your simpler friends will be much less bothersome.

When did that become a rule? In every answer so far, the guards can indicate a door. Say in this one, they could indicate up to 2. There IS an answer, and it's super simple.

Just wanted to note that the first ball, required to be a 1 [math](\frac{11}{22})[/math] OR(+) a 2 [math](\frac{11}{22})[/math] would show as a 100% probability [math](\frac{22}{22})[/math]. Sorry, but that's where I'd imagine myself tripping up... Then just multiply that probability by all the following ones..

Honestly, I'd have to say it's a side effect of empathy. We work in the same social environment for most of our lives, and have done so for well...since we were much furrier. The addition of empathy to our psyche has been very useful for our usual situations of sustained social interactions. The fact that empathy still expresses itself outside our normal situations (in 'foreign' social environs) is no more peculiar than the fact that skin color doesn't conform to what is common in foreign territory. (I am nice at home. I am nice in Timbuktu. I am nice ) As to the idea of human altruism, well, I must object (for monkeys, too). Benefits to the self are abundant in every conceivable situation. Empathy plays a large role in this, and I HAVE met humans with a low tendency towards it. Those humans have few friends, are generally regarded as 'creepy', and all have extremely low self-esteem. Showing empathy, even fake empathy, has amazing benefits socially. For most people, with a healthy level of empathy, just being kind is a reward. Anyone who has given a gift and felt themselves melt into a big squishy fool upon seeing the light in the recipients eyes knows this. Even in times when we don't get to observe this (seemingly avoiding our reward), we can imagine far greater than reality would provide. In addition to the social and empathic rewards of showing empathy, there is a reward of identity. This is the 'status' mentioned by Greg. You get to think of yourself as being a better person. Unfortunately, the drive for this is culturally formed, and some end up without it or with a warped version of it. The final reason for generosity is to teach. I'm not really sure whether this tendency is cultural or genetic in origin. To varying degrees, humans like to teach the young and/or ignorant 'better ways'. If genetic, I'd suspect that this tendency rides with the tendencies to nurture(feminine, usually) and challenge(masculine, usually) one another. While apparently having no reward, we are driven to do so for the sake of satisfying a seemingly primal urge (for me...what's it for you?). Much like when I (obtrusively and neurotically) correct people's grammar or spelling, it's because it almost hurts not to. In the same fashion, I'd teach generosity to others by example. I do it for completely selfish reasons, and I love it.

You might be over-analyzing... Check the definition of 'entailed'. (HINT: It doesn't mean a complete list of assertions) EDIT: Ok, I'll add one thing-- If your question(assertion) is true, which of the 3 answers will definitely also be true?

What is that? This is, in a sense, true, up to the point where it sustains that others can share in maintaining any one world. I'd have to also contend that it also is wrong in the assumption that our world is so dreamed up. There's no way to know for sure, but it seems a stretch against the far more likely situation that our world is really here independent of an otherworldly dreamer.

Isn't it possible for a system to be unhackable (from the outside, at least)? And I don't mean just by way of disconnection from outside sources... Sandboxes seem to work well for maintaining security; could separating programs' work environments be the answer? With the advances in data storage these days, shared files and libraries could be easily duplicated for each program that uses them....though this could lead to the necessity of longer periods between updates (months, even!!). All this would, of course, require some new OS (does one exist already that works like this?), and years upon years of extra development, and that's just the first step! Managing a program's access to files and locations, it seems, would also be key... Just gotta point out, I'm no computer professional or anything, but it seems that if we take out many of the 'bells and whistles' of modern operating systems, all data could be considered innocuous. All the multitasking stuff, especially...running hundreds of processes in the background with cryptic names and associations...I just don't trust that stuff! IMHO, only a few things should be allowed to run automatically, outside of being explicitly set by the user. One of the main things (in windows vista, at least) is that programs can run without showing in the task manager, except as 'processes and services'. I think hiding the information from the user, and functions like it, are the source from many of the loopholes malware exploit. Once again, not a professional, talking out my rear, all that good stuff...but really, these things don't do anything we don't tell them to do, so to avoid confusion, [acr=Keep It Simple Stupid]K.I.S.S.[/acr]!!

Well, new question time, right? 3 Guards-- One always tells the truth, one always lies, and one who tells the truth or lies randomly Oh, and just so you can't use the 1-guard answer, there are now 2 death doors and 1 good door (that probably leads to 2 doors with no hinting guards, lol) I don't really have an answer for this one yet...have fun!

[math]c[/math] is the speed of light in a vacuum. SoL can be observed to vary when traveling through other mediums. The italicized portion 'in a vacuum' is a qualifier, as it qualifies the situation in which SoL is constant. Ok, cool your jets here... logic always yields to evidence, and assimilates it. Once a premise is shown to be false in a valid argument requiring that premise, logic removes that argument's soundness (its power of truth). I believe your assertion may be better served by the term 'intuition'... I understand you're using a connotative meaning of the word logic, but the nature of the concept begs to be used solely in a denotative fashion. I'd restate that as, "If the evidence contradicts an argument, a new argument must be formed." Sorry...logic is our bread and butter, and I can't stand to see it smeared...

Æther I love this topic...how can I just leave it, even though we're in a logic thread? I would have to point out a flaw, though, in the idea that gravity is caused by an aether moving at 30ft/s. How would this account for the ~32 ft/s² acceleration due to earth's gravity? Terminal velocity would then be only 30 ft/s.

Your link was broken... Good Link to same article Thanks so much for sharing a real advance in neuroscience...I'd imagine the high hopes of possible cures for existing conditions (autism, MS, etc.) will end up getting dashed a bit, but it's still pretty likely that finding abnormalities and treating them during development will lead to a very significant change in the world's neurological disabilities.

I'm afraid I do have issues with the concept of a complete universe with a finite past. I don't believe in the spontaneous creation of forces, physical laws, matter or really--anything. I just tried a search for an older argument between causality and spontaneity, but only found meanderings on free will (a concept to which I also do not prescribe). (Meanderings--a good read, but not truly pertinent) Perhaps it's a matter for another thread, but I'd wager that any process described as spontaneous simply has a cause that's difficult to pinpoint. I prescribe exclusively to causality, the idea that every effect is preceded by a cause. I really have no basis for this belief, except for overwhelming anecdotal evidence... My point is, though, that if time and motion did not exist prior to our universe, it could not have become present without cause. Because of this, I vehemently believe in the (inaccurately named) multiverse, and that our known universe was caused by some action in the surrounding area acting on a universal medium. I'm rambling again pantheory...I guess you just have that effect on me . On to the topic of the relativity of the speed of light. Hmm...how to word this without going into my universal medium idea... Well, ok, you're only concerned with variations due to gravitational/inertial fields? The effect of huge masses on light is currently called 'gravitation lensing', I believe. In any other lens, contact with the surface, or transition from one medium to another is the source of curvature of light. If gravity does form a lens at super-intense levels of gravity, it stands to reason that a lesser effect would be present at lower gravity. Considering a gravitational field has no edge, but rather is a gradient, its edge is the entirety of its presence, and so must bend or otherwise affect light everywhere that it has effects. It seems to me, though, that the effect would be the same as the light travels up or down, and the differences in measurement would only be seen at different altitudes (if gravitational lensing is really an accurate description of gravity's effect on light).

Ophi--just gotta say, I love arguing with you. You're an excellent devil's advocate, and I really do appreciate your scrutiny...ROUND 2 *ding* 1:Why should we believe that ineffable physical laws can come in and out of existence at any point in time? Is there evidence of such occurrence? Without evidence to the contrary, it seems a stretch to assume that one unobserved point in time was exempt from a physical law. 2: Now here you're arguing that the Laws of Conservation were being followed, and that negative energy and matter were created to maintain them (I assume?). Should the laws be rewritten now, then, to say, "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, unless equivalent negative matter and negative energy are simultaneously created or destroyed"? It seems mathematically sound...like 2 sides of a pleasant equality, but what induces this dimorphic creation? Why don't we see it happening more often? I'll admit, I constructed the argument wrong...I should've stated that no matter or energy could exist before the universe existed. Arguments throughout time, though, have always had dozens of unspoken premises, leading all the way back to solipsism and the denial of it. I stand by my premise: that for something to not exist, and then spontaneously exist, it must have been created, and thus break the laws of conservation. The spontaneous creation of negative energy and matter at the same time, until the laws are rewritten, remain as further violation of said laws. 3: Because of Solipsism, the fact that nothing but the self can truly be known, all we can have is a degree of certainty that is incomplete. Likelihood is a degree of certainty. Nothing more rigorous is available. The only solution to solipsism is Occam's Razor. While it may be true that we all live in a Matrix-like reality, plugged into a virtual world without ever experiencing the true reality, all that we can observe is all we have to work with. Truth beyond our virtual reality is inconsequential, as no proof or effect of anything beyond is present. Yes, Occam's Razor is our blue pill, but the red one's really just LSD anyway, without evidence.

Yes, in some cases, Occam's Razor leaves us believing the wrong conclusion. This doesn't imply anything logically deficient about it. The qualifier 'all things being equal' adds much to the validity of the postulate. Without proof for the need of excessive assumptions (or plurality), the simplest solution is the best one, as it requires the least evidence. Once evidence countering the simplest explanation arises, all things are no longer equal. Lacking evidence, though, more complex explanations are logically less sound, as they call for more baseless premises. Soundness and Validity We have every reason to believe that the laws of thermodynamics were present at the so-called beginning of the universe. We've had no evidence of them wavering since, so why would any point in time be exempt? I'd hold the same rule to causality, thus implying that the universe had no beginning... Here, though, we run into disparity in definition of the universe, which is a subject for another thread. Still, I wonder just how many proven physical laws are broken to justify the idea that the complete universe had a beginning? Even though we can show that the known universe had a point without classically defined matter, E = mc² shows the possibility of transition between the states of matter and energy, so only energy needed to be present at the 'beginning'. As far as expanding formal verbal logic, it's really been done to death. Clarity, validity, and soundness need only exist within a set of premises and conclusions for an argument to hold. Be aware of fallacies, and any argument is as strong as its weakest premise. For the purposes of scientific application of logic, we could apply some standard notation, for clarity's sake alone.. I'd suggest: D: definitions P: premise 1 P: premise 2 ... C: conclusion For instance: D: Universe- All of existence, known, and unknown, for all time references possible. D: Laws of Conservation- Set of physical laws stating matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. P: The Laws of Conservation are upheld in every experimental setting to date; Laws of Conservation are always true. P: For the universe to be created, matter and energy would have to be created; Creating a universe breaks the Laws of Conservation. P: The universe exists. C: The universe was not created, but always existed, and can never be destroyed. Do you see how this explanation is simpler, because it doesn't require an exception to the laws of thermodynamics? (I must admit, the 2nd law seems to counter this conclusion....ergo, if entropy always increases, how could anything ordered exist after an infinite amount of time? Of course, in infinite entropy, order forms by random chance....maybe...idk)

First off, kudos on the term: spaghettification...nice Time is indirectly related to gravity and velocity relative to [math]c[/math] (referred to as the inertial frame). As gravity and velocity increase, the passage of time slows. Subtle difference, but important... As far as a live feed into a black hole (presuming instant transmission from equipment unaffected by the gravity), it would not show slow to us, because we would not be in the extreme inertial frame.

Why do I keep seeing these arguments against the necessity of logic? What any person 'thinks' is logical is not the concern here--if a conclusion or interpretation follows logically, it is said to be 'sound' whether or not a person 'thinks' so. Logic is not relative. Often, though, theories beg an elaboration of the premises. When the logic of a theory or interpretation of 'beautiful' mathematics comes into question, many here drop any loyalty to reason and spew statements like this, just because they don't know how the professionals' conclusions follow from given premises. Logic is the foundation of all science (what science doesn't end in -ology?). Use it, respect it, and quit complaining when folks ask for an explanation of logic you don't get! Ease in understanding, though, is relative. Many complex concepts take great amounts of time to grasp for the 'uninitiated' (laymen like me). This is a logical and constructive response, and we should all follow this model when sharing criticism. As far as quarks, just to keep on topic, the evidence of their existence is just too extensive to ignore (quarks history). A better debate might question their identity as a fundamental particle. Personally, I would contend that quarks are constructs of a singular fundamental particle, and that their properties can be explained mechanically as a function of waves produced on an omnipresent medium of these elementary particles...just an idea (NOT a theory yet) that I've mentioned a few too many places on these forums....

For the same reason that involuntary manslaughter carries a severe penalty--the problem of criminal negligence. I get it now!! Moon tan...rofl (sorry I didn't quote any of your serious content) In cases of rape, even the charge can carry a penalty. I can say for sure that in Iowa, any drug, abuse or sex crime charges precludes a person from adopting any time in the future, as DHS is apparently allowed to discriminate in that way. Also, never assume that the law follows reason....much is often left out in the translation to nonsensical jargon. I couldn't find a full list, but I have found that Michigan does allow for reasonable mistake of age, but Florida does not... The presence of a fake ID does not necessarily offer a defense. The demands of a society shape its laws. Why should people be 'forced' to put locks on their doors or to lock their cars? Everyone knows that B&E and theft are wrong, so why can't we just expect them to respect another person's property? In America, sure, the authorities don't 'force' you to, but the thieves do. If that connection isn't clear enough, ask yourself how many 'stupid-proofing' laws there are... Required warnings as far as the eye can see...there are even web sites dedicated to just that:Funny Warnings I couldn't find a site for just the legally required ones, but there are the ones on cigarettes, carbonated beverages, food labeling (including: Contains Nuts on peanut butter!)...although most labeling is in place simply to avoid liability from frivolous lawsuits and is not required by law. Why are companies forced to do that?

Now hold on a second, that's not at all what Athena was saying. Everyone needs to act responsibly and follow the law, regardless of gender or age. The situations highlighted by Athena were ones where the 'minor' misrepresented her age illegally, and others where women decided after the fact to withdraw consent. In these situations, I'd say the rapist has become the victim, as rape has not occurred, outside the statutory version. This is the sort of reason why the age of consent was moved to 16. Legally speaking, such cases would be very difficult to point out, and sure, legally distinguishing these circumstances may even encourage predators to push their luck. But, disallowing such distinction gives a poor representation of the real life situations people must deal with. In cases of statutory rape, with well-defined proof of age (defined by actual legislators), there should be a secondary charge. In murder cases, the charge of involuntary manslaughter covers unintentional offenses. I'd propose the possible charge of 'Involuntary Statutory Rape', a charge not requiring registration as a sex-offender, but still carrying a severe penalty. I'm sure charges already exist for the 'victim', for using a fake ID, underage possession/consumption, but perhaps a new charge for 'Impersonating an Adult'? These charges, of course, would require evidence beyond the word of the 'rapist'. In cases of post-coital withdrawal of consent, well...that's quite a bit tougher. In most cases, the only evidence is the word of each party. Courts being biased towards women, of course, tend to rule in their favor with minimal evidence. Sorry, not much I can see to be done here... On a side note, why aren't there legal repercussions for the minors of comparable age that perform statutory rape? I could imagine quite a few of my middle- and high-school classmates that deserved to be on a junior-sex-offender list, ostracized in the same way as adults who committed the same crime. I think harsher punishment for underage sex could have a great influence on adults' tendency to desire teenagers. If they never have sexual relations with teens, then their desire for them may never develop.

Hey, leave some room for chick-nerds! (they exist, theoretically)