Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Read the earlier statement. "So long as they do not harm others" If I am high and just lying on my couch with a job that supports my casual drug use I am not harming anyone. In that sense I am pursuing my own ends. The clause "So long as they do not harm others" exempts the question from the assumption that said drug user(s) are harming other members of society with their actions.Jark212 said:
I got 40%, partially because of my beliefs with religion which tend to more or less contradict every logical and scientific stance which I also believe in. *sigh* its things like this that really REALLY make me second guess my own Christianity..
This test is...fore lack of better word weird.Let me explain I got 20% and Questions 17 and 28 did aberrantly contradict each other but question 17 is asking if I believe that the truth is not always the truth and can depend on personal views and societal views.Yes, I believe that but number 28 is asking if I believe that the Holocaust did happen and it did it is a fact written and documented in history books and the majority of all people knows and believes this making this into the truth.But I did never say that it does not exists people that thinks that it did not happen making that into there truth.
Then we have the Michelangelo part...others have already explained why this part is weired and why I can agree with both.
Lastly we have questions number 16 and 21.Yes I think that alternative medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine but that dose not mean that I dose not think that testing should be made before it is sold to the public.Not testing medicine is dangerous fore the people buying it.
Then we have the Michelangelo part...others have already explained why this part is weired and why I can agree with both.
Lastly we have questions number 16 and 21.Yes I think that alternative medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine but that dose not mean that I dose not think that testing should be made before it is sold to the public.Not testing medicine is dangerous fore the people buying it.
I WAS ARGUING THE LOGIC OF THE PRESENTED WORLD. More specifically, you quoted me arguing the logic of the presented world. If you want to argue ethics, you shouldn't have responded to me, because I was clearly arguing something entirely different. Why don't you take some of your own advice and apply critical thinking skills to what you read? Here's my original post, the post which you quoted from me.MorphingDragon said:
Let's try some light close text analysis here. Not even arguing the bright-as-day meaning here and looking at the wording, I'd say that I'm clearly talking about things from a logical perspective, considering these two points to be taken from an "If x then y" perspective, stripping the points down to the strictly objective implications.TiefBlau said:
And no, of course you weren't arguing 2+2=5. You were arguing that I'm creating a false dilemma by saying that 2+2 either equals or doesn't equal 5, and that there are alternatives if you apply it to the real world, where you can add more numbers or take into account opportunity cost. For example,
This.MorphingDragon said:
hahahahahahahahahahahaMorphingDragon said:
oh wait your serious
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I don't think it was the most objective or specific (as far as defining stuff goes), but I think it's more or less accurate. 20%. I think philosophically a lot and have some beliefs, if you will, but there are still some things I'm iffy on. I spent 5 minutes trying to decide what to put for the non-physical existence after death question. There are a few things going into that such as separation of "planes of existence," components of being, existence of "the self," etc. I really hope there is but my current data suggests no.
This quiz is stupid and weighted. The morons who wrote it are using blocky caricatures for what are really very sophisticated beliefs that people tend to hold. The thing was so predictable, I was able to break it and get a 0% just by putting in the bullshit answers they wanted.
Heh, it amuses me that this entire test is more realistically a 'philosophy jargon' test. Oh ho! You didn't know what we EXACTLY meant by unnecessary! Hah! Or whatnot.Raven said:
Hard to really nail things down like this without first agreeing on terminology. Sadly, this is why philosophy is a study that is often sniggered at by engineer types.
Engineers Define terms to explain reality.
Philosophers Define reality to explain terms.
Oh right, this test.
This test is complete bullshit, I get what it's trying to do, but the way the questions are set up you're almost guaranteed to be called a hypocrite on atleast two choices.
Why? because there's not enough choices! Everything isn't yes or no, there are maybe's and exceptions, and being forced into a controversial viewpoint isn't the same as maintaining that viewpoint.
This test is complete bullshit, I get what it's trying to do, but the way the questions are set up you're almost guaranteed to be called a hypocrite on atleast two choices.
Why? because there's not enough choices! Everything isn't yes or no, there are maybe's and exceptions, and being forced into a controversial viewpoint isn't the same as maintaining that viewpoint.
Ah! Arguing against euthanasia. If you feel up to discussing this i will try to indulge you (must go to sleep now, but will be online again within 8-10 hours).conflictofinterests said:
The argument goes as follows: A sane, psychologically stable human being, is incapable of actively choosing to end their own life. We have seen examples of people who "decide" to end their own lives, but these people's minds have all bee disturbed and warped by psychological factors (usually depression, but anything that disturbs your sane psychological state counts. Including alcohol and drugs). This means that euthanasia will always be wrong, on the basis that no doctor will never get "legal consent" to euthanize someone.(think rape and other instances where consent seems to have been given, but as other factors were involved to heavily affect the mind of the "consenting" person, it doesn't count legally)
A more basic argument is on the basis of ethics. Where the action of killing a person (including yourself) will never be ethical. But that's if you buy into Deontological Ethics, that define ethics based on the act rather than the end result (Utilitarianism. Blech!).
I managed a 13% and a low. It only caught me in logical contradictions twice. One on the immorality of genocide verses the relativity of morality. And another on personal freedom, that as long as you don't hurt others you should be allowed to do whatever you want but that drugs for recreational use should be discriminated against.
I was very pleased to see that you could opt not to answer questions though. especially questions that contradicted themselves. But i have a hard time believing that so many people actually managed to get low as well. If it's true then we must have an exceptional demographic on the escapist. Because i turn on the news and see the raging idiocy of glen beck and, sadly many politicians and large groups of people. But if there are this many sensible people, why the hell can't we all stand up and work together and overwhelm the minority who have their own agendas to push on others?
*EDIT* i think i may have made a mistake in writing the last paragraph, but i'll leave it there because i'm not quite sure what mistake i made.
AH! yes, there it is. I've overgeneralized the results, expanding their meaning to cover areas that they were never meant to. More so that there is no right or wrong for any of these questions, except when you consider your answers relative to yourself. A low tension quotient does not imply similar values between people, it only says that your values do not conflict with yourself.
I was very pleased to see that you could opt not to answer questions though. especially questions that contradicted themselves. But i have a hard time believing that so many people actually managed to get low as well. If it's true then we must have an exceptional demographic on the escapist. Because i turn on the news and see the raging idiocy of glen beck and, sadly many politicians and large groups of people. But if there are this many sensible people, why the hell can't we all stand up and work together and overwhelm the minority who have their own agendas to push on others?
*EDIT* i think i may have made a mistake in writing the last paragraph, but i'll leave it there because i'm not quite sure what mistake i made.
AH! yes, there it is. I've overgeneralized the results, expanding their meaning to cover areas that they were never meant to. More so that there is no right or wrong for any of these questions, except when you consider your answers relative to yourself. A low tension quotient does not imply similar values between people, it only says that your values do not conflict with yourself.
I am happy to say that. The Hutu expressed their cultural opinions, against which I express mine in the form of condemnation. Objective morality does not exist because nothing can be good or bad for the universe; this does not mean that a morality does not exist to which cultural moralities are subordinate. Acts of genocide reduce humanity's genetic and intellectual diversity, impacting the species' probability of survival; this is why it is a crime against humanity. Thesis: Morality only exists as a convenient but occasionally faulty shorthand for practicality.
Tension of 33%, however reading through the descriptitons of where i have tension, it is in an area where i feel both can be there without conflicting, like people are able to make their own choices, but drugs should be banned for personal use, because i feel that using drugs affects people around you not just yourself, but that report seems to think that i am being unfair for not letting people take drugs?
7% here too, I'd suggest that allowing people to take drugs can be fine, so long as the law steps in when they affect other people. I think that is what the question was getting at, after all, some people use drugs recreationally, and cause no harm to anyone.
However, the drunk guy who drives home and plows thru a bus queue and kills 3 people, that's a drug user affecting others, that's when the law steps in.
However, the drunk guy who drives home and plows thru a bus queue and kills 3 people, that's a drug user affecting others, that's when the law steps in.
13% - There are plenty of questions that are very, very deep in the gray area. The two they had a problem with are "You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead"
I do believe the environment is important; I just didn't really grow up having to take the bus or a train very often (I either walk or drive places).
and
"You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world"
I think donating money to save lives should be a personal choice, not something the government forces on us.
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead"
I do believe the environment is important; I just didn't really grow up having to take the bus or a train very often (I either walk or drive places).
and
"You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world"
I think donating money to save lives should be a personal choice, not something the government forces on us.
Subjective morals, ok. That makes the second thing redundant, evil is defined by morals, so it has to be subjective.Eico said:Morals are subjective.
Evil is subjective.
I subjectively believe mass murder to be evil.
Okay? Okay.
Now, the kicker is this : it doesn't matter whether you consider mass murder evil or not... they didn't ask you what your opinion is, they asked you to verify whether factually//objectively speaking mass murder is evil...
...and you answered that yes, OBJECTIVELY speaking, mass murder is evil... after you just admitted evil is a subjective notion.
THAT is where the "tension" the test mentions comes from. You can't call something both subjective and objective at the same time.
Hey, don't bag so much on utilitarianismDanielDeFig said:
Limited utilitarianism is what this country is founded on. (At least the democracy part. Though there are plenty of people who'd prefer a theocracy, I'm guessing you might be one of them)Dentological ethics are a bit unwavering in my opinion, which is why I don't buy into it. It doesn't leave room for a mother stealing to feed her baby, a person killing in self-defense, or any extenuating circumstance whatsoever. That is neither here nor there, however.
Fair enough point on the first paragraph. Does your definition allow for coercion to play into the decision to end one's life? As in a case where a soldier throws himself over a bomb to protect his squad mates?
Also, given that a person cannot give legal consent to end his or her life, in the case of aware, consensual, passive euthanasia (Where the patient is awake and tells you that he or she would like to die and will manage this on their own if you just leave them be for long enough) and in the case that the person is simultaneously terminally ill, very debilitated and is in the process of degenerating, as they WILL NEVER thereafter be able to give legal consent, due to being psychologically unstable because of their circumstance, do they revert to the legal status of minors? What are the implications of that?