Warning: H*lm*t content

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Euan, Aug 21, 2005.

  1. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    TimC wrote:

    > Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
    > Evolution restored back to humanity, instead of humans becoming
    > stupider and stupider each year for the past 100 years.


    Is this why young people appear to be more stupid?

    Theo
    Older therefore smarter?
     


  2. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    TimC wrote:

    > As an ex amateur astronomer, I can heartily endorse banning
    > lightpoles (and all other forms of light pollution).


    Agreed. No light poles in our estate.

    Theo
    Saving up for a bigger telescope.
     
  3. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    David Trudgett wrote:

    > You should keep in mind that people who break the law in a "severely
    > blatant and stupid manner" could possibly be doing so because they (a)
    > are a lot smarter than you; or (b) know something that you don't; or
    > (c) are unlucky, not stupid; or (d) are suffering from mental illness
    > of various types and severities; or (e) are suffering some emotional
    > distress; or (f) had a momentary lapse in concentration; or (g) was
    > distracted at a critical moment; or (h) ... any one of countless other
    > circumstances about which few if anyone is in a position to
    > judge. Judge not and ye shall not be judged. I seem to recall someone
    > in this forum recently getting a little taste of such judgement based
    > on ignorance when she "rolled" (rode) her bicycle on the
    > footpath... <shudder/>


    This calls up the issue of responsibility. Everyone is responsible
    for the consequences of their actions. It doesn't matter
    what excuses get cooked up for them. When I crashed
    my bike into another rider, it was my fault for
    not paying attention. I had 3 good excuses, but it was my
    responsibilty. I was tired, I had a lapse of concentration
    and I was unlucky. So what? It was still my fault and I
    fully expected to be judged accordingly. As such, I paid for
    all the damage and did my best to make sure my crashee was ok.

    > > Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
    > > Evolution restored back to humanity,

    >
    > You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
    > fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
    > the evidence doesn't support.


    Oh dear.

    Have you heard of Intelligent Pushing? Did you know that
    there's an alternative theory to gravity? God pushes
    everything down to the ground.

    Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
    chance?
     
  4. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2005-08-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > David Trudgett wrote:
    >> > Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
    >> > Evolution restored back to humanity,

    >>
    >> You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
    >> fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
    >> the evidence doesn't support.


    You obviously don't say "ramen" at the end of your prayers.

    > Oh dear.
    >
    > Have you heard of Intelligent Pushing? Did you know that
    > there's an alternative theory to gravity? God pushes
    > everything down to the ground.
    >
    > Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
    > chance?


    No! They're His noodly appendages!
    http://www.venganza.org/

    --
    TimC
    I got told by a friend's ex-girlfriend that she could tell I was
    a Linux geek from the way I *walked*. -- Skud
     
  5. On 2005-08-29, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 2005-08-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
    > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >> Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
    >> chance?

    >
    > No! They're His noodly appendages!
    > http://www.venganza.org/


    Yea, verily, I have been touched by His Sliminess ...

    --
    My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
    the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
     
  6. "Bleve" <[email protected]> writes:

    > This calls up the issue of responsibility.


    You should recall that we were discussing withholding medical care
    (perhaps only if the person can't afford it), not personal
    responsibility per se. The fact that people are to some extent[*]
    responsible for their own actions, does not imply that the medical
    attention they receive should be determined by what they happen to be
    able to afford on their current slave wage, or by some kind of policy
    of retribution for wrongs committed.


    [*] Generally to a great degree, but less, perhaps, than is usually
    recognised, I suspect.


    > Everyone is responsible for the consequences of their actions.


    "Personal responsibility", "everyone is responsible", and similar
    wordings, are motherhood statements incapable of disproof on their own
    terms. This is because they are programmed to be good by definition in
    the current group mind think. Yet, as universal generalisations, they
    are just plain wrong.

    Just to give a tiny, microscopic example: everyone has lapses in
    concentration. These lapses are absolutely unavoidable, because only
    machines never relax their concentration. To say that one is
    "responsible" for an accident resulting from such a lapse of
    concentration is to apply an unattainable standard of perfection to
    human beings. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can choose the time or
    place of our next little lapse in concentration, and to say that one
    is "responsible" for an accident that may occur during one of those
    lapses is bizarre in the extreme.

    Now, of course, we can work hard at minimising such concentration
    lapses, and also at minimising the effects of them when they occur
    (such as through the use of redundant systems, like copilots on
    aeroplanes). But no matter how hard we work, we can never totally
    avoid accidents caused by this factor in human nature; which means
    that, all other things being equal, one cannot morally be held
    responsible for a lapse in concentration.

    For those who think they have perfect control over their own mind,
    they should try a little experiment. Lie down in a quiet room by
    yourself and begin to clear your mind of all your various thoughts,
    cares and current worries. Try to "centre" your mind in stillness and
    peace, excluding all those random thoughts impinging on your
    consciousness. See how long you can keep your mind clear in that
    way. Can you manage 30 seconds without drifting off on some
    spontaneous line of thought? What about a whole minute? Two minutes?
    If you do this, you will see how little control you have over even
    your own thoughts.


    A couple of further little points about lapses in concentration. The
    first is simply to note that cars and bicycles do not have redundant
    systems like aeroplanes do[**], so lapses in concentration can be and
    often have been fatal (or severely debilitating).

    Second, the law does not allow "lapse in concentration" as an
    acceptable excuse for unavoidable, practical reasons. In a nutshell,
    the reason is that there is no practical way to tell if a person
    really did have an unavoidable lapse in concentration, or is just
    lying about it, or just neglected to mention that the lapse occurred
    in the middle of sending a text message (for instance).

    The upshot of this aspect of the law is that it has injustice built
    right into its very foundation. Those who do suffer from a real and
    unavoidable lapse in concentration will be judged in the same way as
    the liar and the person who could care less about safety.


    [**] Of course, we know that every man automatically gains a copilot
    upon marriage, but for our current purposes, we will overlook this
    anomaly... ;-) Also, some advanced cars are beginning to incorporate
    traffic warning systems and so on, which are likely to improve safety
    a bit in this regard.



    > It doesn't matter what excuses get cooked up for them. When I
    > crashed my bike into another rider, it was my fault for not paying
    > attention. I had 3 good excuses, but it was my responsibilty. I
    > was tired, I had a lapse of concentration and I was unlucky. So
    > what?


    So, unless you are lying, or you have a machine-like perfect control
    over concentration, you are not morally responsible for the
    accident. This is the basic meaning of "accident", after all.

    Of course, life is not necessarily that black and white, and
    therefore, moral responsibility occurs in *degrees*, rather than
    simply existing or not existing. Depending on your personal
    circumstances, it is *possible* you were partially responsible for
    riding while tired (but as we cyclists know, who can avoid
    that?). Likewise, if your lapse of concentration was because you were
    listening to music while riding (thereby creating an obvious and
    needless distraction), there could be moral responsibility involved
    there, too.

    So, don't let me get in the way of your being a martyr. If you really
    want to blame yourself, then go ahead. After all, you're the only one
    who really knows how guilty you really are. No judge, no jury can know
    it, but *you* can.


    > It was still my fault and I fully expected to be judged accordingly.
    > As such, I paid for all the damage and did my best to make sure my
    > crashee was ok.


    As any decent person would. This is a different matter from moral
    responsibility.


    >
    >> > Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
    >> > Evolution restored back to humanity,

    >>
    >> You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
    >> fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
    >> the evidence doesn't support.

    >
    > Oh dear.


    Do I know you, darling? :)


    >
    > Have you heard of Intelligent Pushing? Did you know that
    > there's an alternative theory to gravity? God pushes
    > everything down to the ground.


    Haven't heard of that one. Perhaps you could explain it some more...


    >
    > Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
    > chance?


    Clean shaven, babe, but I don't feel compelled to use the Occam brand.

    Are you trying to make a point?


    David


    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    Philosophical anarchism, decentralism, required that we follow the
    Gospel precept to be obedient to every living thing: "Be subject
    therefore to every human creature for God's sake." It meant washing
    the feet of others, as Jesus did at the Last Supper. "You call me
    Master and Lord," He said, "and rightly so, for that is what I am.
    Then if I, your Lord, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash
    one another's feet. I have set you an example; you are to do as I have
    done for you." To serve others, not to seek power over them. Not to
    dominate, not to judge others.

    -- Dorothy Day, Ave Maria, December 17, 1966, pp. 20-23.

    (Dorothy Day Library on the Web at
    http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/)
     
  7. TimC <[email protected]> writes:

    > On 2005-08-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
    > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >> David Trudgett wrote:
    >>> > Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
    >>> > Evolution restored back to humanity,
    >>>
    >>> You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
    >>> fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
    >>> the evidence doesn't support.

    >
    > You obviously don't say "ramen" at the end of your prayers.


    What have prayers to do with science? Dozens and dozens (at least) of
    very qualified and knowledgeable scientists dispute the flimsy basis
    of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution on scientific grounds. Forget
    about religion, this is science, man.

    David


    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    Mr Howard's ideal in these areas [health and education] has always
    been a public safety net for the poor, with everyone else free to buy
    privately the best quality service they can afford. This is the
    hidden logic behind his otherwise piecemeal changes to Medicare.

    -- Ross Gittins of the SMH explaining to us how Howard's plan is
    to make sure that you and your children receive only the level
    of medical care and education that your low wage can afford.
     
  8. Stuart Lamble <[email protected]> writes:

    > On 2005-08-29, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On 2005-08-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
    >> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >>> Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
    >>> chance?

    >>
    >> No! They're His noodly appendages!
    >> http://www.venganza.org/

    >
    > Yea, verily, I have been touched by His Sliminess ...


    Playing with your snake again, Stuart? LOL ;-) Sorry, I just couldn't
    resist that one. No one's perfect... :)

    Cheers,

    David


    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    On another level there is a principle laid down, much in line with
    common sense and with the original American ideal, that governments
    should never do what small bodies can accomplish: unions, credit
    unions, cooperatives, St. Vincent de Paul Societies. Peter Maurin's
    anarchism was on one level based on this principle of subsidiarity,
    and on a higher level on that scene at the Last Supper where Christ
    washed the feet of His Apostles. He came to serve, to show the new
    Way, the way of the powerless. In the face of Empire, the Way of
    Love.

    -- Dorothy Day, The Catholic Worker, May 1972.

    (Dorothy Day Library on the Web at
    http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/)
     
  9. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    David Trudgett wrote:
    > "Bleve" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > This calls up the issue of responsibility.

    >
    > You should recall that we were discussing withholding medical care
    > (perhaps only if the person can't afford it), not personal
    > responsibility per se.


    You make a choice, and "society" makes a choice about what
    it's prepared to pay for. If (and this is a hyothetical, I'm not
    advocating it as such at this time) the law (the arm of society)
    says "thou shalt wear a helmet approved by standard X when riding
    a bicycle", and an individual makes a choice not to wear it -
    and something goes wrong, and the non-wearer then ends up with
    some injury that the helmet would have prevented (yes, I know ...
    this is a hypothetical ...) then at some point "society" would
    be justified in saying "you broke the rules, you're on your own".
    This, of course, would not be an issue of accident, but rather
    deliberate breach of the rules, and the consequences of same.

    So, if your choice is such that it exceeds what
    society is prepared to pay for (ie: breaks the rules), then you have to
    make
    your own arrangements in case of accident.

    > The upshot of this aspect of the law is that it has injustice built
    > right into its very foundation. Those who do suffer from a real and
    > unavoidable lapse in concentration will be judged in the same way as
    > the liar and the person who could care less about safety.


    You're confusing responsibility with retribution, and event with
    intent. Accidents are not the same thing as deliberate breaches
    of the rules. Determining which is which is the hard part. It
    is one thing to play cricket in the front yard and break
    a window with an accidentally overplayed shot, it is another thing
    altogether
    to walk up to a window with a cricket bat and smash it.

    > > It doesn't matter what excuses get cooked up for them. When I
    > > crashed my bike into another rider, it was my fault for not paying
    > > attention. I had 3 good excuses, but it was my responsibilty. I
    > > was tired, I had a lapse of concentration and I was unlucky. So
    > > what?

    >
    > So, unless you are lying, or you have a machine-like perfect control
    > over concentration, you are not morally responsible for the
    > accident. This is the basic meaning of "accident", after all.


    It was an accident, but I was still the responsible party. As such,
    I paid for the damage. That's called "Accepting responsibility".
    When I was a kid, I broke (by accident) a few windows. I paid
    to have them fixed. Sure, I didn't *mean* to put cricketballs
    through them, but it was my responsibility, as I caused the
    event to occur.

    > So, don't let me get in the way of your being a martyr. If you really
    > want to blame yourself, then go ahead. After all, you're the only one
    > who really knows how guilty you really are. No judge, no jury can know
    > it, but *you* can.


    I'm not being a martyr, I'm accepting responsibility for the
    consequences
    of my actions.

    > > It was still my fault and I fully expected to be judged accordingly.
    > > As such, I paid for all the damage and did my best to make sure my
    > > crashee was ok.

    >
    > As any decent person would. This is a different matter from moral
    > responsibility.


    Responsibility is not the same as punitive retribution. that's
    where intent comes in (which is why we have a legal system, imperfect
    as it is ...).
     
  10. Bob

    Bob Guest

    "David Trudgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > <blah, blah, blah>
    >



    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride my bike
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride it where I like

    You say black I say white
    You say bark I say bite
    You say shark I say hey man
    Jaws was never my scene
    And I don't like Star Wars
    You say Rolls I say Royce
    You say God give me a choice
    You say Lord I say Christ
    I don't believe in Peter Pan
    Frankenstein or Superman
    All I wanna do is

    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride my bike
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride my
    Bicycle races are coming your way
    So forget all your duties all year!
    Fat bottomed girls
    They'll be riding today
    So look out for those beauties oh yeah
    On your marks get set go
    Bicycle race bicycle race bicycle race
    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle
    Bicycle bicycle bicycle bicycle
    Bicycle race

    You say coke I say caine
    You say John I say Wayne
    Hot dog I say cool it man
    I don't wanna be the President of America
    You say smile I say cheese
    Cartier I say please
    Income tax I say Jesus
    I don't wanna be a candidate for
    Vietnam or Watergate
    Cause all I wanna do is

    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride my bike
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride it where I like
     
  11. Kim

    Kim Guest

    Bleve wrote:
    > Responsibility is not the same as punitive retribution. that's
    > where intent comes in (which is why we have a legal system, imperfect
    > as it is ...).


    if i were religeous i could just say "god did it, was his *will*"
    releasing me from my actions, but i'm not so lame to try to claim that i
    am.

    if you go about life with the attitude that you are responsible for your
    own actions and how those actions impact on others, you don't end up
    taking the risks others might take and not end up in the same messy
    situations.

    kim
     
  12. Kim

    Kim Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > TimC wrote:
    > > Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
    > > Evolution restored back to humanity, instead of humans becoming
    > > stupider and stupider each year for the past 100 years.


    someone mentioned about tv, where you don't have to think to be
    entertained. where you don't have to participate.

    i read a couple of studies years ago that proposed that children and
    teenagers were gleaning life experience from watching TV. the thing that
    they tried to cover was the fragmented nature of coverage to kids, ie
    they never quite watched the whole thing through or didn't understand
    all of the elements of the story, so they tried to apply the bits they
    did understand without understanding the consequences.
    how accurate this is i do not know.

    > Is this why young people appear to be more stupid?


    young people take uneducated risks[2]. when you're older you tend to
    take less risks[1]. older people have "values", you tend to get them
    with real-life experience, as opposed to watching tv ;)

    cheers,

    kim
    [1] although older folk may not be more "educated" they may be more
    experienced
    [2] because they don't know the consequences
     
  13. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    Kim wrote:
    > Bleve wrote:
    > > Responsibility is not the same as punitive retribution. that's
    > > where intent comes in (which is why we have a legal system, imperfect
    > > as it is ...).

    >
    > if i were religeous i could just say "god did it, was his *will*"
    > releasing me from my actions, but i'm not so lame to try to claim that i
    > am.
    >
    > if you go about life with the attitude that you are responsible for your
    > own actions and how those actions impact on others, you don't end up
    > taking the risks others might take and not end up in the same messy
    > situations.


    Not necessarily, everything we do is a calculated risk. Smarter
    people hedge their bets by taking precautions where the risk/reward
    payoff is tenable. I'm constantly amazed by idiots in cars who
    belt along at 90km/h in a 60 zone, risking licence loss and
    big fines (not to mention the safety issues) to get to the next
    red light, which saves them absolutley no time. That's
    risk *without* reward. Dumb ... Taking responsibility is not
    the same as taking no risks. It's accepting the consequences of
    what happens afterwards, and taking reasonable means to reduce or
    mittigate those risks or probable consequences.
     
  14. "Bleve" <[email protected]> writes:

    > David Trudgett wrote:
    >> "Bleve" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >> > This calls up the issue of responsibility.

    >>
    >> You should recall that we were discussing withholding medical care
    >> (perhaps only if the person can't afford it), not personal
    >> responsibility per se.

    >
    > You make a choice, and "society" makes a choice about what it's
    > prepared to pay for.


    Yes, this is undoubtedly the case, and I don't see how anyone could
    dispute it. Yet, what we are discussing is *precisely* the issue
    concerning the choice that our hypothetical "society" makes in that
    regard (glossing over our sloppy use of 'society' for now). What we
    are *really* talking about is how much we are going to care for each
    other. That is the bottom line.

    The Christian's (and in my opinion, any good person's) answer to the
    bottom line is that we should care for each other as if we were each
    the other's flesh and blood. Would I let my child (of any age) suffer
    a life of avoidable pain because he rode a bicycle without a helmet
    contrary to the law? No I would not, and neither would any good
    person. But there is no difference between my child and my neighbour's
    child (of any age) that has any bearing on this question. This means
    that there is no difference between you and I, and that therefore I
    should do for you what I would do for myself. You had better hope I'm
    not a masochist ;-)

    In contrast to that view, there is the selfish, animalistic view where
    dog eats dog, so to speak, and it's everyone for himself in a game of
    survival of the fittest. From this perspective, we do as little as
    possible for each other in order to maximise our own wealth. We only
    provide health care so that people can go on producing for the
    consumer society, not because they deserve it as human beings. We only
    provide education in order to manufacture productive workers, not
    because the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom is an essential part of
    what makes us human. And in the provision of these things, we always
    feel dissatisfied and peeved that other people should be a drain on
    our wealth.

    So the choice is not "society's", it is yours and mine. A "society" is
    not a person and cannot make choices. It is you and I who make
    choices, and you and I get to decide how much we are going to care for
    each other. (Don't get all romantic on me.) Each of us has a choice
    between selfishness, greed and self-interest on one hand, and love on
    the other. All you have to do is make that choice and forget about
    that mythical "society" person.


    >
    >> The upshot of this aspect of the law is that it has injustice built
    >> right into its very foundation. Those who do suffer from a real and
    >> unavoidable lapse in concentration will be judged in the same way
    >> as the liar and the person who could care less about safety.

    >
    > You're confusing responsibility with retribution, and event with
    > intent.


    In fact, I'm not. It is a function of your understanding what I am
    saying. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. For my part, I understand
    perfectly well what your position is, but I am telling you that your
    view of the issue is incomplete.


    > Accidents are not the same thing as deliberate breaches of the
    > rules.


    That's obvious, but accidents happen with or without breaching
    "rules", and you are advocating for the instance in which they happen
    while (someone else's) "rule" is being breached, that a human being
    should stop being treated like a human being, and in that way be
    punished for breaking the "rule". It does not matter how clever the
    sophistry is that is used to justify this action, it cannot disguise
    the essential nature of retribution inherent in such an attitude.

    It is not a matter of simple "consequences" as you try to make out,
    because we are not talking about immutable laws of the natural
    world. We are talking instead about the way we decide to treat each
    other. Your use of "consequences" means this: I say to you, "Don't
    touch my ice cream, or I'll shoot you with my shotty." You go ahead
    and eat my ice cream and I shoot you with my shotty. Too bad, that was
    just the "consequence" of your action. After all, I had no choice but
    to shoot you, right?


    > Determining which is which is the hard part. It is one thing to play
    > cricket in the front yard and break a window with an accidentally
    > overplayed shot, it is another thing altogether to walk up to a
    > window with a cricket bat and smash it.


    And you can tell if a person is temporarily insane and can't help
    their actions? As you said, it *is* the hard part, isn't it? Why can't
    everything be so *easy*, like it is in theory?


    >
    >> > It doesn't matter what excuses get cooked up for them. When I
    >> > crashed my bike into another rider, it was my fault for not paying
    >> > attention. I had 3 good excuses, but it was my responsibilty. I
    >> > was tired, I had a lapse of concentration and I was unlucky. So
    >> > what?

    >>
    >> So, unless you are lying, or you have a machine-like perfect control
    >> over concentration, you are not morally responsible for the
    >> accident. This is the basic meaning of "accident", after all.

    >
    > It was an accident, but I was still the responsible party.


    This is actually a self-contradiction. If it was an accident, you were
    *not* morally responsible by definition (unless you deliberately or
    negligently courted the accident in the first place). Notice I use the
    word 'morally' right before 'responsible'. Your use of the word
    'responsible' is vague, wishy-washy and, from a broader perspective,
    wrong.

    You are saying that because you did something, you are somehow
    "responsible" for it, without having a clear understanding of what you
    mean by the word. You are conflating different uses of the word.

    "responsible for an action":

    -- Morally accountable; the action was done deliberately or
    negligently.

    -- Legally accountable; your action infringed a law.

    -- You did it; someone else didn't do it.

    -- Someone else did it, but you are being blamed.

    What you are saying is that because you did something, you should make
    amends for it, whether or not you are actually guilty or to blame in
    any moral sense. This is a Christian value, and I completely agree
    with you. But I do not agree with you that you "must" do that because
    you are "guilty" of being human and making mistakes. If you crash into
    someone, it is your duty to help them no matter who is "guilty" or if
    no one is "guilty". In fact, it is also your duty to provide such help
    even if you are not involved in the accident at all. All this has
    nothing to do with "responsibility", however you care to define it.


    > As such, I paid for the damage. That's called "Accepting
    > responsibility".


    This again shows your confusion about the word 'responsibility'. It's
    good that you paid for the damage. If you didn't, who else would?
    Furthermore, from their point of view, you appeared to be negligent,
    so failure to make good would look bad, so to speak. If it had been
    visually obvious to them that the reason for the crash was beyond your
    control (say, in some totally different scenario), then I would hazard
    they would likely not have thought about accepting compensation from
    you.

    Once again, none of this has anything to do with "responsibility". It
    has to do with doing the right thing by others.


    > When I was a kid, I broke (by accident) a few windows. I paid to
    > have them fixed. Sure, I didn't *mean* to put cricketballs through
    > them, but it was my responsibility, as I caused the event to occur.


    Here, the issue of moral responsibility *does* come into it, because
    of negligence. Kids old enough to be playing cricket also know that
    hitting cricket balls into things may break or damage them. Of course,
    kids may not fully appreciate the danger or likelihood of such damage,
    which lessens the moral responsibility.

    Now what if you had turned someone into a "vegetable" for life instead
    of merely breaking a window? Cricket balls are quite capable of doing
    that, you know. Would it also have been your responsibility to live in
    abject poverty for the rest of your life in order to pay for the life
    support systems? Things are not so simple as the word 'responsibility'
    may make it seem. We all have a duty of care to each other
    individually and collectively, even when individuals do the wrong
    thing deliberately or negligently.


    >
    >> So, don't let me get in the way of your being a martyr. If you really
    >> want to blame yourself, then go ahead. After all, you're the only one
    >> who really knows how guilty you really are. No judge, no jury can know
    >> it, but *you* can.

    >
    > I'm not being a martyr, I'm accepting responsibility for the
    > consequences of my actions.


    Although no one will argue that you shouldn't try to make amends for
    the consequences of your own actions, you can't accept something that
    doesn't belong to you. That is not "accepting responsibility", it is
    doing what you can to make your part of the world right, while
    realising that things like lapses of concentration *can* be as much
    out of your control as, say, getting a punctured tyre. You do not have
    any *moral* duty to fix anything that you were not morally guilty of
    breaking. An accident implies no guilt (although, in practical terms,
    there usually is a degree of guilt, which is partly why the law has
    such an obsession with finding the "guilty" party); therefore, a true
    accident involves no guilty party, and therefore no one to "accept
    responsibility". In the real world, though, it works a bit
    differently, because we have to, for practical reasons, look at
    *apparent* responsibility.

    In your accident, you were apparently responsible for it in the moral
    sense. You were riding along, and you just crashed into someone
    minding their own business (presumably). From an observer's point of
    view, you were negligent (since it is not possible to observe the
    state of someone's mind). Therefore, from an objective observational
    perspective, you would have to be treated just as if you were morally
    guilty of at least negligence, whether or not that was the reality of
    the situation. It was because you were *apparently* morally responsible
    for the incident (not "accident" now) that both parties felt you
    should pay for the damages.

    It does not help (because it is not true) to claim that just because
    you did something, you are morally bound to pay damages. If you were
    hunting wascally wabbits in the countryside but, through no fault of
    your own (because of having taken every precaution), that little bunny
    you just shot turned out to be someone's head, would you be morally
    bound to support the deceased's family for the rest of your life? It
    would be good if you could do that, but you would not be *morally*
    bound to do it. (We're assuming here, of course, the best possible set
    of circumstances which would clear the shooter of any possible charge
    of wrong-doing.)

    Accidents are part and parcel of life as a community. Some accidents
    are virtually or totally blameless on anyone's part. In others, there
    may be partial blame on one or both sides. Sometimes, one party is
    completely to blame, and in these cases, the incidents are not
    properly called 'accidents', because they were caused by negligence or
    even malice (like road rage). But living together as a community means
    that we collectively and individually look after each other whenever
    accidents occur, no matter who is to "blame" and why, and most
    especially, when no one is to blame.


    >
    >> > It was still my fault and I fully expected to be judged accordingly.
    >> > As such, I paid for all the damage and did my best to make sure my
    >> > crashee was ok.

    >>
    >> As any decent person would. This is a different matter from moral
    >> responsibility.

    >
    > Responsibility is not the same as punitive retribution.


    Responsibility is not the same as marmalade, either, but the point is
    elusive.


    > that's where intent comes in (which is why we have a legal system,
    > imperfect as it is ...).
    >


    You seem to be saying that the legal system can determine a person's
    intent. It's an interesting theory, I'll admit...


    David


    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    Of course, the naturalistic evolution assumption [...] proposes that
    an extended series of step-wise coincidences gave rise to life and the
    world as we know it. In other words, the first coincidence led to a
    second coincidence, which led to a third coincidence, which eventually
    led to coincidence 'i', which eventually led up to the present
    situation, 'N'. Evolutionists have not even been able to posit a
    mechanistic 'first' coincidence, only the assumption that each step
    must have had a survival advantage and only by this means could
    evolution from simple to complex have occurred. Each coincidence 'i'
    is assumed to be dependent upon prior steps and to have an associated
    dependent probability 'Pi'. The resultant probability estimate for the
    occurrence of evolutionary naturalism is calculated as the product
    series, given the following:

    N, the number of step-wise coincidences in the evolutionary process.
    i = the index for each coincidence: i = 1, 2, 3 ...
    Pi, the evaluated probability for the i'th coincidence.
    PE = the product probability that everything evolved by naturalism.

    Innumerable steps are postulated to exist in the evolutionary
    sequence, therefore N is very large (i.e. N...). All values of Pi are
    less than or equal to one, with most of them much smaller than
    one. The greater the proposed leap in step i, the smaller the
    associated probability [...] and a property of [a] product series
    where N is very large and most terms are significantly less than one
    [is that it] quickly converges very close to zero.

    The conclusion of this calculation is that the probability of
    naturalistic evolution is essentially zero.

    -- Jerry R. Bergman, B.S., M.S. Psychology, Ph.D. in
    Evaluation and Research, M.A. Sociology, Ph.D. Human Biology.
     
  15. Bob

    Bob Guest

    I bet you discuss nothing but bicycles when you go to church on Sundays.

    Just a sneaking suspicion.
     
  16. ProfTournesol

    ProfTournesol New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    church clashes with cycling time
     
Loading...
Loading...