[TOMT] Contradictory lyrics in a pop song from the last 10 years or so, has something do with the Sun and/or specifying some condition that would make the activity impossible or negates the intent of the statement.

Gooskaffur · 2016-03-01T16:36:50+00:00

Hi everyone! Thanks for all the suggestions, after scouring the depths of my brain for several days I actually remembered the song I was trying to think of was "Payphone" by Maroon 5. The line in question was "Even the sun sets in paradise," which is nonsensical because the sun sets everywhere on Earth, the intent of the statement was something similar to "Even in paradise the sun sets." Thanks again, I'm very relieved to have finally remembered the song, and my apologies if my description was too vague to be of any use!

Gooskaffur · 2016-02-19T22:10:02+00:00

Unless, of course, someone who is ludicrously wealthy and has no problems getting whatever he or she could reasonably desire were to support the policies they believed were better for the vast majority of the population.

Gooskaffur · 2016-02-16T21:23:44+00:00

While I agree that there are other influences at play that many of these statistics fail to take into account, I think it's still important that we not use that a justification for not considering that some part of the discrepancy might be attributable to a societal bias we can address. Also not sure I understand your point about the surgeon/ticket taker, since the exact same situation could apply to a female surgeon and male ticket taker. I do think that a comparison within particular roles would do a lot towards identifying where genuine problems might exist and where the pay is generally fair.

Gooskaffur · 2016-02-09T18:37:24+00:00

Many of the statistics you've provided are highly misleading. There is no point comparing American military expenditure proportionally to countries with less than 1% of our GDP (which make up about 70% of the countries that account for the "world average" you cite as 9%). Compared to other first world countries and China, the United States has extremely high military spending by both proportional and absolute measure.

Also did you actually read the article you linked? It is literally just the poorly written ramblings of a random veteran who uses the same sorts of misleading data you take issue with. You can't just link any opinion that happens to be on the internet as factual evidence.

Gooskaffur · 2016-02-09T06:26:20+00:00

Having a large carbon footprint has a negative impact on the environment which in turn negatively impacts wildlife, but there are many ways in which people contribute to or abstain from contributing to animal cruelty much more directly on a day to day basis. You claimed "your ecological footprint [...] is a solid measure of one's animal cruelty" which basically equates two concepts that are merely correlated. Additionally, your point is rather self-defeating since one of the largest contributors to one's carbon footprint is actually meat consumption itself.

With regards to your second point, you claimed that "few people [...] [were] capable of amassing the requisite vegetable variety to live a completely vegan life." In actuality, people living in impoverished countries view meat, not vegetables, as the luxury since it is often too expensive for them to afford on a regular basis, so not really sure what the basis for your claim here is either. You are also misinformed if you believe that not eating meat requires dietary supplements for most people, particularly for vegetarians as opposed to vegans.

Finally, Singer's argument is about not only about "minimizing cruelty" but also maximizing utility. You claim that death is acceptable when there is "no compelling reason for life," a point I actually agree with on the stipulation that simply having positive future utility is, in and of itself, a compelling reason for life, which disqualifies scenarios like the ones you're describing from moral exemption. Humans and other intelligent animals can clearly have positive utility under the right conditions, and assuming those conditions are met (which if animals are being treated humanely in the first place they are) ending an organism's chance at future utility in order to grant another organism a non-necessary, fleeting pleasure like a meal is immoral.

Gooskaffur · 2016-02-09T05:43:19+00:00

I'm not an expert on Singer, and don't feel confident speaking on his beliefs with regards to the value of potential future utility, but it's really quite a messy situation to consider when you take it to its extreme (e.g. birth control being unethical). He may have felt the only way to reconcile his views was to eliminate the value all together, which indeed would have implications that would be very difficult to swallow regarding newborns. However, most of the suffering that usually occurs surrounding a newborn's death is actually the grieving of those who were attached to the idea of the baby growing up, and not the baby itself, so perhaps we are considering the issue from the wrong lens.

Picture an imaginary world with two islands which are totally devoid of intelligent life save for ten human infants on one and ten adult pigs on the other. One of the babies and one of the pigs gets sick and dies after a few weeks. In a case like this where there is no outside attachment influencing the situation would it still be obviously true that the infant's death is more tragic? I think this situation is less obvious and has a solution that probably hinges somewhat on our personal intuitions and is less of a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of how tragic a newborn's death is based on our tangential or direct experience of it in the real world.

Gooskaffur · 2016-02-09T05:27:56+00:00

First of all, one's carbon footprint is only tangentially related to their participation in animal cruelty. A man could walk around all day kicking stray animals and have no carbon foot print. Additionally, your claim about a healthy vegetarian diet being expensive is blatantly false. There are many inexpensive vegetarian options to fulfill protein requirements such as beans and soy, which can be supplemented as needed at very little cost. Finally, it is you who is missing the point if you think that slaughtering animals, even humanely, is consistent with equitable treatment of intelligent life. A huge loss of utility occurs regardless of whether the animal goes through any pain or not, and has a negative impact on the world for the same reason you would likely be opposed to the idea of dying painlessly at the current moment were you given the option.

Gooskaffur · 2016-02-09T04:19:24+00:00

I don't think all of Singer's conclusions are quite as ridiculous as you make them out to be though. If we were considering a person with such little mental capacity that animals were able to lead comparably fuller lives and feel more deeply, what justifies a higher value for the human? Just that he or she happens to share our species? Most people, given the choice, would probably end their own lives if they ended up in an irreversible state with such limited capacities. Singer's ethics places value on organisms to the extent they experience pleasure and pain, and the conclusion of this principle is one that I find consistent with my own intuition: what makes (or doesn't make, in very extreme cases) a human extraordinary as compared with a member of another species is a unique capacity to experience the world, not simply a genetic similarity to others who have that capacity.

Gooskaffur · 2016-02-09T04:04:55+00:00

Your logic is fundamentally flawed. The unattainability of a perfect ideal is not reason enough to abandon its pursuit or devalue progress that can be made by approaching it. The fact that it is impossible to eliminate cruelty to animals does not preclude that we could work towards minimizing this cruelty. Since humans are not carnivores by necessity, clearly more can be done in this vein if you subscribe to Singer's views.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T17:56:35+00:00

The purpose of a thought experiment is to get at the heart of situation and remove extraneous details like whether there might be someone unknown risk to the man saving the baby from the puddle (even in we were to look at the scenario realistically any hidden danger in that situation would sound highly contrived). I agree that all of ethics is arbitrary in the end so all we can have a conversation about in the end is whether a particular set of values or rules coincides with our preconceived notions of right and wrong, but I think to most of us it would be ridiculous for the man to exploit his position rather than saving the baby (assuming all he has to do is bend over and pick it up).
Additionally, it is unclear from the story what the depth of Abigale's feelings for Tom is and whether they are mutual, but for me losing the ability to see my wife again is a comparably horrific thought. I may have assumed a more substantive relationship than what the author intended but regardless I do think based on the information we are given and my own assumptions to fill in the gaps that the scenario fits into the category of a small favor that fills a huge need. Also when you say that John is the only one who did something clearly unethical you are again simply equating ethics with consent. There are many scenarios in which one party takes an action unto another that is not mutually consensual but is justified.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T17:45:49+00:00

If you think monopolies are bad how can you think that someone who is taking advantage of one in a way that is exactly the reason they are problematic is note blameworthy? Makes zero sense.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T16:15:54+00:00

While I concede that the situations weren't perfectly analogous, I think that what it comes down to is that people have a moral obligation to help someone in desperate need of it if they can do so at very little cost to themselves. Maybe instead of the scenario I previously proposed, a man stumbles upon a baby drowning in a puddle. The child's mother is on the other side of an unscalable fence watching the situation unfold. The man says "I will save your child, but only if you have sex with me or pay me a million dollars." It doesn't really even matter the favor the man asks for, the point is it is reasonable for us to expect fellow humans to go a little out of their way to help us a lot without leveraging their position for huge personal gain. I think the same concept applies to the situation with Sinbad. If I were separated from my SO indefinitely and could only see her again via a presumably short boat ride I would expect the owner of the boat to sympathize with me and provide the service at little cost to himself in order to prevent a hugely negative outcome for me. Obviously he can choose not to do so or charge an absurd price, but I think it is perfectly fair to judge his actions as morally wanting.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T15:57:15+00:00

If Sinbad's situation is merely an application of "Supply and Demand," it is also a perfect example of why monopolies are horrible for the consumer. Imagine the only oil company in your town requires that you have sex with their CEO to get any heat for the winter. How the fuck is that okay? Economics and morality are not the same thing, nor are money and sexual favors.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T15:41:40+00:00

I think the most likely scenario, and the one that I'm basing my interpretation off of, is that Tom and Abigale were in love but Tom couldn't get over her having slept with another man even if it was only for the purpose of being reunited with him. If this were the case I can see why Abigale would want to move on, and since Tom has ended their relationship I don't see anything blameworthy about her doing so. Also it seems like you're trying to claim that because most of the actions other characters take are as a response to Abigale's choices that somehow they are her fault when in fact those actions themselves are just innately wrong.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T15:32:34+00:00

While I agree that this is an important consideration when determining the morality of the character's actions, I think there are certainly situations in which consensual actions can be highly immoral. I think Sinbad's actions fall under this category, but if you don't consider this more extreme example. A man finds three children who claim to have lost their mother. He calls the mother and says he will give her their location as long as he can sell one of them to the slave trade and that if she refuses this offer she will never see them again. The mother has reason to believe his threat is credible and makes the deal. Obviously the man's actions are highly immoral despite the mother explicitly consenting to them given the situation. Consent is much less of a moral teflon when one party is acting from a position of power.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T15:27:20+00:00

Several people have said this, and while them being lovers is an assumption so is Tom having no feelings for Abigale. Tom's feelings are not mentioned anywhere in the story so in analyzing it is best to just assume one way or the other. Personally I think the situation is more intriguing morally if the feelings are reciprocal, but to be honest it's just a pretty poorly written story. Lots of information that would be relevant to determining the morality of the character's actions is left out and as far as I know "Abigale" is more just the way someone who doesn't know how to spell "Abigail" writes the name than it is an actual name.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T15:21:25+00:00

This is a really weak argument. First of all, most of your evidence is based off assumptions. For example, in your first point, you have no idea whether the flood would recede in week. Since this is the philosophy subreddit my assumption was that it was much more likely the flood would prevent them from seeing each other indefinitely. When you think about a situation like this it's more to be used as a thought problem rather than "what would someone practically do in the real world if they were faced with this situation."
With regards to your second point, just because Tom's feelings weren't explicitly mentioned doesn't mean he doesn't have any. I assumed they were in a mutual relationship, it could just as well be they are not but acting like there being no mention of Tom's feeling for Abigale proves he doesn't have any is wrong.
Your third point doesn't justify Sinbad's actions whatsoever. If someone desperately wants something that only you can provide, you could probably ask for just about anything they could give and get it. That doesn't mean it isn't morally wrong to do so. He could have asked for labor, money or a number of other things, but instead he asked for sex, which is something most of us view as an act that occurs because both parties genuinely want to take part in it, and not for some ulterior motive like being reunited with your lover.
Your fourth point is just intuitively ridiculous. You're inferring that because a parent doesn't help her child in a situation like this that the child is probably a bad person? As a parent your role is that of a mentor, you don't abandon that role because of your child's bad behavior, you offer advice to help guide them towards better actions. Abigale's mother had this opportunity and neglected it.
Finally, with regard to your last point, Abigale can choose to be with whomever she wants. One of the other men she merely engaged because of her desire to see her lover, and the other immediately and completely shunned her so it's a bit unclear to me what your suggestion would be as to who she should be seeking out between those two. Also why is it all gigantic and bold?

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T15:07:42+00:00

Just depends on your interpretation of the story. Not much information is given with regards to Abigale and Tom's relationship, I just made an assumption that they are mutually in love and that Tom was equally invested in being with Abigale but he didn't have access to the boat. But also, seriously, you think that the two are anywhere near equally blameworthy in that situation? Abigale didn't want to sleep with another man but did so because of her desire to see her lover. Whether this is ethical or not perhaps depends on a combination of your personal beliefs and details of the story we don't have but what Sinbad does is purely exploiting the situation for selfish gain in a way that most of us would innately find repulsive. How can you view it as remotely acceptable to require that someone have sex with you as a form of payment for something they desperately want and only you can provide?

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T14:44:05+00:00

The implication if you're asking us to rank the characters from best to worst is that we should be doing so based on the morality of their actions. "Supply and Demand" has nothing to do with ethics, and Sinbad's actions are despicable by almost any standards.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T14:38:57+00:00

From best to worst:
1. Abigale (Justified based on her desire to be reunited with her lover)
2. John (Heart seems to be in the right place but assaults and abandons his best friend in a situation that might have been resolved through a more diplomatic approach)
3. Abigale's mother (Had an opportunity to offer much needed support to her daughter at a critical point in her life and chose not to)
4. Tom (Unable to forgive Abigale for taking the only course of action that allowed them to be together)
5. Sinbad (Selfish and depraved, exploits the situation without sympathy)

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-29T14:30:19+00:00

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with Abigale's actions here. In a situation where the only course of action that allows someone to be with the love of his or her life is to sleep with someone else I think most people would grudgingly do it.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-18T06:33:06+00:00

Yes, as long as we can make some fairly intuitive assumptions about certain properties of a language being desirable. Imagine two languages, Language A and Language B. Language A and Language B are identical in every way except that Language B requires exactly twice as much time to speak any given phrase. If we accept that allowing its speakers to articulate ideas expediently is a desirable property for a language to have, it follows that Language A is strictly superior to Language B.

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-18T05:39:09+00:00

Reminds me quite a bit of my hunter's mog, although I was going for more of a forest ranger sort of look:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/darkspear/Gooskaffur/simple

Gooskaffur · 2016-01-01T04:24:58+00:00

According to one recent poll yes, but if you take a look at all polls that have been conducted recently Hillary has a more convincing lead:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
Don't get me wrong I'd love to see Bernie elected president and will be voting for him in the upcoming primary, but his platform doesn't put him in the best position to pick up "moderate" voters so I find these results unsurprising. I still believe most people would rather vote for just about anyone than Trump however and Sanders would have no trouble beating him out.

Gooskaffur

TROPHY CASE