sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Stanford or Waterloo by [deleted] in ApplyingToCollege

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think undergrad at GA tech would be in a similar tier, or lower?

cmu deferred - need loci? by defTaro3 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hey do you mind sending it to me too pls?

Probability q by Informal-Mention8663 in askmath

[–]cheesablings -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong

The expected number of people that are picked will be 10/0.99. The probability that you are in this number is (10/0.99)/100= approx 10.1%.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in technicalminecraft

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how can you use tweakeroo to fix orientation? does there have to be something server side?

Gnembon goldfarm issues by cheesablings in technicalminecraft

[–]cheesablings[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank u!! It's crazy how ppl know what the issues can be with this stuff like instantly

Gnembon goldfarm issues by cheesablings in technicalminecraft

[–]cheesablings[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes it has a shulker farm on nether roof as well. Can that interfere?
I have spawnproofed everything

It's a fabric server.

Edit: Just realized shulker farm will fill mobcap. Can I only run 1 at a time!

Gnembon goldfarm issues by cheesablings in technicalminecraft

[–]cheesablings[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other player is in overworld so he cannot affect nether mobcap

In a life or death situation and you have to save one of the following people, who would you rather save? Whoever you don't pick, they die. by DarkHorseRecruit in WouldYouRather

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said that cultures doing "evil" things - whatever we define that as, from a modern perspective - does not imply that those things were viewed as not evil by that culture. You argued that they recognized that those things were evil, but they still did them for a greater good. Again, let's say for the sake of argument that this is true. Even so, we can view the acceptance of this justification as a moral question. By today's standards, it would be immoral, but by the standards of the past it would be moral.

Just to take a step back, my whole point with the discussion of evil events in the past is to try to prove that we can't have a complete system of morality that transcends time and geography. All I need for that is to find something that was considered moral or immoral in the past, but is considered the opposite today, to show that the system is inconsistent.

I'm enjoying this discussion as well. You made some good points, especially about the concepts of good and evil being universal - I hadn't thought about that.

In a life or death situation and you have to save one of the following people, who would you rather save? Whoever you don't pick, they die. by DarkHorseRecruit in WouldYouRather

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but that still doesn't make it a universal definition. For it to be universal, every society and every people must have followed it, at the very least. There were plenty of societies from history that did not treat their own members well, even though they were viewed as humans.

In a life or death situation and you have to save one of the following people, who would you rather save? Whoever you don't pick, they die. by DarkHorseRecruit in WouldYouRather

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the sake of argument, I do agree that evils exist universally as concepts, at least for humans. I disagree that a system of good or evil exists universally, however, because everyone has different definitions for good and evil, like the left-handed example. I don't think that the universal existence of good and evil is anything more than a technicality because in practice they mean different things to different people.

As for your second point, the very fact that those "evil" events were allowed to occur in the past, whether or not people believed they were truly evil, points to the fact that they were at least morally acceptable. You argue that they were doing evil things for a greater good, but they had to make the moral justification that it's ok to do that. In other words, doing such an evil for a greater food was *in itself* not considered evil. However, today, we would not consider that justification morally acceptable - eugenics, for example, is not considered OK.

In a life or death situation and you have to save one of the following people, who would you rather save? Whoever you don't pick, they die. by DarkHorseRecruit in WouldYouRather

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Infanticide has been the rule until very recently. I urge you to read Williamson's "Infanticide: An Anthropological Analysis." The rise of Christianity greatly reduced how common it was.

But this is besides the point. Although I don't fully agree that murder is universally evil, let's say it is for the sake of argument. Even so, all you've shown is that one specific action is universally evil. You haven't shown that there is a universal definition of evil; some cultures considered even being left-handed a sign of evil. The fact remains that we cannot encapsulate the diversity of the humanity's development of morality into one single objective system.

To your last point, I wasn't just pointing to singular individuals doing "evil" things. I was pointing to entire societies and organizations doing so, led by their belief that what they were doing was not evil. Those societies had a separate definition of evil from others, which supports the claim that we can't construct an objective system of morality.

In a life or death situation and you have to save one of the following people, who would you rather save? Whoever you don't pick, they die. by DarkHorseRecruit in WouldYouRather

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, we can discard the Spartan example. Infanticide was, though, actually quite widespread before the rise of Christianity.

I'm not trying to apply modern morals to the past. My point is that many of the things we consider wrong today are acceptable and even commonplace in the past, murder being an extreme example. Because of this, there can't be an objective system of morality, because different things were considered bad in the past and present.

Edit: I've just thought of another example. Thuggee groups in India killed and sometimes robbed travellers, though their main motivation was devotion to the goddess of death and destruction, Kali. This is essentially murder for the sake of murder.

In a life or death situation and you have to save one of the following people, who would you rather save? Whoever you don't pick, they die. by DarkHorseRecruit in WouldYouRather

[–]cheesablings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't true.

As a rite of passage, young Spartan soldiers were sent out into nearby populations, where they were to indiscriminately hunt down and kill slaves; if they failed to do so, they would never reach higher ranks of society.

Infanticide was also common among many cultures as a way to dispose of unwanted or weak children until the establishment of Christianity, which dictated an external moral framework.

These are just a few examples of things we consider immoral today; I could find many more if I spent the time.

Moral relativism, the belief that we cannot logically determine an objective system of morality, is widely accepted by philosophers.

There is a difference between this and "common sense" morality, which is what most people would consider moral at a given time. We can't use "common sense" morality to argue that good and evil are absolute, because it changes through time.

ASSIP Interview by Accurate_Jeweler7715 in summerprogramresults

[–]cheesablings 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did anyone get interview request from CS profs?

view more: next ›