shirgall
-
Posts
3,196 -
Joined
-
Days Won
85
Everything posted by shirgall
-
You don't want to get involved with someone that casually invokes sexual brinkmanship anyway.
-
The Snopes article is all over the place, but fixes most of its efforts upon the picture of refugees coming off a train in Munich. -
Snopes disagrees that refugees over-represent fighting age males: http://www.snopes.com/refugee-invaders-meme/
-
Except I wasn't arguing as much as I was just clarifying. I won't claim to be the most crisp, but there were misconceptions running about.
-
All claims? Very little. Specific claims? Perhaps. Just remember some of us are old enough to remember the Apollo broadcasts and have been to Cape Canaveral to see launches.
-
It would be interesting if you addressed what I said instead of what you want to argue about. I am not the one that applied any concept of "binding".
-
The conspiracy goes further than we thought. http://www.tylervigen.com/view_correlation.php?id=1889
-
Stefisms - Contribute Quotes/images we can use to Promote FDR
shirgall replied to Daniel Wagner's topic in General Messages
-
No. Wrong for the person initiating force but it's highly likely the one acted upon will forgive him.
-
Inaction isn't evil, because applied universally, you can't say some guy in a coma is evil for not acting.
-
An essential element of tabletop roleplaying games is that it needs to be interesting to a group of people to play, thus many elements of "game balance" are present to make sure everyone who came to the table has something useful to do in an evening's diversion. That these elements carried over into videogames is not surprising. I remember the old "satanist" BS that was thrown around when I got into RPGs in the 80s. Of course gamemakers tread lightly enough to get talked about in the press, but not too negatively.
-
I never claimed universality makes anything binding, but rather that it was a necessary element of a moral rule.
-
It has to be universal to be consistent that inaction is not evil. Just because you could do something about something that's mean you "must", although it can be argued that you "should".
-
The lack of action of a man in coma cannot be considered immoral, and neither can the lack of action of a regular person.
-
The Secret About Nitpickers: What Stefan Doesn't Know
shirgall replied to ClearConscience's topic in Philosophy
The difference between a counter-example and a time-wasting lifeboat scenario can be seen in the extraordinary work that went into limiting the actor's choice in the scenario. -
I did a Cavendish Experiment with my fellow students when I was in college, and I remember how hard it was to isolate from the air conditioning. It's neat though.
-
Trump does his best when he's proactive and not reactive. He's pretty good at predicting the response and having a effective counter in mind as well.
-
Why is it bad to break someone's leg with a baseball bat?
shirgall replied to afterzir's topic in Philosophy
By using "killing" in two difference senses yet treating the two the same. This is why the proper reading of a certain commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" and not "Thou shalt not kill." -
This is why the crime of manslaughter has the standard: performing activities a reasonable and prudent person (knowing what the defendant knew) would presume likely to cause death or grave bodily harm, and death results from those activities. While you may not have meant evil, you should have known you were endangering lives. Manslaughter is not so much a crime of malice as of negligence. Is it universally preferable that people perform activities without regard to potential risk of death or grave bodily harm?
-
No, but if you could without danger to yourself or others, you'd be considered worthy of scorn and derision. You might even get downvoted.
-
Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils
shirgall replied to jason_'s topic in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
http://memegenerator.net/instance2/4955440 -
You can hold him responsible, too, but he's dead, so what's the point? That does not absolve you of anything. You still coldly planned to threaten the life of another and a death was a direct result. Bear hunting is not violent crime, but sure, it has risks, and you all share those risks and responsibility for the outcome.
-
You knowingly and intentionally participated in a plan you helped devise and enact that lead to the death of another. Is this really that hard of a question?
-
Indeed, the only way to get there is possibly to impose restrictions on trade that are related directly to reciprocal trade restrictions, working conditions, public policies, et al. We've had squabbles like this in the past, for example when Japan was massively subsidizing its technology industry with MITI, but there's not been a lot of this. TPP is big-time horse trading and less principles in comparison.
-
It's entirely possible that his early position on trade barriers is a negotiating tactic intended to make ironing out a real deal more reasonable.
