At 9/11/09 07:08 PM, lapis wrote: stuff

lapis, je hebt het, in mijn optiek, over triviale zaken. zaken die überhaupt binnen de Europese democratie nauwelijks te vermijden zijn. Waarom kijk je niet naar het grotere plaatje? lobbyen is een net zo hard spelende factor in nationale politiek. Ik denk eigenlijk dat een Europees parlement lobbyen tegen werkt, omdat ze nu moeten lobbyen bij het EP en een overheid.

betreft de journalistiek; ik weet niet echt hoe dat eraan toe gaat ik kan me niet voorstellen dat journalisten iets nieuwswaardig niet publiek maken.

Tuurlijk is het EP onderhevig aan kinderziektes, zoals de taal barrières, maar 'in time' zullen deze verdwijnen er moet echter wel een goede kans gegeven worden.

Ik vind dat men niet al teveel moet zeveren over irrelevante zaken en eens kijken naar het streven van de EU en een EP.

Wat jij?

At 9/12/09 08:42 AM, Ravariel wrote:

It can be tricky, because people are really willing to act immorally if they percieve a greater good to come out of it... and are completely unwilling to act in a 100% moral way when it can mean the harming of themselves or someone else (the woman hiding from an axe murderer example comes to mind, or your example of killing some to save many). Long story short (too late!), I won't do your homework for you, but I hope this helps.

You definitely seem to understand the issue, but I am only asking for a good example to illustrate when people look at things from a deontological perspective in contrast to the 'execution' model where people mostly tend to take a teleological approach.

Its to show that people are inconsistent in their decision making.

So, to be blunt, you didnt help, you just said its hard, which I figured.

There must be a better example then the given

..and deontological argumentation

For a presentation I wanna give 2 hypothetical situation to explain the difference between teleological and deontological reasoning.

The teleological part isnt hard. I use the 'execution' model. An army officer gives you the option to kill 5 out of 10 people if you dont then he will kill them all (not you). Most will do what he says because one can save 5.

from a deontological perspective you should refuse because you must not act immoral, no matter the outcome.

But now I want an example where the deontological approach is more appreciated. An (extreme) example where the deed itself is good (or bad) and the outcome will not be weighed as much in the decision.

to illustrate ill give the exmaple that I now have, but I find it a pretty weak example;

youre a immigration official with lots of power. The immigration of people from a war torn country peaks and you notice that they tend to end up in crime, but you dont have hard facts. You want to protect your nation and thus decide to consistently deny everyone from that country. to make things worse your country has provided both combating sides with WoMD. The immigrants are trying to escape a devastating war.

so again a bit of a weaker, less clear example. What I am aiming at is that most people will feel that it is immoral to deny the immigrants. The deontological reasoning will be that the act is immoral. The idea that it will lead to strain on society (criminality) is the teleological argumentation.

I have posted this on multiple forums, I know this isnt the best place, but its busy in here so I hope someone finds the time and creativity to help me with a good hypothetical example.

Thank

At 9/10/09 03:41 PM, JKMonkey wrote:

At 9/10/09 03:20 PM, Decland wrote: why would you want to start? that's fucking retarded and you have no reason to.

facepalm

^^ you dont get as addicted to cigars as you get to cogarettes, I smoke cigars every now and then and I dont get addicted.

maybe not as addictive but addictive nonetheless. Smoke enough cigars and you'll get addicted. Plus, cigarettes stink, but cigars stink way harder. (maybe the smell is better, but it will stink)

At 9/9/09 06:20 PM, kikomannnn wrote:

Still, I think my first couple weeks have been pretty good. I haven't felt that lonely,

34 posts in 24 hours tell me otherwise

At 9/9/09 01:49 PM, ShmenonPie wrote: What you described as the teliological argument, isn't the teliological argument.
I can say that the teliological argument is offered as a proof of the existence of God, and it states that as everything is complex, it must need a designer, which is God.

yes if you literally fill in 'teleological argument' in wiki you get almost exactly the same as you said (yes I am implying a copy pasta)

Maybe you should try teleology in wiki and read that before being a douche. If you would have read the post you would have known what I was talking about.. you know you being a ethicist and all.

Having recently recieved a qualification in Religion and Ethics,

lolz. Youre 16 so even if its true it wont be of much worth PLUS you just copied your statement from wiki.

What you're referring to, allowing evil for the 'greater good', such as pushing one man into the path of a train to save ten others further down the line, is known as utilitarianism.

or teleology, teleological reasoning, consequentialism etc.. btw teleology is of a higher degree(¿) then utilitarianism.

At 9/9/09 01:21 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Oh, you just want other examples. :/

Really poor kid needs to eat, can't afford it. Should he steal? If you see him stealing should you stop him even if you know stopping him could lead to his death?

yes thats something I can use. actually I stumbled upon it earlier. Kant used something similar to explain his imperative's

Maybe you can help me elaborate your example;
first it needs to be from one perspective. So are you the poor kid, or are you the one seeing him steal?

If you are the observer, and are rich yourself you would probably NOT say anything. This is actually a teleological argumentation. The "right" thing to do is to rat him out, that would be deontological.

If I am the kid its also teleological; I know I shouldnt steal but considering the possible outcome if I dont weighed against if I do makes me steel.

Its probable that when I am also poor and hungry, but conscientious enough to not steal, I will rat him out. (number of reason can come into play)

now we can try to make the hypothetical example extremer by saying that the shop-owner is very wealthy. Now probably neither the poor nor the rich OBSERVER will rat him out. (still it cannot be natural law see kant's argument)

Ill work on it a bit; if you feel like it I would appreciate it if you would to

If you're interested in Kant's argument;

"someone sees himself forced to borrow money to survive. He knows he cannot pay back the loan, but realizes that no one will lend him money if he will not make a promise to pay it back.

He tends to make such a promise, but is still conscientious enough to wonder; is it not impermissible and contrary to the obligation to engage in such a manner to evade desperation?

suppose that he decides to do it, then his maxim would be;

when I assume I am in desperate need of money, I will lend it and promise to pay it back, while I know that, that wont happen. This concept of selfishness is presumably unifiable with whole my future wellbeing, but the question now is; is it justifiable.

The claim to selfishness I do change in a general law and I will rephrase the question: how would things be if my maxim would be a general law?

Then you will see that it will never, survive as a general natural law, and harmonize with itself, but that it would in definition would contradict itself. Because the generality of the law on basis that everyone who assumes himself in desperate need of money, can promise that what he likes with the intention not to follow up on the promise, would making the promise and the goal itself impossible.

No one would still believe that someone was actually making a promise and would laugh at such a statement. (source: Kants Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten)."

At 9/9/09 01:04 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Then I'm confused as to why you are posting on a forum.

Neither makes sense because there's a fundamental flaw in the reasoning, which is that there is that morality is something solid and fixed.

Morality within greater societies are fixed when looked at in extremes. The 'execution' model is good example of this (about 88% will kill). That doesnt mean EVERYONE thinks the same, but the moral reasoning is mostly similar.

again I dont want a debate, maybe some other time. I would like an example to clearly illustrate that in some situation people tend to use teleological reasoning and in some deontological. Thus people are not consistent in their ethical decision making.

I can still use help

I am not looking for a discussion. I just want to illustrate deontological reasoning. therefor I need a Hypothetical situation. there is no need to go into specifics of the example

At 9/9/09 11:31 AM, citricsquid wrote:

At 9/9/09 11:30 AM, Ejit wrote: I lefd it at home.

I left your mum at home

wow 15k posts and so witty and funny

... teleological and deontological argumentation

I am sorry but I posted it in general, I doubt I get serious reactions there but I cant repost it so Ill link you guys. Dont burn me for it svp

you can reply here if u want; I seriously need your help

BBS-general

...and deontological argumentation

For a presentation I wanna give 2 hypothetical situation to explain the difference between teleological and deontological reasoning.

The teleological part isnt hard. I use the 'execution' model. An army officer gives you the option to kill 5 out of 10 people if you dont then he will kill them all (not you). Most will do what he says because one can save 5.

from a deontological perspective you should refuse because you must not act immoral, no matter the outcome.

But now I want an example where the deontological approach is more appreciated. An (extreme) example where the deed itself is good (or bad) and the outcome will not be weighed as much in the decision.

to illustrate ill give the exmaple that I now have, but I find it a pretty weak example;

youre a immigration official with lots of power. The immigration of people from a war torn country peaks and you notice that they tend to end up in crime, but you dont have hard facts. You want to protect your nation and thus decide to consistently deny everyone from that country. to make things worse your country has provided both combating sides with WoMD. The immigrants are trying to escape a devastating war.

so again a bit of a weaker, less clear example. What I am aiming at is that most people will feel that it is immoral to deny the immigrants. The deontological reasoning will be that the act is immoral. The idea that it will lead to strain on society (criminality) is the teleological argumentation.

I have posted this on multiple forums, I know this isnt the best place, but its busy in here so I hope someone finds the time and creativity to help me with a good hypothetical example.

Thanks

At 9/8/09 04:18 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

At 9/7/09 02:54 PM, Tomsan wrote:

At 9/7/09 02:23 PM, ooohsnap wrote: You should reject the Lisbon Treaty and leave the EU while you're at it. More centralisation of power is a bad thing.

oohh thats why america is such a strong nation

Funnily enough, everyone in America speaks the same language.

wtf does that got to do with anything?

At 9/7/09 03:44 PM, Lokireloaded wrote:

1: Ireland hasn't "profited" the eu at all. we were benifited greatly, as will happen now to other nations that were part of the soviet block that are joining. Or are you going to expect the eu ask for their unwavering obedience in all things before they do?

uhm so are we talking on semantics now? profited... benefited whats the difference? You got subsidized... a lot. And as for the east euro countries I think they deserve help in development like ireland once deserved it. Now you need to give because you have received.

2: The Government gave us less than nothing in terms of information about the treaty.
Sure they told us about the amendment which would allow its ratification, but nothing about lisbon.
The blame should therefore fall on the Inefective government (and believe me every party told us to vote yes) who tried to keep us totally in the dark about the thing. That is why the wild rumours took hold and why a large number (who if they voted yes this would have been passed) voted no!

COuld be a failure of the irish government. still Its inhabitants do have an own responsibility. I think now people can make a good informed vote.. they just have to avoid focusing on the earlier no

3: Don't worry about your deathsmack to the EU either. More than likely if we do vote no, then the government will ammend the constitution, ratify the treaty and send lisbon on its merry way.

well that doesnt sound logical to me. I cant imagine

and for the record, Ireland is the only nation in the eu to have a public vote.

well maybe on the lisbon treaty but not on the earlier european constitution (I assume the irish know about this¿¿¿). which my country voted against (morons). The lisbon treaty is in essence the same only some things have been cut, like a european president.

And yes, I will be voting yes for the Lisbon treaty.

good for you, apparently the country isnt totally filled with drunks

But how sure are you that the treaty would have been passed in your country if you would have been allowed to vote?

well like I said they VOTED no against the european constitution. Our government didnt make a referendum on the lisbon treaty and it passed without to much fuzz.

The problem is people are DUMB as SHIT. They dont care about the positive they only look at the negative. IMO the irish government doesnt need to put up a referendum for the lisbon treaty, it wont change anything only smoothen and structure already existent treaties.

At 9/7/09 02:23 PM, ooohsnap wrote: You should reject the Lisbon Treaty and leave the EU while you're at it. More centralisation of power is a bad thing.

oohh thats why america is such a strong nation

At 9/7/09 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
...Why is that?
Trying to simply 'up' your post count ,perhaps ?

haha cant imagine that.

as for little contribution to thread I am gonna be guilty of that now.

I have always liked this quote from Epicurus. Its pretty well known but maybe some dont know it yet. I find this to be the answer to the question without the possibility to interpret things differently. It should end with: "...Thus there is no biblical god. QED"

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

At 9/7/09 09:02 AM, Lunaful wrote: The Lisbon treaty is back in the Irish public domain, after we voted no the first time. Link 1 and Link 2 may help to understand the severity of the situation.

Fucking ireland has profited from the EU so incredibly hard, and now they try to protect what we gave them like they created it themselves. The EU is for solidarity and distributive justice. Ireland is self centered and egoistic. Its ridiculous

The No side (Sinn Fein, trade unionists and socialists) say that power will be taken from us and we'll be conscripted into a European army, lose abortion rights etc.

Abortion rights are no buissnes of the EU. The Lisbon treaty is not much more then an aggregation of bilateral agreements and treaties that are already existent. Maybe you will have to increase some restriction concerning environmental factors etc, but not much will change.

The Yes campaign (the government{most political parties} and employers) say it will strengthen us and help us out of ecomomic disaster.

Thats the intention of the EU, to stand together and be strong. The fact that the irish, greedy bastards that they are, dont like the EU now is because NOW they are rich and suddenly its THEIR turn to contribute... fuck you CONTRIBUTE or leave the EU (and pay us back)

But if you were me, armed with the facts and links I've given you, what would you do?

When we voted no it was quite embarrassing, Ireland let itself down focusing on the wild rumours of the treaty rather than its fact.This time we dont have Libertas shouting out random facts.

At the moment I'm leaning toward the Yes side of the argument but I want to see your interpretation of the treaty.

The treaty imo is almost worthless, mainly because of the NO of ireland. Now politicians fear another veto and that could be a deathsmack for the EU, so they make up a treaty that actually doesnt have any consequences (and still people can be fearsly against it.. what a retards).

Still its an important vote, for it will decide future decisions, so vote yes.

At 9/5/09 01:03 AM, Ranger2 wrote:
Ah, Germany, let's not forget you.

didnt you fight germany? they were the enemies right? I dont think german people should "thank" america for defeating germany. germany = europe

So, yes, Europe, we're sorry that we're in a recession. We're sorry that for once, we need a helping hand. It's just a shame that people we've helped for decades, our "friends," are lazy malcontents who are only friends with the person with the wallet.

When you all were on your backs, we helped you up. But now that America has stumbled, has fallen to the ground, where's Europe's helping hand?

:: america = moral utopia

europe isnt in a recession? btw, its not like helping europe was an altruistic thingy or something, do you really believe that? you think america had nothing to gain on entering the war?

I hope that your America-bashing has made you feel better. I hope that your bashing of the US has helped you. Because when you look at history, the difference between Europeans and Americans is that when Europeans are faced with tough times, they turn to authoritarian dictatorships. But when Americans are faced with tough times, they turn to more democracy and freedom.

yeah 'cause america is that old. banished slavery later then europe, banished eugenics only a few decades ago, is still all exited when the N word is spoken somewhere fancy. Hardly listens to UN agreements, is constantly in war because it wants to make the world a """better""" place. Bullies, teases, takes whatever they want, do wahtever they want, kill whomever they want, overthrows elected governments, uses mass indoctrination and propaganda on its subjects, has large impact on the world and still manages to elect the most retarded person possible, and last but not least still has a laughable health care system.

If a retard bully helps me out for some reason that doesnt mean I should like him, especially not when he also fucks me over just as many times and constantly reminds me of that time he helped me out, which was in his advantage in the first place and after YEARS of begging.

You have one big advantage.. youre united, without that you would be shit.

Thanks, Europe.

np

re opening this post since there is a new vid which maybe interesting to some.

YOU TUBE!

fuck HULU! they are a disgrace to the internetz

cant watch outside states

USSR in axis of evil.. strange axis

I know this isnt really the ideal place to ask this question, but the dutch forums are lightly visited for a fast answer whereas here its always busy.

I want to combine 3 .xls files into a working environment saving it as a .xlw file. The problem is it doesnt save all the formula's in the original xls files, and somehow it also doesnt save the working environment. I save with 3 screens but it just comes back with one

can anyone help me out?

At 8/8/09 07:15 AM, SKS wrote:

Don't do anything wrong. You can't do it. People love white ass!!!

I went to jail for 5 and a quarter months and my asshole was never violated once. I am white too.

yes, but he is talking about pretty white ass... like his and mine

took me long enough... got it at the 'van' part

At 8/8/09 12:19 PM, greatwh1teshark wrote: Because without the sea, there would be no land, to end all life in the underwater realm is to end all life above the water on land.

yes, and without the land there would be no... land.

At 8/8/09 03:56 AM, greatwh1teshark wrote: The Sea of Life:

At 8/8/09 04:37 AM, deepwater wrote: Ah man, I didn't know that, this shit is whack, every one should read it.

Alt?

anyways nothing new to me, why would we treat the sea different than the land we live on?

At 8/7/09 02:01 AM, p4c wrote:

At 8/6/09 07:47 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/6/09 02:05 AM, SgtGoose wrote:

Do you believe democracy is right for all?

Everywhere that system of government spreads, it seems that prosperity follows, and everywhere that a totalitarian regime dominates, massacres and war ensues.

thats a pretty bold statement, seeing all the democracies western nations have erected throughout the world that have become abysmal failures.

like..? I can name a few with emphasis on few, but that doesnt say its a failure. a democracy doesnt necessarily mean the country will blossom into a great prosperous nation, no one said that. Also you may expect some years of transition in which separatist and the old generation will not immediatly accept a change, that doesnt mean anything.

while i agree that democracy is cool, and that western powers should probably promote it, by NO means does that mean we should enforce it onto nations like what has happened for so many developing nations in the middle east, africa, etc, leading to terrible leadership in those nations, broken systems with rigged elections, etc. a democracy only works if the people believe in it, and forcing a government onto a population is NEVER a way to get people to believe in that system.

Examples of countries in the middle east? Iraq falls off, you cannot say anything on it.. it to new, same goes for Afghanistan. but I understand you point, you feel that stability is of higher moral value or at least of even value to basic human rights. if the rights of all females are non-existent but the country is stable then its oke? it is unethical and thats the basis of the need to "enforce" democracy. it is not debatable that certain freedoms should exists everywhere. solidarity is the keyword.

no one thinks democracy can be implemented over night.

that being said, i don't really believe democracy is compatible with a lot of cultures--but as time progresses, and people liberalize more, maybe it will. por ejemplo, many middle eastern nations just don't run on the same values we endorse as westerners--like secular government, for example. religious rule is not easily integrated with entrusting power in the people, mainly because power in such a framework probably ought to reside with people who are actually religious, and have authority in interpreting religion.

common argument, but false. I hope by now you understand why. every person wants or desires certain freedoms no matter their heritage. there can be differences in rules, but democracy doesnt touch that. I mean there are very large differences between the new and old country.

the argument; democracy is just not for them, is seriously ridiculous. culture has little to do with it, the whole discussion is about freedoms and rights, which are universal.

what would be more thoughtful to do is to attempt to influence the cultures of nations before touching their governments so that democracy can stem from within those nations. europeans were reluctant to touch democracy a few hundred years ago; why shouldn't other nations? the philosophical developments need to happen internally, and the best we can do is act as a catalyst.

I agree with that, only I think we do have to take a somewhat aggressive standpoint, since its pretty hard to reach people under a totalitarian regime.

At 8/7/09 02:11 AM, p4c wrote:

At 8/6/09 05:05 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

i wouldnt go so far to say dictatorships could ever really work. the problem is that there is no check on the dictator himself, so it relies too much on the honor system--that dictators won't abuse their omnipotence and make decisions arbitrarily. fine, china and russia are powerful, prosperous nations. but i would never call their agendas ethical nor just, and thats the crux of the debate in my opinion.

what is it with china being so prosperous? china grows economically (not so strange**), but its still a dirt poor country!

**england was very prosperous when they were one of the first to introduce the steam machines. they invested a lot, but when other countries started using it to they could infest in more sophisticated material so england lost their advantage being stuck to the old material, we have a saying the advantage of disadvantage.. same goes for china.

i guess it depends on what you think is the government's role--do you take the realist stance, where the power the nation wields is the sole important factor because it gives us bearings on the autonomy of a nation, or do you care about ethics and justice more?

one simple goal. ensure the right and freedoms of the people, and yes its about ethics

Democracies are notorious for being hideously inefficient due to the bureaucracy, making them less effective in, like, getting shit done [see US healthcare]. but they better ensure the protection of rights in the long term--is that something that is more important than national security? because arguably, dictatorships can perform far better than democracies in topics like that, and for smaller, more fragile nations, that IS an imporatant considseration.

it is, and thus one must not expect it to happen overnight. as far as security.. in a functioning democratic state that should be a problem. and dictators perform better because they cleanse the population of the group that is vunorible

BILL O'reilly

At 8/6/09 04:26 PM, OneLastCaress wrote:

You know what pisses me off to no end?

When people add an apostrophe and an s when all they need is an s.

American's would imply an American, or some Americans owned something.

Americans shows that there are multiple people from America.

In my language the grammar rules are different then yours. If you can write down a complete and correct sentence in either Dutch, German or French you will prevail!!!! Otherwise I am superior! btw I like that you put an enter after every sentence.

At 8/6/09 04:30 PM, pauly-walnuts wrote:

You DO know we're on the internet, right? Only 5 people on it know how to use grammar properly. I'm proud to say I'm part of those 5.

You're not supposed to use '5 ' but write five instead.

At 8/6/09 04:31 PM, djmrules wrote:

You know what pisses me off to no end?

When people are more concerned other peoples countries than their own.
OP why the hell do you care that that guy got tasered? Was it you taping him? Were you there?
Worry about your own damn Countries affairs.

Because one may only concern himself on national affairs. The big influence Americana's have on the world is of no importance.

At 8/6/09 04:26 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Would you rather us shoot really troublesome people?

typical

At 8/6/09 04:30 PM, pauly-walnuts wrote:
You DO know we're on the internet, right? Only 5 people on it know how to use grammar properly. I'm proud to say I'm part of those 5.

typical

8/6/09 04:30 PM, ForkStorm wrote:

He was harassing an officer,and causing trouble.

typical

At 8/6/09 04:31 PM, djmrules wrote:
You know what pisses me off to no end?

When people are more concerned other peoples countries than their own.
OP why the hell do you care that that guy got tasered? Was it you taping him? Were you there?
Worry about your own damn Countries affairs.

VERY typical

and now I have to talk some shit to dilute the quote effect