Intarweb

So if people think a thread is fun or interesting, that's irrelevant?

I would beg to differ. Adam and I are having a wonderful debate in the video games subforum thread. Are you talking specifically about the lack of religious threads? Because as far as i know, there is no ban on threads with potential disagreement. Also, intarweb i agree with you on the favourits topics. I find it entertaining to read over the thoughts and likes and dislikes of my fellow Tip. iters. That's the first good one in awhile. The forum has gone dead.

So in other words, someone who just brings forward a topic and basically plays the devils advocate? I don't care if the original post gives his opinion later in the thread, but I don't like opening a thread and seeing someone go on about how great something is. I wouldn't mind if people would just play the Devil's advocate for a while, then give their opinion after a few others have given theirs.. I disagree entirely. I think its crucial for the first poster to give their opinion right off the bat. It starts the discussion immediately. I can't stand it when people make opinionated topics and just rely on others to give their opinions to get the post going.

I have to disagree. "Favorites" threads aren't "insightful" by any means, but that doesn't mean there isn't a sort of quality to them. People like to discuss favorites and such, so in a reasonable quantity, I think these types of threads are good for message boards. I don't think threads have to be deep or insightful to be of a quality - fun and interesting can also add to the quality of a post/thread.

I think that some posts are of a poor quality by default if they are posted by certain members.

Definitely agree with that. Moving onto a slightly different subject... I'd like some opinions on this. A friend of mine and I are organizing a Valentine's Day dance for people who are mentally and physically handicapped. Is this a waste of time where I could be organizing a charity that is more beneficial to those in need?

Who's effort are you referring to?

Why can't it just be proven that life will die out? It's not like this is real - you made it up. What's the point in it being predicted that life will die out instead of just saying "life will die out." You're really bad at this thought experimenting.

Syrup storms? Storms of molasses? Or is it more of a porridge viscosity? I need to have answers before I can formulate my reply. I'm pretty sure he was referring to syrup storms. Maple, specifically.

This is exactly like the, "what do you need to do before you die?" thread - except with a fictional story that has too many adjectives in it.

I'll read the thread no matter who started it - but I don't pay attention to many posts that I don't recognize the poster of. Like, I pretty much just skimmed the first page and a half of this thread.

If any of it goes to charity, which you admit that some does, that portion is a charity. Don't try and pretend like the little that does isn't a charity. 10 minutes is still about 9 minutes and 50 seconds more than it takes to click a link while I'm doing something else with my time AND clicking the link is not mutually exclusive from spending 10 minutes at a later time doing other charity work. Its not irrelevant, because my point is that clicking the link is done while you are spending your time else - surfing the internet - and does not take but 10 seconds away from that. Organizing a charity would be an entirely different event entirely that would take it's own time - which clicking a link does not. Therefore, the two events are not comparable - one takes time for itself, and one takes but 10 seconds while you are surfing the internet. I only bring up the example of how you spend your other time to show you that you are trying to act like clicking the link and organizing charity are mutually exclusive events. My question remains: What is wrong with taking 10 seconds to click a link where your time is otherwise devoted elsewhere? By clicking it YOU don't lose anything. I asked you what you lost, and you claimed time, and that's ridiculous. If you don't lose anything - and at least SOME of the money goes to charity - what is the harm? No, I won't do that. How would that show how bad my argument is? That's completely irrelevant. If you want to know my argument, read above and answer those questions, because it has nothing to do with flaming you for giving to charities. Tell me this. If I spend my time surfing the internet and I see that link, and DON'T click it - that is better than clicking it? When I'm on the internet, like when YOU'RE on the internet, I'm not doing charity work. So how is that time spent for myself on the internet WITHOUT clicking the link, any better than it is WITH clicking the link?

Time that could be spent doing real charity work/fund-raising. How do you think my post is arrogant? I have simply given the facts that the website is a PROFIT organisation NOT a charity and explained ways in which you can do some REAL benefit for charities. Wait. So clicking that button when you would normally be browsing the internet - which takes less than 10 seconds - is time that could be spent organizing charity work? That is how you're arrogant. By calling people slacktivists, and by making statements like the one above, you ASSUME that when people take 2 seconds to click a link while they are online that is the ONLY type of "giving back" they do. That means, you miss the ENTIRE point of the charity. It is something that doesn't take any time and can be done when you would normally be doing something else. Don't even try and say that click a link is time you could spend organizing charities. What about all those movies you own? I hope you don't ever watch them! That is time you could be organizing charities! Why are you even responding on this forum? That's time you could be spent working on charities! Your arrogance is when you assume that by clicking that link, that is ALL someone is doing - when in reality, it could just be something additional that is done. When I get online to check my email, I can click that link in 10 seconds when I normally wouldn't be doing anything charitable. Who cares if it doesn't all go to charity, it's not costing ME anything. At least, it's not costing me more than all those movies you've bought and watch - because that's a lot more time spent not giving to charities than the 2 seconds it costs me to click a link.

Because your post is nothing but arrogance. Here's my question: What does clicking the link cost you?

http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/We ... ganization? It says it's a profit organisation Through the success of Microsoft, Bill Gates is able to give billions of dollars to charity. Does the fact that Microsoft is a profit organization make the money given to charity any less?

I give back to the world about twice daily. Sometimes 5 or 6 times if I have Taco Bell.

I think there should be more than one judge.

Cultural relativism. It's a smaller branch of ethics but has been rapidly growing in those who adopt it as we've globalized more.

That test misinterpreted my answers in order to fit the criteria of a contradiction when one wasn't there. I hardly think that 'agree' and 'disagree' is enough for someone to understand the reasoning behind my thoughts.

You said: So I was telling why the answer to that question is an obvious yes. Everyone would naturally think that their morals are the best, and therefore, forcing their morals on other people would be helpful. That doesn't mean everyone thinks they should do that, but the answer to your question is yes. If you don't know "where I'm going" when I'm simply answering your question, then I can't help you. Agreed. In an ideal world, everyone would have the same view of morality. However, what you just said emphasizes my point. We have to force some morality on people, and denying that we do would be ridiculous.

1. The question was not whether or not we SHOULD force our morals on other people, it is whether or not we personally think that our morals would help other people. And the answer is an obvious yes. 2. I never said morals should never be forced on anyone. I said "I never said that..." meaning I'm not giving me opinion on that subject. I don't think it would be safe for you to say we shouldn't ever force our morals on other people, because not everyone thinks murder is wrong.

I think you should be more careful about wording this as your opinion. In many people's opinion, including my own, humanity is something that only applies to humans. It is not objective truth that humanity is a vague concept - I think it's very black and white. Did you read the rest of my post? o.O I did. I don't believe you offered me any conclusive evidence that humanity can't be black and white between human and not human. A chimp is intelligent, but its still an imp. Are you going to tell me that the line between being one species and another is too blurry to say that someone who is human might not be? Ah, I guess you have a point. We do tend to be able to conclusively tell the species of an individual animal. :P However, the word humanity has many connotations and etymologies that aren't scientific in origin. According to dictionary.com, the third definition is "the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence." If you look up humane, the first definition you get is "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed". So yes, I guess you're right. I took my argument a bit far. But I do think it's fair to call immoral actions against animals "inhumane" according to the dictionary.com definition :D And, I still do think what we consider "intelligent" in a human sort of way is very ambiguous. :D Agreed. Especially the last sentence. :P

If I believe my morals are right, then I think it would be helpful. You might not think it's helpful because you disagree with my morals - but I do since they are my morals. Let's say you think cussing is wrong but I don't. Would YOU think it's helpful if I didn't cuss even though I wouldn't? Of course you would! If you didn't, then you'd have to ask yourself why you think it's wrong. I'm not saying that I should force my morals on other people, I'm saying that everyone would naturally assume their morals are the best, otherwise, why would they even believe them instead of a different set? It wouldn't make sense to think your morals aren't the best and most helpful because then you would choose which ones are the best and most helpful.

I think you should be more careful about wording this as your opinion. In many people's opinion, including my own, humanity is something that only applies to humans. It is not objective truth that humanity is a vague concept - I think it's very black and white. Did you read the rest of my post? o.O I did. I don't believe you offered me any conclusive evidence that humanity can't be black and white between human and not human. A chimp is intelligent, but its still an imp. Are you going to tell me that the line between being one species and another is too blurry to say that someone who is human might not be?

I think you should be more careful about wording this as your opinion. In many people's opinion, including my own, humanity is something that only applies to humans. It is not objective truth that humanity is a vague concept - I think it's very black and white.