insane

M&M board!

Yea, not allowed here.

Ah, I popped on for a bit, I lasted 10 minutes! That's a record for me :P

It's circular reasoning ;) saying God exists - the Bible proves it and then, the Bible is true because God wrote it. I hope you learn someday to back up your opinions.

I think you don't. Please read the forum rules.

Mine does that, but not to that extreme. It'll get to 70%, then go back down to zero, but then it will "climb the ranks" more quickly this time. The % completed bar really is completely inaccurate. I don't know about your specific problem though, it seems a little extreme.

Yes but you can't possibly predict if you receive a good outcome (you need to have the good means in order to facilitate the result, which is required in your ethical viewpoint) itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why two different ethical approaches exist. You can always have good motives but sometimes bad things just happen no matter how good your intentions, whereas on the other hand if something bad did happen you might be willing to step on some moral toes to correct the problem; everyone strikes some balance between these two ideas. You can't have it both ways otherwise this whole argument between means and ends wouldn't exist. Lets say you offer a piece of gum to someone, for all you know they could be distracted chewing and get hit by a car; freak results like these occur all the time, its called chaos. The world is described by a non-linear system, one that you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know and even if you did is impossible to be easily computed moment to moment; taking a second longer to offer the gum can give a life or death result. Being good and expecting good results is really a cop-out way of looking at things, by your definition no one can be good. Yeh, I'm a little confused as well - ethical philosophy isn't really something I've spent too much time thinking about which is why I probably don't even know my own standpoint. Your little spiel I agree with and is one of the reasons I disagree with utilitarianism - you can evaluate the supposed results of a certain action all you want but it never leaves from for random events that skew any evaluation of any ethical action.

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=389227

Here's something you *could* do: You could download PowerTab editor - the thing with this program is that it translates tabulature into notation as you enter it - so basically, you could find a tab of a song you want, and copy that into powertab editor and it should give you the notated version - of course it won't be as complex as you want - but it will give you a head start on figuring it out yourself :)

But what is "good" and what is "bad"? We don't live in a black and white world and what might cause joy in one person may cause suffering in one hundred. No single act can be considered "good" or "bad". We can only consider the varying degrees of happiness or suffering that it may cause. That would be what ethical philosophy is all about :P your last line about pleasure and suffering is an example of Utilitarianism.

I don't believe in deontology - or Kantian ethics. Their statement that means justify ends is just as morally destructive as consequentialism is. I believe it takes good means + good ends to do something "good".

That's not really American culture though :\ that's a tiny subsection of American culture. The bad stuff is ignored, and never seen. I think America's Most Wanted or Cops is a better insight into what American culture really is.

I am likewise sure it was purple.

As this is an extreme example, I'd have to say I would do the same. There are exceptions to every rule, of course. I was trying to argue for general cases, and I don't think this is the general case. Btw, I disagree with your logic here - that the end justifies the means. It doesn't change my decision though. It wasn't an argument - I was just curious to see how far you would take this belief.

Wrong forum. Repeated topic.

Why? Why is bringing a child into the world only to have it live a life of suffering preferable to not bringing that child into the world in the first place? Answer the question, then. Would you tell one of these children that they should have been aborted? Your first option politely ignores the dead fetus, of course. Not to mention it doesn't definite quality of life, which is a vague term. And of course pro-life is presented negatively, which makes your second option a loaded term as well. And yea, you forgot option three - raising the quality of life as much as possible without killing unborn children. Since you left that option out, that whole statement is a false dilemma - stating "either P or Q", when really there are many more options not presented.

Your argument is based on a bunch of "what ifs"? Even if it was a valid argument, would you really tell one of these unfortunate children that they're better off dead? I think that statement would do more damage than lack of finance could.

Because I had class :(

I'm really not a fan of it. It's like a soap opera on steroids. My best friend does that and it drives me nuts :|

Yea, the US appealed to the 3rd base umpire and the 3rd base umpire ruled in favour of Japan - that should have been it. But Buck Martinez went and argued with the home plate umpire who should not turn over an already appealed call, but he did and ruled in favour of the US. Would it surprise you to know that the home plate umpire was American?

No, they threatened to take legal action against the articles writer. Yeah, but you guys are hosting it - im not a lawyer but whenever I heard of a libel case before its always a newspaper (publisher) that gets sued, not the journlalist who wrote the piece... but im not a lawyer, I dunno Legal action would be kind of ridiculous over something like this. It would definitely be an overreaction.

I wouldn't be opposed to it :) but the data used to determine who wins these awards would have to stop when we start voting. For example, if I post something after the votes start, it wouldn't count, that way people can't see what the "areas" to win are and then try and win. It would be based on who we have always been as posters.

Okay :) That's a pragmatic point of view (something is true if it is useful), and while I am pragmatic, I only am to a certain extent. If I lie to someone, it might be something very useful to say, but it doesn't make it true. In the case of mathematics, I am of the opinion that it is useful BECAUSE it is true, not the other way around. Again, this is going to boil down to our metaphysical views, and I believe in an objective reality, whereas you do not (to an extent, I'm not sure how predominant this view is for you), and therefore we'll probably never reach an agreement about anything we ever converse about :P. Funny how metaphysical views really permeate everything we believe in.

I guess that extends my not-going streak :P I was sure it was this Tuesday...

Wrap it in a Tensor bandage when you have to walk; it'll help take some of the weight off of it.