Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
nimj joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later[^][v]#110,692
Will watch and post in this thread again
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#110,693
Interesting. I'd definitely steer the cart onto the tracks with only 1 worker, but I wouldn't push the fat guy onto the tracks from the bridge.
Herr. D. Durr !TPNdYx6EMY (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#110,705
@previous (C)
I noticed a lot of the crowd said the same thing.
The speaker said: > what if instead the bridge was over the tracks, and there was a trapdoor under the fat man. Would you be willing to use a steering wheel to open the trap door?
What do you think?
It's the same situation, just with a slightly different setting. Without intervention, the trolley will kill 5 people. In either situation (turning the trolley onto the other tracks, and pushing the fatman) you intervene and instead have the trolley kill one man.
Why do you find killing the fat man worse?
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#110,709
@previous (Herr. D. Durr !TPNdYx6EMY)
If the trolley would kill 5 people without me intervening (I would choose differently if it was going to kill just the 1) I probably would push the fat guy or open the trapdoor.
I still think putting the fat guy in a situation he otherwise wouldn't be in is wrong, but if it was going to save 5 lives I probably (somewhat reluctantly) would.
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#110,711
@110,705 (Herr. D. Durr !TPNdYx6EMY) > Why do you find killing the fat man worse?
If either way only 1 would die, I wouldn't find killing the fat man worse.
Herr. D. Durr !TPNdYx6EMY (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#110,712
Interesting, you'd do it despite finding it morally wrong? Then what motive do you have for saving the 5?
I, too, would save the 5, but because I found it the moral option. If I didn't have the moral motive, what reason would I have to interfere?
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#110,720
@previous (Herr. D. Durr !TPNdYx6EMY)
I find it wrong morally, but I suppose if I had seconds to make a decision that would potentially cost 5 lives it makes logical sense to "sacrifice" 1 for the sake of the other 5. I put sacrifice in quote marks because it's not really my choice to make who dies and lives, but nor do I believe in fate or destiny.
Sorry if I sound incoherent, I'm super tired. :)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#111,104
Not acting to stop evil is more morally permissable than acting evil.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#111,119
> An action is stronger than an inaction.\
I say they are equally strong, as they both can result in the same consequences.
I've given my reasoning, but you jump to your conclusion without reasoning (non-sequitor). > And it's not permissible. Just less evil.
Again, what reasoning do you have to say it's less evil? The same consequence emerges, which would imply the same level of evil.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,061
@111,999 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
The people of Africa could educate themselves, and build a great society. That they don't is their fault.
It would require sacrifice on my part to help pay for a mistake they made, which is unjust.
In the trolly car incident, both the one and the 5 are innocent. Neither has done anything to warrant their death, and there is no sacrifice on the part of the person making the decision. All that matters is the numbers. Action/inaction is irrelevant to the choice.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,063
The Africans didn't choose to be born into poverty and ignorance, you disgusting racist.
> In the trolly car incident, both the one and the 5 are innocent. Neither has done anything to warrant their death
But you think Africans do deserve to die? Go back to stormfront.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,071
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos) > The Africans didn't choose to be born into poverty and ignorance, you disgusting racist.
Stop with the race card. I have wealthy black neighbors, they are proof race is irrelevant. I have seen white men in perfect health begging for money.
Poverty is an option. Many people are born poor, but can still chose to do something about their situation.
> But you think Africans do deserve to die?
No, I think they created their situation and it would be wrong to force others to pay for that. Other civilizations have managed to advance themselves, by becoming educated and working hard.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,076
> Starving black orphan babies created their situation?
No, but they didn't pull themselves out of it. > It would be wrong for you to act to save them?
No, it would be a good act. However it's not obligated.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,105
@previous (A)
Orphaned Black babies who die of starvation before their first birthday deserve to die for not "pulling themselves out of it"?
I wish it had been you, and not them. Take your bile and spew it elsewhere.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,143
> Orphaned Black babies who die of starvation before their first birthday deserve to die for not "pulling themselves out of it"?
As a people they are responsible. It's a problem of culture, law, and more. If the parents didn't have sex, there would be no starving child.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,149
@previous (A)
If the parents of the trolley victim didn't have sex, there would be no trolley victim.
Funny how you only use this argument against blacks. Take your hatred back to tinychan.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,163
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
Wow. You are actually almost winning this argument.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,176
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I've given my reasoning, but he jumps to his conclusion without reasoning (non-sequitor).
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,180
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
I'm surprised that he thinks that most poor Africans can just pull themselves out of poverty.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,183
> If the parents of the trolley victim didn't have sex, there would be no trolley victim.
The parents did not have their children expecting them to be run over by a trolly, moron.
The impoverished Africans know they can't feed their kid (they can't feed themselves). This isn't just a possibility, it's going to happen and they know it.
@112,163 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
he just equated having a kid you know you can't feed as the same as having a kid that might one day be run over by a trolly. Are you a retard?
The first parents know their kid will die, or at least live malnourished and unhappy his life.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,184
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,185
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
The parents can. And it's their fault for having the child.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,191
@previous (A)
I do understand your reasoning on this, and I agree to the extent that it isn't right for parents to bring kids into this world knowing they can't support them.
But that doesn't work as justification for what you're arguing.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,192
@112,185 (A)
But, what happens to the child then? He has no choice but to be impoverished.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,194
@112,191 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
My argument here is that, as a people, the impoverished africans put themselves in this situation.
If they stopped having unprotected sex, worked hard and educated themselves, they could be rise out of this situation.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,196
@112,192 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
So we should reinforce the idea that the parents aren't responsible, and just pay for the child?
Instead of feeding them fish, let them learn how to fish.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,197
@previous (A)
How do you propose to do such a thing?
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,199
@112,183 (A)
The mother of the black child did not expect to be raped. She did not expect to die in a civil war, and did not expect her child to die in a famine caused by drought.
Take your racial hate elsewhere.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,200
@112,194 (A)
You cannot use individual actions to label an entire population.
> unprotected sex
Fair point
> Worked hard
I'm pretty sure they work as hard as they can, considering the circumstances
> educated themselves
I'm pretty sure it's hard to educate oneself when you're starving with no money, doing everything possible just to find clean water.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,202
@112,197 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
How do I suppose we don't support them? ...By not supporting them.
Let them support themselves. Perhaps they will learn to stop making the same mistakes over and over.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,205
@previous (A)
Perhaps? You talk big, but have no solutions.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,207
@112,202 (A) > Let them support themselves. Perhaps they will learn to stop making the same mistakes over and over.
Why not use this argument for the trolley victim? Maybe people will stay off the tracks if someone dies. Funny how you only use this argument for black people though, you disgusting racist.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,208
@112,205 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
And OP doesn't seem to understand that 'impoverished African' and 'impoverished American' are vastly different levels of poverty.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,209
> You cannot use individual actions to label an entire population.
Individuals make up a population. If they all do something, the label fits. There are africans who don't have kids, who work, and learn, and they are better off for it. > I'm pretty sure they work as hard as they can, considering the circumstances
That's part of it. Saving, and investing is the next step. > I'm pretty sure it's hard to educate oneself when you're starving with no money, doing everything possible just to find clean water.
Learning a trade is possible, saving up money for a book, or visiting a library if possible.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,210
If you don't support OP's eugenic programs, you are a "moron" or a "retard".
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,211
@112,208 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
What are you talking about? I never said that.
If you have lie to make your point, you need to reevaluate your point.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,212
@112,208 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
Do you see how people are? So many have absolutely no compassion for suffering humans.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,214
@112,209 (A)
Saving and investing what? They have no money.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,217
@112,210 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos) > eugenics program
WTF are you talking about?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,219
@previous (A)
He's taking about how you want these people to sink or swim.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,222
@112,214 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
They get money for their work. Then they save up that money.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,223
@112,209 (A)
1. That's just it: It's not EVERYONE who does. Many? Yes. All? No. It's ridiculous to label an entire population on that.
2. Saving what? Most of the areas don't have a standardised currency, or are nowhere near cities to make use of it. They almost always barter for work, anyway. Goods are much more useful than money in their case.
3. They have to learn the trade somewhere, and oftentimes they have very little choice in their villages. And a book? Well first they have to know how to read. And fucking forget about a library in a place with no running water.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,225
@112,211 (A)
You're using an argument used against impoverished Americans and applying it to Africans, which simply doesn't work.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,226
@112,219 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Eugenics tries to bring out, or eliminate genetic traits. It's not the right term here.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,227
@112,217 (A)
It is immoral to let a white person die, but moral to let a black person. You later said it is GOOD to let black people die.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,228
@112,225 (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
I'm using the argument "people can bring themselves out of poverty" to both americans and africans.
And it works. Africans have the capability to bring themselves out of poverty, but many make poor choices.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,229
> It is immoral to let a white person die, but moral to let a black person.
What the hell? > You later said it is GOOD to let black people die.
Ok, now you are just trolling. I never said that' Quote me, troll.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,231
@112,226 (A)
You are trying to eliminate the black race. You don't want to kill them (you believe action would be immoral), but you want them to die off (you believe inaction would be moral). This is why I called it eugenics and not genocide.
Quick question:
Why do you view action as immoral but inaction as moral?
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,232
@112,228 (A)
Nonono. Considering that most Africans don't have access to running water, you can't really apply that argument to them. Even homeless Americans have help and access to basic necessities. Starving, impoverished Africans have none of that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,235
> You are trying to eliminate the black race. You don't want to kill them (you believe action would be immoral), but you want them to die off (you believe inaction would be moral). This is why I called it eugenics and not genocide.
I don't care what skin color someone is. I know successful black and white people, and I have seen black and white people begging for money.
I support opening the US-Mexican border as well. They are hard working people, and are good at moving themselves up. If Americans are really as great as they think they shouldn't fear competition.
> Why do you view action as immoral but inaction as moral?
10/10, you deserve it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,236
@112,229 (A) > not acting to save a trolley victim is immoral
> not acting to save a black orphan is moral
> if your inaction leads to the death of the black orphan this will benefit the world as the (dead??) African will stop making the same mistakes (presumably because they are now dead)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,238
Given the choice, I would push mountainman in front of the trolly car and tell him to argue with it. Much like this thread, he could probably derail it and save everyone. :D
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,239
> >not acting to save a trolley victim is immoral
It comes down to a simple choice. Save 1 or 5. There is no sacrifice on the part of the decision maker, and they are not responsible for the trolly going to fast. > >not acting to save a black orphan is moral Quote me Where did I say the orphan had to be black? Also where did I say it was moral (i didn't, in fact i said simply "it's not obligated".) > >if your inaction leads to the death of the black orphan this will benefit the world as the (dead??) African will stop making the same mistakes (presumably because they are now dead)
No, if they are alive, and having babies that is their problem. If they manage to stay alive, good for them. If not, it's their own fault (they shouldn't have made the mistakes). However they alone are responsible for their mistakes. Also, it doesn't matter what the color of their skin is.
The Africans that wait to have kids, and act in a smart economical way will be prosperous.
giving support, helps temporarily. Letting them learn how to support themselves is better in the long run.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,248
> >don't care what color someone is
Correct, as it should be. > >claims inaction leading to the death of black children is moral
No, claims it's not obligated. Again, regardless of skin colour. > >favors importing mexican slave labor
If they want to come here for themselves, let them. You think we should deport them for their own good? Lol.
The endless strawman arguments you are spouting are getting annoying. Apparently, since I don't care about skin colour, I'm a racist? Ironic.
You are either a great troll, or an epic retard.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,257
OP should go and live in West Africa for a few weeks and we'll see how he manages.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,299
@previous (D)
What point are you trying to make? I never said Africa was nice.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#112,373