TowranPeter wrote...
Capeo wrote...
TowranPeter wrote...
Everything in life is either black or white, to think that something is grey or colorful is your own delusion. It's foolhardy and it's cute in a neive way and I actually respect it, but the truth is black or white.
Wow, me thinks you may not know what naive means. Who are you, Rorschach, from the Watchman? Saying things are black or white ignores the subjectivity of human reality and is incredibly naive. Do you have a list of black and white rules that you could share with us? You could set the world on the straight and narrow. World peace is right around the corner.
Everything defaults upwards to a parent (not in the family sense, but component sense). All actions are either good or bad, there is no inbetween.
0 or 1
True or False
Good or Bad
Good or Evil
Love or Fear
Dark or Light
Just because there are numerous child components to each parent doesn't mean there is a third option.
Multiple Choice Question
1. Which is alive
a. Plant
b. rock
c. stone
d. metal
There is a right answer and a wrong answer, that's it. One that is alive, the other that is not.
Another example:
The color red
The color yellow
The color blue
The color pink
The color black
All objects reflect different color but only in the light. You're either in the dark or in the light.
Another example:
I'm hungry, the right thing to do is:
a. eat
b. starve
Then someone might say but you'll get fat, there are circumstances. But the original statement didn't imply anything of hte sort, it was merely stating that when you're hungry, you must eat. There is a right choice of feeding your body or the wrong choice which would cause you to starve and die.
I believe in a universal truth. What's better for one person should also be better for the rest of his kind.
If you say what's better for one person might not be for another that is because somewhere along the lines someone made the wrong choice.
Regarding the scientific community
The scientiifc community isn't as large as you think, word gets out of one's exploits. If you were to announce in the scientific community that anyone who uses torture as a means of acquiring data will result in the data being destroyed, they would be less likely to do it. By sending a strong message to the scientific community that it won't be
tolerated, they won't do it. Even madmen have motiviations and
expectations and if he knows they can't be met, he won't do it.
You need to think of this from the point of view of a person who is being tortured. The goal is to prevent torture, not to encourage it. By using the data you encourage more gross experimentation and can count on more people being tortured as a result. The rogue scientist wins and future rogue scientists know they are free to perform gross experiments knowing full well that humanity will use the data.
It's like taking money that was stolen. You know it was stolen or taken wrongfully. You're not supposed to take it.
If the cure for aids is in front of me, but 192839 had to be tortured for it, I would throw it away out of respect for those who were tortured. WHY? Because it sends out strong message to rogue scientists that your data will be destroyed if you use human torture.
I'm trying to understand your guys point of view, but everyway I analyze it, all you're doing is encouraging rogue scientists.
In ME1 the true paragon choice was made to destroy a certain piece of data at the end of the game. That was a true paragon choice. To anyone who is against my argument, you're on the edge the same way Wrex was at Virmire, but it was possible to talk sense into him.
I'm now trying to talk sense into you guys. Don't support torture as a means of acquiring scientific data directly or indirectly.
This is a false analogy. You are comparing definite binary things to morality, comparing objective to subjective.
You don't even use any actual examples of "moral" dilemnas to prove your black/white point.
Here's an analogy: I am in the wilderness and starving. I come across a dead person who I see was brutally tortured, raped, and murdered. They also happen to have quite a bit of food and water in their pockets. Should I destroy the food and water because I obtained it because of a murder? If I do, I will starve to death. By your logic, eating the food would be justifying rape and murder, even if I would die otherwise, because according to you the murderer would see that his murder indirectly saved my life and be justified in more wilderness murders.
Besides, by announcing that the data was destroyed, you are showing crazy scientists that the cure was possible by torture. Here's an example:
Scientist Bob: Hmm, I don't know what's left to try to cure AIDs. (Finds out about destroyed data) Oh, I could torture people, it worked for him, but his data got destroyed. I can recreate that experiment by torturing people.
Destroying the data encourages more torture.
ANd if you look at one of my previous posts on a prior page, I explain how destroying the data would lead to scientists trying to cure the same disease again and again and then the infected population would rebel in retribution for destroying the data. I will not repost this, you can find it yourself.
You also talk about "reading our arguments" yet fail to quote and respond to the the most comprehensive ones.(No offense to those he has quoted.) How can this be a mature discussion when you don't even address all arguments yet still label yourself as the right one?
Finally, please don't take some kind of moral high ground. To have a mature conversation, you must come in open to the possibility that you may be wrong. I did, and you ahve failed to convince me thus far. THen you start talking like you're trying to save us from the error of our ways or something like that.
And to your Virmire analogy to this thread. Wrex was the one person who believed they shouldn't destroy the cure, and everyone else was trying to convince him of that. In this thread, just about everyone else is trying to to convince you that you're wrong. Your analogy better supports the position that you are wrong, if that means anything at all.(It wasn't evena very good analogy to begin with.)
One last thing that doesn't prove you wrong just something worth noting. I see you talk about Paragon/Renegade instead of good/evil. Bioware made up Paragon/Renegade, they can decide what those mean. Please, in future use good/evil instead of paragon/renegade.
Edit:
If you say what's better for one person might not be for another that is because somewhere along the lines someone made the wrong choice.
Sorry, just had to respond to this cause it's so ridiculous. You just undid your whole argument. Let's go by your logic. It's better for AIDs(or genophage) victims to keep the cure. By your logic, it's better for people who jmight be tortured to destroy the cure. By your logic here, one of these two parties "made the wrong chocie" somewhere along the line. And before you say it was AIDs/genophage victims, let me say this:
Tons of people were born with AIDs due to their parents' infection. The current generation of Krogan had nothing to do with the Rebellions.
So who, "made the wrong choice?" No one did. Therefore your logic is internally inconsistent.
On a side note, I think you'd be interested in a psychological experiments called the train paradox. (Before you say anything, this is a thought excercise, it was never intended to be nor was it performed.)
It goes like this: THere is a train travelling out of control down a track toward six people on the track who are unable to get out of the way. You are standing at a switch for teh tracks. You have the option of flipping the switch and diverting the train to another track where one person is standing, also unable to move. You do not have enough time to intervene in such a way that all people can be saved.
Do you flip the switch and kill one person, or leave six people to die? I think it's an interesting analogue to the data chocie in your internal logic, if not a perfect comaprison.
Modifié par JrayM16, 14 février 2011 - 11:27 .
Retour en haut
