Moral Dilemma Debate Version

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Cradarc » Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:26 am UTC

Everyone living in the U.S has been injected with nanobots. In 60 seconds, all the nanobots in every heterosexual person will explode, killing them. You are trapped in a room with a single button. If you push the button before the 60 seconds is up, all the homosexual people will die instead. Once a detonation occurs, the remaining bots become inactive and are no longer capable of causing harm.
Will you push the button?

No variations allowed. You should only debate others about their response to this particular question.

Actually that's not how this works. This is a discussion forum, not a poll.

When it becomes clear that this is just an off shoot from the Trolley thread, one or the other (which ever is least usefull) will get locked.

- Az
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby leady » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:52 am UTC

Isn't this exactly the same as the prior thread

but in this scenario its bye-bye non-breeders - you pragmatically have to commit mass murder to save humanity and live with it (you can reach a similar point in the trolley problem if you take the numbers to extremes)

Autolykos
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Autolykos » Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:08 am UTC

leady wrote:Isn't this exactly the same as the prior thread

but in this scenario its bye-bye non-breeders - you pragmatically have to commit mass murder to save humanity and live with it (you can reach a similar point in the trolley problem if you take the numbers to extremes)

And then commit a solemn vow to hunt down the sick homophobic b*****d who forced you to do it, tie him down in your basement and make him watch humanity's entire opus of gay porn.

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby elasto » Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:50 am UTC

Personally I don't think this is a very interesting variant (and I myself think could be folded into the other thread).

For me the calculation is simple: Society can and has survived 10% being killed. Logistics and infrastructure could carry on going. It couldn't survive 90% being killed.

Either way innocent people are going to die; My choice is whether 700m innocents die or 6,300m innocents die. For me it's a no-brainer.

The heterosexuality/homosexuality divide is mostly irrelevant to me: If our world happened to consist of 6,300m homosexuals and 700m heterosexuals I'd push the button for the heterosexuals to die. It's not like homosexuals can't choose to have kids; In times gone by (and even now in oppressive regimes) homosexuals 'hide' within conventional marriages including having kids. And if someone found even that too distasteful they could be a sperm donor.

Civilisation would return to normal within two generations at most.

[Edit: Oh, I see, it's just the US that has been infected. Oh well, the human race isn't at risk either way but the argument is still much the same.]

[Edit 2: These dilemmas become much easier with big numbers than small ones: One death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic and all that; Much easier to be 'coldly utilitarian' with big numbers than small.]

User avatar
rat4000
r/ratsgonewild
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:51 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby rat4000 » Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:58 am UTC

It's not the same thing as the other thread. As the trolley problem is standardly presented, the situation is accidental -- no one's fault. Here, the situation is someone's fault; nanobots don't inject themselves. There is no inconsistency in thinking that in situations that are no one's fault, you should choose whichever option results in less deaths, while still thinking that in situations that are someone's fault, both options are permissible, or inaction is obligatory. It is also not inconsistent to think that in situations that are no one's fault inaction is obligatory and in the other kind it isn't--though that sounds like a weirder view.

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby elasto » Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:06 am UTC

rat4000 wrote:It's not the same thing as the other thread. As the trolley problem is standardly presented, the situation is accidental -- no one's fault. Here, the situation is someone's fault; nanobots don't inject themselves. There is no inconsistency in thinking that in situations that are no one's fault, you should choose whichever option results in less deaths, while still thinking that in situations that are someone's fault, both options are permissible, or inaction is obligatory. It is also not inconsistent to think that in situations that are no one's fault inaction is obligatory and in the other kind it isn't--though that sounds like a weirder view.


There's no reason to assume either scenario is accidental or deliberate. This could have been an accidental release of nanobots or people could have been deliberately tied to the train tracks.

In any case, I don't think whether it's accidental or deliberate changes the logic: I think the sheer numbers involved make the nanbot variant a no-brainer.

It has much in common with the abortion variant in fact: By killing 90% of the population you're condemning most of the remaining 10% to death also. Just think of all the disease spread by all the rotting corpses - with logistically no way for most of the rest to escape the US. Gas/electricity/water/phone/internet infrastructure would all quickly collapse.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby morriswalters » Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:21 am UTC

Why gays?

User avatar
rat4000
r/ratsgonewild
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:51 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby rat4000 » Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:22 am UTC

elasto wrote:There's no reason to assume either scenario is accidental or deliberate.
True, but I think my reading is reasonable given how both were presented.

In any case, I don't think whether it's accidental or deliberate changes the logic
That's a completely valid opinion, of course; my point is just that the other opinion is not internally inconsistent. In other words, the difference between the cases is real and might be important to some. So a new thread was warranted.

(This rather minor point will probably be my entire contribution to this thread.)

Chen
Posts: 5419
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Chen » Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:46 am UTC

leady wrote:Isn't this exactly the same as the prior thread

but in this scenario its bye-bye non-breeders - you pragmatically have to commit mass murder to save humanity and live with it (you can reach a similar point in the trolley problem if you take the numbers to extremes)


As others mentioned, even if the demographics for homosexuals vs heterosexuals were somehow switched, society would still be far better off with the lower numbers being killed. Homosexuals CAN produce offspring.

Now, if the question were sterile vs non-sterile your point may be apt. That said if the non-sterile population was dropped too low society could just be screwed either way.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1683
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Quercus » Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:57 am UTC

Where are you proposing to draw the line between hetero and homosexual?

Depending on who's statistics you believe on the proportion of people falling from 1-3 on the Kinsey scale (or outside it altogether) it could make a pretty big difference to the numbers (perhaps enough to shift the balance between a viable and non-viable remaining population, which appears from previous posts to have moral weight in people's thinking).

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:04 pm UTC

Yes, the moral calculus of this problem is obviously A ) Allow lots of people to die, or B ) Allow fewer people to die.

The third option is C ) Claim a moral high ground and not participate, a la Dark Knight Returns. Hooray morality!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby leady » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:13 pm UTC

Morality is always clear in these scenarios - however its pretty easy to construct examples where morality becomes overridden by ruthless pragmatism although these are all extremely contrived even more so than the trolley ones.

there are many scenarios that an individual may take an immoral action, the problem is that so many people will rationalise their active choice (kids are more valuable that criminals so its "good") rather than understanding that they are taking an immoral action that they accept the consequences of.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25964
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:25 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Why gays?

I'm assuming because they represent a notable minority population (using the 1-in-10 assumption) that doesn't have the same racist overtones that "All blacks" has or the same implications that "All non-Catholic, non-protestant, but not non-religion" has (as both groups are roughly 10% of the US population). Because Cradarc is fine with being seen as anti-gay (or simply didn't consider how it appeared [or knows exactly how it appears and is making gaybashing on steroids explicitly part of the scenario]).

Amusingly to me, it's still not very clear cut. As Quercus asked, what's the line? What makes a gay man gay, exactly? 100% male partners? If a man had repeated sexual relations with one woman, does that mean he's not gay even if he has no real sexual attraction to women? If a man has sexual attraction to women but only sexual relations with men, is he gay or not for the purposes of the nanobots?

The third option is C ) Claim a moral high ground and not participate, a la Dark Knight Returns. Hooray morality!
In that scenario, both groups were doomed unless one group executed the other [arguments about the Joker wiring the boats to explode themselves nonwithstanding]. Nonaction leads to everyone dying. It could even be argued that you're calling the bluff by refusing to participate.

I'm not sure nonaction in this scenario is the same.

Of course, as someone else stated, this scenario is also not the same as the Trolley one as there is a person at fault and it's not you. You're just indirectly responsible.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby morriswalters » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:45 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:I'm assuming because they represent a notable minority population (using the 1-in-10 assumption) that doesn't have the same racist overtones that "All blacks" has or the same implications that "All non-Catholic, non-protestant, but not non-religion" has (as both groups are roughly 10% of the US population). Because Cradarc is fine with being seen as anti-gay (or simply didn't consider how it appeared [or knows exactly how it appears and is making gaybashing on steroids explicitly part of the scenario]).
Quercus wrote:Where are you proposing to draw the line between hetero and homosexual?
Better yet why draw a line? In the trolly problem the use of perfect information assures that their is no relevant reason to choose one or the other group other than because of the base numbers. What is the point of choosing a minority group? What question does it answer?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:47 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:Everyone living in the U.S has been injected with nanobots. In 60 seconds, all the nanobots in every heterosexual person will explode, killing them. You are trapped in a room with a single button. If you push the button before the 60 seconds is up, all the homosexual people will die instead. Once a detonation occurs, the remaining bots become inactive and are no longer capable of causing harm.
Will you push the button?

No variations allowed. You should only debate others about their response to this particular question.


I regretfully push the button, based on it probably not killing me, and also on number of people killed, while wondering idly a bit about edge cases. Then, I start hunting whoever set this up. Because that dude is scary.

But I'd have some doubt that the scenario as presented was legit.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25964
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:57 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Better yet why draw a line? In the trolly problem the use of perfect information assures that their is no relevant reason to choose one or the other group other than because of the base numbers. What is the point of choosing a minority group? What question does it answer?

It (attempts... I'd argue poorly) to ask the question "Which is more important - not further abusing a marginalized minority or causing the fewest deaths?"
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Puppyclaws » Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:41 pm UTC

Don't push the button, don't be involved, don't participate in madness.

It may help that self-preservation and the moral high ground go hand in hand for me in this case, though.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby morriswalters » Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:22 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:It (attempts... I'd argue poorly) to ask the question "Which is more important - not further abusing a marginalized minority or causing the fewest deaths?"
If you say so. The way I see it is that there are two ways of making the decision, one based on numbers, one based any other marker. The one based on numbers doesn't need any other data. The fact that gays are the target is redundant. He could just as well said that a random 10 percent would die.

What I suggest is, that problem he is attempting to illuminate with the question is, "Is intent more important than the outcome?" If the intent is to save a larger group is genocide moral? (not some gays but all gays) The nanobots serve as an existential risk.(I am unsure the word existential) For me there is a problem here, since in almost any other context it will come down to a value judgement involving the nature of belief and truth about the risk rather than the raw numbers. I'll leave it at that.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1683
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Quercus » Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:31 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Better yet why draw a line? In the trolly problem the use of perfect information assures that their is no relevant reason to choose one or the other group other than because of the base numbers. What is the point of choosing a minority group? What question does it answer?

It (attempts... I'd argue poorly) to ask the question "Which is more important - not further abusing a marginalized minority or causing the fewest deaths?"


I started to write a moral dilemma that more directly addressed this question, until I realised that contemplating it was making me feel physically nauseous and the thought of what people might answer (and how people of the minorities in question would feel about that) was even worse.

This conclusion feels, I don't know, somehow wrong, but I'm now not at all certain that the very act of debating this question using such thought experiments in a public forum is a morally neutral act. Feel free to do it anyway, I'm not about to impose my morals on others, but a) I don't think I'll be participating if you do and b) I'm interested in this meta-question - is using margninalized people's lives (particularly those of groups to which you don't belong) in thought experiments like this something that we should be okay with?

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby elasto » Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:36 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:If you say so. The way I see it is that there are two ways of making the decision, one based on numbers, one based any other marker. The one based on numbers doesn't need any other data.

With small numbers there is room for manoeuvre. Once you get as high as 90% of a country's population you might as well call it 99.9% as most of the survivors will also die - and many of the remainder will suffer horrible poverty either inside the US or as a refugee in a neighbouring country.

It's virtually the abortion scenario as I say: either kill the baby or both will die - and only the most fundamentalist of us disagree on the right thing to do there.

The question gets slightly harder if you assume that you'd be one of those dying if you pressed the button but even then it seems a no-brainer to do it - since you will likely die either way. It gets harder if the scenario were twisted to say 'will die in horrible and protracted agony' though...

If the intent is to save a larger group is genocide moral?

This is a personal view of ethics, but for me a given action can be immoral but none-the-less still the lesser of two evils. Therefore it can still be the right thing to do.

For me, pressing the button would definitely be an immoral act of gargantuan proportions, and the guilt of doing it might haunt me all my life, but not pressing it would be even worse.

A parallel would be the dropping of the atomic bombs on civilians in Japan - if we include the assumption that doing so did shorten the war and result in less loss of civilian life overall.

Semantics though, I suppose.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25964
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:04 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Better yet why draw a line? In the trolly problem the use of perfect information assures that their is no relevant reason to choose one or the other group other than because of the base numbers. What is the point of choosing a minority group? What question does it answer?

It (attempts... I'd argue poorly) to ask the question "Which is more important - not further abusing a marginalized minority or causing the fewest deaths?"


I started to write a moral dilemma that more directly addressed this question, until I realised that contemplating it was making me feel physically nauseous and the thought of what people might answer (and how people of the minorities in question would feel about that) was even worse.

This conclusion feels, I don't know, somehow wrong, but I'm now not at all certain that the very act of debating this question using such thought experiments in a public forum is a morally neutral act. Feel free to do it anyway, I'm not about to impose my morals on others, but a) I don't think I'll be participating if you do and b) I'm interested in this meta-question - is using margninalized people's lives (particularly those of groups to which you don't belong) in thought experiments like this something that we should be okay with?
Oh fuck no.

I'm pretty sure the choice was deliberately made in order to provoke a reaction from the moderation staff just so OP could shout "See? See? I'm being oppressed!"

I've just been trying to address it in as good of faith as I can.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Chen
Posts: 5419
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Chen » Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:55 pm UTC

Quercus wrote: I'm interested in this meta-question - is using margninalized people's lives (particularly those of groups to which you don't belong) in thought experiments like this something that we should be okay with?


As long as the thought experiments don't lead to similar real experiments I'm ok with it. Similar to the trolley problem, the different variations allow you to put your beliefs into more scrutiny. Perhaps your beliefs are consistent and the emotional aspect doesn't change things. But perhaps when faced with the more extreme scenarios, you realize that your beliefs are not entirely consistent. Perhaps it would lead to changing your beliefs on the matter. Thought experiments are the tool in this regard. I'm not convinced there is inherent harm in using otherwise objectionable situations in a thought experiment to try and dig further into people's beliefs or morals.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1683
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Quercus » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:19 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Quercus wrote: I'm interested in this meta-question - is using margninalized people's lives (particularly those of groups to which you don't belong) in thought experiments like this something that we should be okay with?


As long as the thought experiments don't lead to similar real experiments I'm ok with it. Similar to the trolley problem, the different variations allow you to put your beliefs into more scrutiny. Perhaps your beliefs are consistent and the emotional aspect doesn't change things. But perhaps when faced with the more extreme scenarios, you realize that your beliefs are not entirely consistent. Perhaps it would lead to changing your beliefs on the matter. Thought experiments are the tool in this regard. I'm not convinced there is inherent harm in using otherwise objectionable situations in a thought experiment to try and dig further into people's beliefs or morals.


I agree with you if it's done privately, or in a situation where everyone has explicitly agreed that they are okay with the scenario being discussed. I think confronting uncomfortable scenarios like this is, as you say, a good way to explore and possibly change your beliefs (if it's done with the right mindset). The problem I have is that it's not going to be abstract for some people, and treating it as if it were abstract is probably going to hurt them. Lets say that someone started discussing "is it morally required to kill Quercus (me) under circumstance x" while I was present (and without asking me if I was okay with it). I'd have a pretty hard time being okay with that, especially in more finely balanced scenarios, and using a broader identity seems only one step removed from this.

Edit: to unedit my post, given that it was quoted in it's original form, I'll be satisfied with the clumsy use of "okay" in consecutive clauses.
Last edited by Quercus on Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Chen
Posts: 5419
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Chen » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:34 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:I agree with you if it's done privately, or in a situation where everyone has explicitly agreed that they are okay with the scenario being discussed. I think confronting uncomfortable scenarios like this is, as you say, a good way to explore and possibly change your beliefs (if it's done with the right mindset). The problem I have is that it's not going to be abstract for some people, and treating it as if it were abstract is probably going to hurt them. Lets say that someone started discussing "is it morally required to kill Quercus (me) under circumstance x" while I was present (and without asking me if I was okay with it). I'd have a pretty hard time being okay with that, especially in more finely balanced scenarios, and using a broader identity seems only one step removed from this.


To each their own perhaps. Personally discussing a situation where "killing Chen under X circumstances is morally right" doesn't bother me in the slightest. I know it is a theoretical exercise. Location and context matter a lot for this as well. I am comfortable with such a discussion on these forums since I am fairly confident with the mods and with the overall level of abstract discussion that can be had here. Put the same question into a random 4chan forum or somewhere on Reddit and I'd be far less likely to be comfortable with it. You'd likely get more people in those places using it as an excuse to be bigots rather than have a meaningful discussion.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:45 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Better yet why draw a line? In the trolly problem the use of perfect information assures that their is no relevant reason to choose one or the other group other than because of the base numbers. What is the point of choosing a minority group? What question does it answer?

It (attempts... I'd argue poorly) to ask the question "Which is more important - not further abusing a marginalized minority or causing the fewest deaths?"


I started to write a moral dilemma that more directly addressed this question, until I realised that contemplating it was making me feel physically nauseous and the thought of what people might answer (and how people of the minorities in question would feel about that) was even worse.

This conclusion feels, I don't know, somehow wrong, but I'm now not at all certain that the very act of debating this question using such thought experiments in a public forum is a morally neutral act. Feel free to do it anyway, I'm not about to impose my morals on others, but a) I don't think I'll be participating if you do and b) I'm interested in this meta-question - is using margninalized people's lives (particularly those of groups to which you don't belong) in thought experiments like this something that we should be okay with?


*shrug* Both are fairly important, and in day to day life, I do not expect them to be anything like so opposed as this contrived scenario makes them out to be.

Thought experiments that happen to use a minority group are not inherently wrong...but I do think there's a strong risk of screwing with your focus because of unnecessary complications, emotions, etc. So, I'd likely avoid it unless I thought it had direct relevance.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26140
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:47 pm UTC

I guess we're assuming bi/pan/ace people are immortal?

That's a pretty good deal. I say let the straights die.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Cradarc » Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:53 am UTC

The reason I created this one is because people on the other thread seem to like turning discussions into debates. I figured why not make one with the intent of drawing debate and see if the same people show up?

The reason I picked sexuality instead of race, religion, etc. is because:
1. From what I've seen, most people here are liberal leaning. Religion doesn't push as many buttons.
2. I considered African American vs. Caucasian, but African Americans are a significant portion of the population and that might change things. If I pick a different race, there would be less social baggage. Social baggage is what I'm after.
3. "Why is there a need to be labeled?" is a very active thread, which could indicate sexual identity is a button pressing topic for people on this forum.

I am not homophobic. If your logic says I'm homophobic then whoever first thought up the trolley problem would be sadistic.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26140
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:15 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:people on the other thread seem to like turning discussions into debates.
You still don't actually know what the word "discussion" means, do you?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Cradarc » Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:15 am UTC

This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26140
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:51 am UTC

So you concede the point?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Cradarc » Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:13 am UTC

Sure, I can do that. Gmalivuk, you win. I don't know what "discussion" means. I also apologize for forcing you to derail this thread by explaining why I made this thread to those who didn't know.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26140
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:45 pm UTC

This thread was never really on rails to begin with. It's pretty clearly your indignant reaction to having your beliefs questioned in the other thread.

And I asked if you conceded the point because you had linked, without any commentary of your own, to a page where definition 1 says a discussion is a kind of debate.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:30 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:The reason I created this one is because people on the other thread seem to like turning discussions into debates. I figured why not make one with the intent of drawing debate and see if the same people show up?

The reason I picked sexuality instead of race, religion, etc. is because:
1. From what I've seen, most people here are liberal leaning. Religion doesn't push as many buttons.
2. I considered African American vs. Caucasian, but African Americans are a significant portion of the population and that might change things. If I pick a different race, there would be less social baggage. Social baggage is what I'm after.
3. "Why is there a need to be labeled?" is a very active thread, which could indicate sexual identity is a button pressing topic for people on this forum.

I am not homophobic. If your logic says I'm homophobic then whoever first thought up the trolley problem would be sadistic.


Debate is not a useful end in itself. It is merely a tool to use in pursuit of some end.

So, while I agree that yes, you made these choices in order to stimulate debate, to what end, may I ask?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26140
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:28 pm UTC

And take care how you answer, Cradarc, lest it become clear beyond all doubt that you were knowingly just trolling.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Cradarc » Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:22 pm UTC

I want to see how a debate will progress without my participation. On the other thread, people were complaining that I, in particular, was taking meaning away from the discussion by stating my viewpoints. I made this thread so I can learn the proper way to conduct discussions in Serious Business about trolley-problem topics.
The idea is people can conduct a productive debate on this thread without my obnoxious intrusions. (Obviously I don't think they are obnoxious, but I am open to the possibility that they an be).
I will make this clear in the title.

Edit:
Aw, Azrael locked the OP so I can't change the thread title. Oh well.

Edit (in response to Tyndmyr):
I did. A lot of responders just posted their opinions and ignored any comment made by others, which, if I'm told correctly, makes the discussion a "poll". The people who did take issue with someone else's opinion didn't challenge its logical legitimacy, but merely voiced their disagreement (sometimes in a sarcastic way).

Edit (in response to Gmalivuk):
In that thread, who held the controversial opinion? It just sounded like everybody agreeing (or very close to agreeing). Good discussions are ones where antagonistic opinions are put forth and bounced around. There's no value in having a conversation if everyone is saying pretty much the same thing.
Last edited by Cradarc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:43 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10514
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:30 pm UTC

As a faster/easier way to find an example of a debate without you involved in it, I'd suggest looking at older threads.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26140
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Moral Dilemma Debate Version

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:16 pm UTC

Like, for example, this thread discussing the comic that was called "Trolley Problem".

That'll do for this one.

Cradarc, don't do this again.

- Az
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pfhorrest and 8 guests