Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Vandeekree    

Rank #8340 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:10/25/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8340
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3802 total,  5612 ,  1810
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 82% (82/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1678
FJ Points:3508

latest user's comments

#137 - Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking t…  [+] (12 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#135 - Clearly you miss the point of my statement. It's not about pai…  [+] (14 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #136 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
And since you have the power to save those 5 people, not saving them is exactly the same as killing them.
User avatar #137 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking that route is sinning, and to sin is wrong, therefore to avoid wrong you have to take another action. Sadly, in this constraining metaphor, there are no other actions, thus your only option is to let them die.

You are not responsible for their deaths if you do all you can short of sinning.
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#133 - Because it's all the same. The few lose so the many can prospe…  [+] (16 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #134 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not the same. Again, the train situation is very specific. 5 people are going to die. You can hit a lever so that only 1 person dies. At least 1 person HAS to die in this situation, and nobody can deny that. It's not you taking it upon yourself to take money from a child to give to two other random children.

You're preventing anguish, not causing celebration. It's not okay to cause a little pain in one person for the pleasure of others. But to cause pain in one person to prevent the pain of 5 others, that's acceptable. I really feel like this distinction with convince you of my side, don't let me down.
User avatar #135 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Clearly you miss the point of my statement. It's not about pain or pleasure, it's about gain or loss.

But sticking to the train situation sense others only seem to confuse, I agree that someone has to die in this situation. But you don't have to kill anyone. That's the difference. You're not murdering those 5 people but if you pull that lever you are murdering the one. The questions isn't about how many people die, it's about how many YOU KILL.
User avatar #136 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
And since you have the power to save those 5 people, not saving them is exactly the same as killing them.
User avatar #137 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking that route is sinning, and to sin is wrong, therefore to avoid wrong you have to take another action. Sadly, in this constraining metaphor, there are no other actions, thus your only option is to let them die.

You are not responsible for their deaths if you do all you can short of sinning.
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#131 - That's wrong, not only because you can't think of a situation …  [+] (18 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #132 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're comparing two children getting ice cream to four families not having to mourn a loved one.

And just because I can't think of an example of something, doesn't make it false. I'm not a god.
User avatar #133 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Because it's all the same. The few lose so the many can prosper and you are the one took from the few. That's wrong. You can't do wrong and expect it to have good results for the person you wronged. You are taking from him to make someone else's life better. So why not it be your life that is made better? Take from one and give to yourself and one other person and it's all square right?
User avatar #134 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not the same. Again, the train situation is very specific. 5 people are going to die. You can hit a lever so that only 1 person dies. At least 1 person HAS to die in this situation, and nobody can deny that. It's not you taking it upon yourself to take money from a child to give to two other random children.

You're preventing anguish, not causing celebration. It's not okay to cause a little pain in one person for the pleasure of others. But to cause pain in one person to prevent the pain of 5 others, that's acceptable. I really feel like this distinction with convince you of my side, don't let me down.
User avatar #135 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Clearly you miss the point of my statement. It's not about pain or pleasure, it's about gain or loss.

But sticking to the train situation sense others only seem to confuse, I agree that someone has to die in this situation. But you don't have to kill anyone. That's the difference. You're not murdering those 5 people but if you pull that lever you are murdering the one. The questions isn't about how many people die, it's about how many YOU KILL.
User avatar #136 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
And since you have the power to save those 5 people, not saving them is exactly the same as killing them.
User avatar #137 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking that route is sinning, and to sin is wrong, therefore to avoid wrong you have to take another action. Sadly, in this constraining metaphor, there are no other actions, thus your only option is to let them die.

You are not responsible for their deaths if you do all you can short of sinning.
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#129 - Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing. But y… 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
#127 - You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving k…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#124 - But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#115 - No, you are not killing anyone. The person who tied those peop…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #123 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not a lack of action. Anyone who wasn't in your place was committing a lack of action, but they also had a lack of opportunity. You had the knowledge of who was going to die, how they would die, and how you could stop them from dying.

Sure, if you hadn't noticed anything going on on the train tracks, then nobody can fault you for not doing anything. But once you acquired the knowledge of how to save those people, and since you had the ability to save them, their lives were in your hands. You made the action of not pulling the lever, that was your decision, your choice; knowing more people would die. You knew exactly what the situation was, and you made a choice.
User avatar #124 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are people starving around the world and you know how to find them. And yet you don't. They are dying because of your and other's lack of action.
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#113 - No, if I had saved them, it would have been me killing for the…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #114 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're killing 5 people so 1 will live, that's the exact same thing, except now there's more dead people than alive ones.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, you are not killing anyone. The person who tied those people to the tracks is the one who killed them. You are ONLY failing to prevent it.

Killing someone HAS to be defined as: By your actions, causing someone, who would not have died, to die.
By that definition you did not kill those people.

Your definition seems to be: By your actions or LACK OF ACTION, ALLOWING someone to die is killing them.
If that is so then congratulations, you just killed everyone who you physically could have saved. The sick you didn't try to go heal, the hungry you didn't drive 500 miles to feed, and the murdered you didn't patrol the streets to protect.
User avatar #123 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not a lack of action. Anyone who wasn't in your place was committing a lack of action, but they also had a lack of opportunity. You had the knowledge of who was going to die, how they would die, and how you could stop them from dying.

Sure, if you hadn't noticed anything going on on the train tracks, then nobody can fault you for not doing anything. But once you acquired the knowledge of how to save those people, and since you had the ability to save them, their lives were in your hands. You made the action of not pulling the lever, that was your decision, your choice; knowing more people would die. You knew exactly what the situation was, and you made a choice.
User avatar #124 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are people starving around the world and you know how to find them. And yet you don't. They are dying because of your and other's lack of action.
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#108 - Because I am blameless in this situation. I did not put anyone… 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
#105 - Indeed, but like is more than just a count of who dies or not.…  [+] (10 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys -1
User avatar #107 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you don't pull the lever, you didn't try your best to save them. You had the chance to 100% save them, and you didn't. You chose not to save them. Not saving someone is exactly the same as killing them.

And no, morality doesn't dictate that "you can't kill for any gain," as there's no written morality rule by some authority that takes situations like this into account.

If you want to say, "It's none of my business, I wouldn't want to kill someone," that's perfectly valid, but you're saying that that's the only moral thing to do, and superior to saving the lives.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, if I had saved them, it would have been me killing for them. And that's simply not right. It doesn't matter how badly little Timmy needs that heart to replace his, I will not go out and shoot someone and take their for his sake.

It is the only moral thing to do. Regardless of the situation, you cannot kill someone for gain. I'm not saying it's not a stressful situation, but you CANNOT trade that one person's life for anything because it's not yours to trade. I don't care how many people you allow to live a few more years by killing him. You only become blamable once you take a life.
User avatar #114 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're killing 5 people so 1 will live, that's the exact same thing, except now there's more dead people than alive ones.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, you are not killing anyone. The person who tied those people to the tracks is the one who killed them. You are ONLY failing to prevent it.

Killing someone HAS to be defined as: By your actions, causing someone, who would not have died, to die.
By that definition you did not kill those people.

Your definition seems to be: By your actions or LACK OF ACTION, ALLOWING someone to die is killing them.
If that is so then congratulations, you just killed everyone who you physically could have saved. The sick you didn't try to go heal, the hungry you didn't drive 500 miles to feed, and the murdered you didn't patrol the streets to protect.
User avatar #123 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not a lack of action. Anyone who wasn't in your place was committing a lack of action, but they also had a lack of opportunity. You had the knowledge of who was going to die, how they would die, and how you could stop them from dying.

Sure, if you hadn't noticed anything going on on the train tracks, then nobody can fault you for not doing anything. But once you acquired the knowledge of how to save those people, and since you had the ability to save them, their lives were in your hands. You made the action of not pulling the lever, that was your decision, your choice; knowing more people would die. You knew exactly what the situation was, and you made a choice.
User avatar #124 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are people starving around the world and you know how to find them. And yet you don't. They are dying because of your and other's lack of action.
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#96 - No because you cannot kill someone with inaction. You can fail…  [+] (14 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys -1
#104 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/29/2014) [-]
That's disgusting and incredibly selfish. In that situation, you would have sacrificed four lives to make it possible to make yourself feel blameless through mental gymnastics.
User avatar #108 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Because I am blameless in this situation. I did not put anyone's life in peril UNLESS I had pulled the lever and killed the one. Sorry, but I would kill for no one's gain.
User avatar #100 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You made a choice. Either 5 people would die, or 1 person would die; the choice you consciously made resulted in 4 more deaths than necessary, regardless of the mechanics of that choice.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Indeed, but like is more than just a count of who dies or not. Who does the killing is important. You did not kill those 5 people so long as you tried your best to save them. If, as in the situation, the only option is the lever, then it still stands that you have to choose to either kill the one or not save the others. The mechanics are very much important. You see, you chose to end the one's life. You killed him. But with the other 5, you can't kill them unless you go over and stab each one. They are already going to be killed, nothing you do can stop that unless you are willing to kill for it, and morality dictates that you can't kill for ANY gain.
User avatar #107 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you don't pull the lever, you didn't try your best to save them. You had the chance to 100% save them, and you didn't. You chose not to save them. Not saving someone is exactly the same as killing them.

And no, morality doesn't dictate that "you can't kill for any gain," as there's no written morality rule by some authority that takes situations like this into account.

If you want to say, "It's none of my business, I wouldn't want to kill someone," that's perfectly valid, but you're saying that that's the only moral thing to do, and superior to saving the lives.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, if I had saved them, it would have been me killing for them. And that's simply not right. It doesn't matter how badly little Timmy needs that heart to replace his, I will not go out and shoot someone and take their for his sake.

It is the only moral thing to do. Regardless of the situation, you cannot kill someone for gain. I'm not saying it's not a stressful situation, but you CANNOT trade that one person's life for anything because it's not yours to trade. I don't care how many people you allow to live a few more years by killing him. You only become blamable once you take a life.
User avatar #114 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're killing 5 people so 1 will live, that's the exact same thing, except now there's more dead people than alive ones.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, you are not killing anyone. The person who tied those people to the tracks is the one who killed them. You are ONLY failing to prevent it.

Killing someone HAS to be defined as: By your actions, causing someone, who would not have died, to die.
By that definition you did not kill those people.

Your definition seems to be: By your actions or LACK OF ACTION, ALLOWING someone to die is killing them.
If that is so then congratulations, you just killed everyone who you physically could have saved. The sick you didn't try to go heal, the hungry you didn't drive 500 miles to feed, and the murdered you didn't patrol the streets to protect.
User avatar #123 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not a lack of action. Anyone who wasn't in your place was committing a lack of action, but they also had a lack of opportunity. You had the knowledge of who was going to die, how they would die, and how you could stop them from dying.

Sure, if you hadn't noticed anything going on on the train tracks, then nobody can fault you for not doing anything. But once you acquired the knowledge of how to save those people, and since you had the ability to save them, their lives were in your hands. You made the action of not pulling the lever, that was your decision, your choice; knowing more people would die. You knew exactly what the situation was, and you made a choice.
User avatar #124 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are people starving around the world and you know how to find them. And yet you don't. They are dying because of your and other's lack of action.
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#92 - It's a hypothetical situation, you're not supposed to dissect …  [+] (16 new replies) 09/28/2014 on Help me with this guys -1
User avatar #93 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
The difference is that you WERE there. You don't know these people, all 6 of them are equal. At least one person is going to die, and because of your inaction, you raise that to 5 people. So, since you had the opportunity and enough time to consider and make a non-panic decision, those 4 lives are in your hands. Your inaction caused 4 people to die - and you KNEW you could save them.

The question isn't "Do you take an action that will directly kill a human?", the question is, "Would you kill 1 person to save 5 people?" and the correct answer is yes. Based on normative personal morality based on our first world culture, the correct thing to do is to save 4 people's lives, rather than let 4 people die.
User avatar #96 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No because you cannot kill someone with inaction. You can fail to save them. But so long as you truly tried your best then there is no blame on you. That's what this situation is about, failing to save a few vs killing one. And it's simply wrong to kill that one. It's not an option to a sane human being.
It doesn't matter what happens outside of your sphere of influence. You're not to blame when someone murder someone else. You're not to blame when someone ties someone to the train tracks. That pointy mustached person is to blame. You are only responsible for your own actions and part of that is you cannot kill someone else. No good comes from an evil deed and your cold mathematical way of thinking lacks moral. Everyone dies, it happens, it's not your job to prevent it all. You prevent what you can. But more important than preventing death is not causing death yourself. And you are in no position to say that that single life is worth more than those other lives. The one person's life is not yours to "spend" to save the others and that is why it's wrong.

Save what you can, but above all else, do no wrong.
#104 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/29/2014) [-]
That's disgusting and incredibly selfish. In that situation, you would have sacrificed four lives to make it possible to make yourself feel blameless through mental gymnastics.
User avatar #108 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Because I am blameless in this situation. I did not put anyone's life in peril UNLESS I had pulled the lever and killed the one. Sorry, but I would kill for no one's gain.
User avatar #100 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You made a choice. Either 5 people would die, or 1 person would die; the choice you consciously made resulted in 4 more deaths than necessary, regardless of the mechanics of that choice.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Indeed, but like is more than just a count of who dies or not. Who does the killing is important. You did not kill those 5 people so long as you tried your best to save them. If, as in the situation, the only option is the lever, then it still stands that you have to choose to either kill the one or not save the others. The mechanics are very much important. You see, you chose to end the one's life. You killed him. But with the other 5, you can't kill them unless you go over and stab each one. They are already going to be killed, nothing you do can stop that unless you are willing to kill for it, and morality dictates that you can't kill for ANY gain.
User avatar #107 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you don't pull the lever, you didn't try your best to save them. You had the chance to 100% save them, and you didn't. You chose not to save them. Not saving someone is exactly the same as killing them.

And no, morality doesn't dictate that "you can't kill for any gain," as there's no written morality rule by some authority that takes situations like this into account.

If you want to say, "It's none of my business, I wouldn't want to kill someone," that's perfectly valid, but you're saying that that's the only moral thing to do, and superior to saving the lives.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, if I had saved them, it would have been me killing for them. And that's simply not right. It doesn't matter how badly little Timmy needs that heart to replace his, I will not go out and shoot someone and take their for his sake.

It is the only moral thing to do. Regardless of the situation, you cannot kill someone for gain. I'm not saying it's not a stressful situation, but you CANNOT trade that one person's life for anything because it's not yours to trade. I don't care how many people you allow to live a few more years by killing him. You only become blamable once you take a life.
User avatar #114 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're killing 5 people so 1 will live, that's the exact same thing, except now there's more dead people than alive ones.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, you are not killing anyone. The person who tied those people to the tracks is the one who killed them. You are ONLY failing to prevent it.

Killing someone HAS to be defined as: By your actions, causing someone, who would not have died, to die.
By that definition you did not kill those people.

Your definition seems to be: By your actions or LACK OF ACTION, ALLOWING someone to die is killing them.
If that is so then congratulations, you just killed everyone who you physically could have saved. The sick you didn't try to go heal, the hungry you didn't drive 500 miles to feed, and the murdered you didn't patrol the streets to protect.
User avatar #123 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not a lack of action. Anyone who wasn't in your place was committing a lack of action, but they also had a lack of opportunity. You had the knowledge of who was going to die, how they would die, and how you could stop them from dying.

Sure, if you hadn't noticed anything going on on the train tracks, then nobody can fault you for not doing anything. But once you acquired the knowledge of how to save those people, and since you had the ability to save them, their lives were in your hands. You made the action of not pulling the lever, that was your decision, your choice; knowing more people would die. You knew exactly what the situation was, and you made a choice.
User avatar #124 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are people starving around the world and you know how to find them. And yet you don't. They are dying because of your and other's lack of action.
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#89 - Not at all. I'm not sacrificing anything. I did not put those …  [+] (18 new replies) 09/28/2014 on Help me with this guys -1
User avatar #91 - demandsgayversion (09/28/2014) [-]
The train situation is made very specifically. The situation is immediate. For example, there's hope for those 5 people to get other organs before they die, and more importantly, harvesting the organs doesn't guarantee those people live, because anyone could die in any surgery, and the organs wouldn't necessarily work. It's not worth the risk, 1 bird in the hand vs 4 in a far away bush.

If you can guarantee that the organs will heal the people and that they will all make a full recovery, then hell yeah I'd kill the guy, all things being equal and me knowing none of them personally. (if you're thinking "but the people you save could still get hit by a car the next day," that car accident is not a direct result of me saving them, as death in surgery would be)
User avatar #92 - Vandeekree (09/28/2014) [-]
It's a hypothetical situation, you're not supposed to dissect it. "They might not survive the transplant" -they will. "They might get organs somewhere else" -they won't. It's my situation and I know how it turns out so you must choose, just like the train one where you can't say "Well I'd turn the lever and run and save the one before the train got there..."

But I like what you said after. "The car accident is not a direct result of me saving them." That's exactly how it works with the train. Those who got hit by the train were not killed because I did nothing. They were killed because they were placed there by their killer. If you are responsible for not puling the lever then everyone who could have done a series of actions to save them is responsible. Every guy who didn't drive along the tracks daily on the off chance he'd find someone tied to them. Every person who wasn't watching those 4 people constantly to make sure they were safe.

I'm telling you that it's not a matter of saving those people's lives. The important part of the question that everyone misses because of how distracting the presentation is is "Do you take an action that will directly kill a human?" The answer to that is always no.
User avatar #93 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
The difference is that you WERE there. You don't know these people, all 6 of them are equal. At least one person is going to die, and because of your inaction, you raise that to 5 people. So, since you had the opportunity and enough time to consider and make a non-panic decision, those 4 lives are in your hands. Your inaction caused 4 people to die - and you KNEW you could save them.

The question isn't "Do you take an action that will directly kill a human?", the question is, "Would you kill 1 person to save 5 people?" and the correct answer is yes. Based on normative personal morality based on our first world culture, the correct thing to do is to save 4 people's lives, rather than let 4 people die.
User avatar #96 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No because you cannot kill someone with inaction. You can fail to save them. But so long as you truly tried your best then there is no blame on you. That's what this situation is about, failing to save a few vs killing one. And it's simply wrong to kill that one. It's not an option to a sane human being.
It doesn't matter what happens outside of your sphere of influence. You're not to blame when someone murder someone else. You're not to blame when someone ties someone to the train tracks. That pointy mustached person is to blame. You are only responsible for your own actions and part of that is you cannot kill someone else. No good comes from an evil deed and your cold mathematical way of thinking lacks moral. Everyone dies, it happens, it's not your job to prevent it all. You prevent what you can. But more important than preventing death is not causing death yourself. And you are in no position to say that that single life is worth more than those other lives. The one person's life is not yours to "spend" to save the others and that is why it's wrong.

Save what you can, but above all else, do no wrong.
#104 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/29/2014) [-]
That's disgusting and incredibly selfish. In that situation, you would have sacrificed four lives to make it possible to make yourself feel blameless through mental gymnastics.
User avatar #108 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Because I am blameless in this situation. I did not put anyone's life in peril UNLESS I had pulled the lever and killed the one. Sorry, but I would kill for no one's gain.
User avatar #100 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You made a choice. Either 5 people would die, or 1 person would die; the choice you consciously made resulted in 4 more deaths than necessary, regardless of the mechanics of that choice.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Indeed, but like is more than just a count of who dies or not. Who does the killing is important. You did not kill those 5 people so long as you tried your best to save them. If, as in the situation, the only option is the lever, then it still stands that you have to choose to either kill the one or not save the others. The mechanics are very much important. You see, you chose to end the one's life. You killed him. But with the other 5, you can't kill them unless you go over and stab each one. They are already going to be killed, nothing you do can stop that unless you are willing to kill for it, and morality dictates that you can't kill for ANY gain.
User avatar #107 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you don't pull the lever, you didn't try your best to save them. You had the chance to 100% save them, and you didn't. You chose not to save them. Not saving someone is exactly the same as killing them.

And no, morality doesn't dictate that "you can't kill for any gain," as there's no written morality rule by some authority that takes situations like this into account.

If you want to say, "It's none of my business, I wouldn't want to kill someone," that's perfectly valid, but you're saying that that's the only moral thing to do, and superior to saving the lives.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, if I had saved them, it would have been me killing for them. And that's simply not right. It doesn't matter how badly little Timmy needs that heart to replace his, I will not go out and shoot someone and take their for his sake.

It is the only moral thing to do. Regardless of the situation, you cannot kill someone for gain. I'm not saying it's not a stressful situation, but you CANNOT trade that one person's life for anything because it's not yours to trade. I don't care how many people you allow to live a few more years by killing him. You only become blamable once you take a life.
User avatar #114 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're killing 5 people so 1 will live, that's the exact same thing, except now there's more dead people than alive ones.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, you are not killing anyone. The person who tied those people to the tracks is the one who killed them. You are ONLY failing to prevent it.

Killing someone HAS to be defined as: By your actions, causing someone, who would not have died, to die.
By that definition you did not kill those people.

Your definition seems to be: By your actions or LACK OF ACTION, ALLOWING someone to die is killing them.
If that is so then congratulations, you just killed everyone who you physically could have saved. The sick you didn't try to go heal, the hungry you didn't drive 500 miles to feed, and the murdered you didn't patrol the streets to protect.
User avatar #123 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not a lack of action. Anyone who wasn't in your place was committing a lack of action, but they also had a lack of opportunity. You had the knowledge of who was going to die, how they would die, and how you could stop them from dying.

Sure, if you hadn't noticed anything going on on the train tracks, then nobody can fault you for not doing anything. But once you acquired the knowledge of how to save those people, and since you had the ability to save them, their lives were in your hands. You made the action of not pulling the lever, that was your decision, your choice; knowing more people would die. You knew exactly what the situation was, and you made a choice.
User avatar #124 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are people starving around the world and you know how to find them. And yet you don't. They are dying because of your and other's lack of action.
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#85 - Of course, because I do no harm either way. But substitute a p…  [+] (20 new replies) 09/28/2014 on Help me with this guys -2
User avatar #86 - demandsgayversion (09/28/2014) [-]
Let's go back to the original train, this is getting silly.

Isn't it selfish, then? You're sacrificing 4 people's lives for your own conscience. So you value not feeling like a killer as worth more than 4 people's lives.
User avatar #89 - Vandeekree (09/28/2014) [-]
Not at all. I'm not sacrificing anything. I did not put those people on the rails. If they die it won't be my fault. I didn't cause their deaths. I would do all I could to save them short of killing someone else to do it. That's why I can't pull the lever. It's not a question of how many lives you can save, it's how many you can not kill yourself.

Lets put this in another example. Perhaps a more realistic one. You have the ability to take one man's organs and use them to save 4 other people. Those people are going to die unless you kill him this moment and transplant. Would you do it?
It's the same situation. 4 people who will die if left alone, one innocent not in danger but you could choose to kill him to save the others.
User avatar #91 - demandsgayversion (09/28/2014) [-]
The train situation is made very specifically. The situation is immediate. For example, there's hope for those 5 people to get other organs before they die, and more importantly, harvesting the organs doesn't guarantee those people live, because anyone could die in any surgery, and the organs wouldn't necessarily work. It's not worth the risk, 1 bird in the hand vs 4 in a far away bush.

If you can guarantee that the organs will heal the people and that they will all make a full recovery, then hell yeah I'd kill the guy, all things being equal and me knowing none of them personally. (if you're thinking "but the people you save could still get hit by a car the next day," that car accident is not a direct result of me saving them, as death in surgery would be)
User avatar #92 - Vandeekree (09/28/2014) [-]
It's a hypothetical situation, you're not supposed to dissect it. "They might not survive the transplant" -they will. "They might get organs somewhere else" -they won't. It's my situation and I know how it turns out so you must choose, just like the train one where you can't say "Well I'd turn the lever and run and save the one before the train got there..."

But I like what you said after. "The car accident is not a direct result of me saving them." That's exactly how it works with the train. Those who got hit by the train were not killed because I did nothing. They were killed because they were placed there by their killer. If you are responsible for not puling the lever then everyone who could have done a series of actions to save them is responsible. Every guy who didn't drive along the tracks daily on the off chance he'd find someone tied to them. Every person who wasn't watching those 4 people constantly to make sure they were safe.

I'm telling you that it's not a matter of saving those people's lives. The important part of the question that everyone misses because of how distracting the presentation is is "Do you take an action that will directly kill a human?" The answer to that is always no.
User avatar #93 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
The difference is that you WERE there. You don't know these people, all 6 of them are equal. At least one person is going to die, and because of your inaction, you raise that to 5 people. So, since you had the opportunity and enough time to consider and make a non-panic decision, those 4 lives are in your hands. Your inaction caused 4 people to die - and you KNEW you could save them.

The question isn't "Do you take an action that will directly kill a human?", the question is, "Would you kill 1 person to save 5 people?" and the correct answer is yes. Based on normative personal morality based on our first world culture, the correct thing to do is to save 4 people's lives, rather than let 4 people die.
User avatar #96 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No because you cannot kill someone with inaction. You can fail to save them. But so long as you truly tried your best then there is no blame on you. That's what this situation is about, failing to save a few vs killing one. And it's simply wrong to kill that one. It's not an option to a sane human being.
It doesn't matter what happens outside of your sphere of influence. You're not to blame when someone murder someone else. You're not to blame when someone ties someone to the train tracks. That pointy mustached person is to blame. You are only responsible for your own actions and part of that is you cannot kill someone else. No good comes from an evil deed and your cold mathematical way of thinking lacks moral. Everyone dies, it happens, it's not your job to prevent it all. You prevent what you can. But more important than preventing death is not causing death yourself. And you are in no position to say that that single life is worth more than those other lives. The one person's life is not yours to "spend" to save the others and that is why it's wrong.

Save what you can, but above all else, do no wrong.
#104 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/29/2014) [-]
That's disgusting and incredibly selfish. In that situation, you would have sacrificed four lives to make it possible to make yourself feel blameless through mental gymnastics.
User avatar #108 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Because I am blameless in this situation. I did not put anyone's life in peril UNLESS I had pulled the lever and killed the one. Sorry, but I would kill for no one's gain.
User avatar #100 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You made a choice. Either 5 people would die, or 1 person would die; the choice you consciously made resulted in 4 more deaths than necessary, regardless of the mechanics of that choice.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Indeed, but like is more than just a count of who dies or not. Who does the killing is important. You did not kill those 5 people so long as you tried your best to save them. If, as in the situation, the only option is the lever, then it still stands that you have to choose to either kill the one or not save the others. The mechanics are very much important. You see, you chose to end the one's life. You killed him. But with the other 5, you can't kill them unless you go over and stab each one. They are already going to be killed, nothing you do can stop that unless you are willing to kill for it, and morality dictates that you can't kill for ANY gain.
User avatar #107 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you don't pull the lever, you didn't try your best to save them. You had the chance to 100% save them, and you didn't. You chose not to save them. Not saving someone is exactly the same as killing them.

And no, morality doesn't dictate that "you can't kill for any gain," as there's no written morality rule by some authority that takes situations like this into account.

If you want to say, "It's none of my business, I wouldn't want to kill someone," that's perfectly valid, but you're saying that that's the only moral thing to do, and superior to saving the lives.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, if I had saved them, it would have been me killing for them. And that's simply not right. It doesn't matter how badly little Timmy needs that heart to replace his, I will not go out and shoot someone and take their for his sake.

It is the only moral thing to do. Regardless of the situation, you cannot kill someone for gain. I'm not saying it's not a stressful situation, but you CANNOT trade that one person's life for anything because it's not yours to trade. I don't care how many people you allow to live a few more years by killing him. You only become blamable once you take a life.
User avatar #114 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're killing 5 people so 1 will live, that's the exact same thing, except now there's more dead people than alive ones.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, you are not killing anyone. The person who tied those people to the tracks is the one who killed them. You are ONLY failing to prevent it.

Killing someone HAS to be defined as: By your actions, causing someone, who would not have died, to die.
By that definition you did not kill those people.

Your definition seems to be: By your actions or LACK OF ACTION, ALLOWING someone to die is killing them.
If that is so then congratulations, you just killed everyone who you physically could have saved. The sick you didn't try to go heal, the hungry you didn't drive 500 miles to feed, and the murdered you didn't patrol the streets to protect.
User avatar #123 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not a lack of action. Anyone who wasn't in your place was committing a lack of action, but they also had a lack of opportunity. You had the knowledge of who was going to die, how they would die, and how you could stop them from dying.

Sure, if you hadn't noticed anything going on on the train tracks, then nobody can fault you for not doing anything. But once you acquired the knowledge of how to save those people, and since you had the ability to save them, their lives were in your hands. You made the action of not pulling the lever, that was your decision, your choice; knowing more people would die. You knew exactly what the situation was, and you made a choice.
User avatar #124 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are people starving around the world and you know how to find them. And yet you don't. They are dying because of your and other's lack of action.
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
#65 - Sometimes you have to sacrifice the sick loop da loop for the … 09/28/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
#61 - I've always had to go with not pulling the lever. You see, I b…  [+] (49 new replies) 09/28/2014 on Help me with this guys -2
User avatar #152 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It was a dude that I talked to once, thought was cute, and then I saw him again and didn't get the chance to talk to him, but saw he dresses horribly, and so I don't really care if I see him again. I'm not gonna keep an eye out.

And see, not all beliefs are equal - that's the kind of thing you say when you might be wrong. I've been in a situation where I used to believe in stupid shit, and then I go old enough that I could think for myself and I can rationally see that the stuff I believed was of utmost stupidity.

If I can think for myself and realize what things are unrealistic based on my experience in life and lack of known mental disorders, then so can other people.
User avatar #153 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I never said that everything was equally true. But yes, every opinion is equally valid and worth listening to and considering.
Although, if you don't think you might be wrong then you can clearly see more than I can.
User avatar #154 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I'm not 100% about anything, but even if some crazy shit was true, it goes against too much commons sense and simple observations on our universe to believe. Maybe it was okay a thousand years ago when nobody knew any better, but we know how things work now. They're outdated beliefs that stand on tradition alone, and no logical merit. I don't usually talk about it, because I find beliefs a private matter, inappropriate to discuss in public, but the circumstances of this conversation excuse that.
User avatar #155 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Well I will agree with you. Common sense gets in the way of morality quite often. After all, it makes sense to kill one person to save two others.
User avatar #130 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
"Not doing a bad deed trumps doing any amount of good," that's completely false. If I was smarter, I could point out some normal situation that contradicts it, but I can't think of anything specifically. If you can do 1 bad and get 2 good, that's totally worth it. If you're doing net good, the thing is good.
User avatar #131 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
That's wrong, not only because you can't think of a situation where it works,(you won't find one) but also because it doesn't work that way. Stealing a child's dollar to buy two children ice cream is wrong, despite that the children benefited from it. In the same way, you can't kill someone so two others can live longer, it's not two rights and a wrong, it's one wrong and two rights that didn't need to happen.
User avatar #132 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're comparing two children getting ice cream to four families not having to mourn a loved one.

And just because I can't think of an example of something, doesn't make it false. I'm not a god.
User avatar #133 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Because it's all the same. The few lose so the many can prosper and you are the one took from the few. That's wrong. You can't do wrong and expect it to have good results for the person you wronged. You are taking from him to make someone else's life better. So why not it be your life that is made better? Take from one and give to yourself and one other person and it's all square right?
User avatar #134 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not the same. Again, the train situation is very specific. 5 people are going to die. You can hit a lever so that only 1 person dies. At least 1 person HAS to die in this situation, and nobody can deny that. It's not you taking it upon yourself to take money from a child to give to two other random children.

You're preventing anguish, not causing celebration. It's not okay to cause a little pain in one person for the pleasure of others. But to cause pain in one person to prevent the pain of 5 others, that's acceptable. I really feel like this distinction with convince you of my side, don't let me down.
User avatar #135 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Clearly you miss the point of my statement. It's not about pain or pleasure, it's about gain or loss.

But sticking to the train situation sense others only seem to confuse, I agree that someone has to die in this situation. But you don't have to kill anyone. That's the difference. You're not murdering those 5 people but if you pull that lever you are murdering the one. The questions isn't about how many people die, it's about how many YOU KILL.
User avatar #136 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
And since you have the power to save those 5 people, not saving them is exactly the same as killing them.
User avatar #137 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking that route is sinning, and to sin is wrong, therefore to avoid wrong you have to take another action. Sadly, in this constraining metaphor, there are no other actions, thus your only option is to let them die.

You are not responsible for their deaths if you do all you can short of sinning.
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
User avatar #83 - demandsgayversion (09/28/2014) [-]
So if you believe that inaction to the tragedy of many is better than action to the tragedy of few.

So then what if it's not tragedy, it's good shit? A crazy reality show places a stack of cookies on a monorail, and the train is coming. You happen to be standing next to a button nearby the rail that makes it switch tracks. On the path it's going, it will knock 200 cookies down onto the ghetto below, but if you hit the button, it'll shift over to another track and knock 2000 cookies down onto the ghetto. Would you not press the button to do more good?
User avatar #85 - Vandeekree (09/28/2014) [-]
Of course, because I do no harm either way. But substitute a puppy on either side and I would choose to send the train on the side the puppy isn't. It doesn't matter how much good you can do if you have to do some bad to get there.
User avatar #86 - demandsgayversion (09/28/2014) [-]
Let's go back to the original train, this is getting silly.

Isn't it selfish, then? You're sacrificing 4 people's lives for your own conscience. So you value not feeling like a killer as worth more than 4 people's lives.
User avatar #89 - Vandeekree (09/28/2014) [-]
Not at all. I'm not sacrificing anything. I did not put those people on the rails. If they die it won't be my fault. I didn't cause their deaths. I would do all I could to save them short of killing someone else to do it. That's why I can't pull the lever. It's not a question of how many lives you can save, it's how many you can not kill yourself.

Lets put this in another example. Perhaps a more realistic one. You have the ability to take one man's organs and use them to save 4 other people. Those people are going to die unless you kill him this moment and transplant. Would you do it?
It's the same situation. 4 people who will die if left alone, one innocent not in danger but you could choose to kill him to save the others.
User avatar #91 - demandsgayversion (09/28/2014) [-]
The train situation is made very specifically. The situation is immediate. For example, there's hope for those 5 people to get other organs before they die, and more importantly, harvesting the organs doesn't guarantee those people live, because anyone could die in any surgery, and the organs wouldn't necessarily work. It's not worth the risk, 1 bird in the hand vs 4 in a far away bush.

If you can guarantee that the organs will heal the people and that they will all make a full recovery, then hell yeah I'd kill the guy, all things being equal and me knowing none of them personally. (if you're thinking "but the people you save could still get hit by a car the next day," that car accident is not a direct result of me saving them, as death in surgery would be)
User avatar #92 - Vandeekree (09/28/2014) [-]
It's a hypothetical situation, you're not supposed to dissect it. "They might not survive the transplant" -they will. "They might get organs somewhere else" -they won't. It's my situation and I know how it turns out so you must choose, just like the train one where you can't say "Well I'd turn the lever and run and save the one before the train got there..."

But I like what you said after. "The car accident is not a direct result of me saving them." That's exactly how it works with the train. Those who got hit by the train were not killed because I did nothing. They were killed because they were placed there by their killer. If you are responsible for not puling the lever then everyone who could have done a series of actions to save them is responsible. Every guy who didn't drive along the tracks daily on the off chance he'd find someone tied to them. Every person who wasn't watching those 4 people constantly to make sure they were safe.

I'm telling you that it's not a matter of saving those people's lives. The important part of the question that everyone misses because of how distracting the presentation is is "Do you take an action that will directly kill a human?" The answer to that is always no.
User avatar #93 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
The difference is that you WERE there. You don't know these people, all 6 of them are equal. At least one person is going to die, and because of your inaction, you raise that to 5 people. So, since you had the opportunity and enough time to consider and make a non-panic decision, those 4 lives are in your hands. Your inaction caused 4 people to die - and you KNEW you could save them.

The question isn't "Do you take an action that will directly kill a human?", the question is, "Would you kill 1 person to save 5 people?" and the correct answer is yes. Based on normative personal morality based on our first world culture, the correct thing to do is to save 4 people's lives, rather than let 4 people die.
User avatar #96 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No because you cannot kill someone with inaction. You can fail to save them. But so long as you truly tried your best then there is no blame on you. That's what this situation is about, failing to save a few vs killing one. And it's simply wrong to kill that one. It's not an option to a sane human being.
It doesn't matter what happens outside of your sphere of influence. You're not to blame when someone murder someone else. You're not to blame when someone ties someone to the train tracks. That pointy mustached person is to blame. You are only responsible for your own actions and part of that is you cannot kill someone else. No good comes from an evil deed and your cold mathematical way of thinking lacks moral. Everyone dies, it happens, it's not your job to prevent it all. You prevent what you can. But more important than preventing death is not causing death yourself. And you are in no position to say that that single life is worth more than those other lives. The one person's life is not yours to "spend" to save the others and that is why it's wrong.

Save what you can, but above all else, do no wrong.
#104 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/29/2014) [-]
That's disgusting and incredibly selfish. In that situation, you would have sacrificed four lives to make it possible to make yourself feel blameless through mental gymnastics.
User avatar #108 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Because I am blameless in this situation. I did not put anyone's life in peril UNLESS I had pulled the lever and killed the one. Sorry, but I would kill for no one's gain.
User avatar #100 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You made a choice. Either 5 people would die, or 1 person would die; the choice you consciously made resulted in 4 more deaths than necessary, regardless of the mechanics of that choice.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Indeed, but like is more than just a count of who dies or not. Who does the killing is important. You did not kill those 5 people so long as you tried your best to save them. If, as in the situation, the only option is the lever, then it still stands that you have to choose to either kill the one or not save the others. The mechanics are very much important. You see, you chose to end the one's life. You killed him. But with the other 5, you can't kill them unless you go over and stab each one. They are already going to be killed, nothing you do can stop that unless you are willing to kill for it, and morality dictates that you can't kill for ANY gain.
User avatar #107 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you don't pull the lever, you didn't try your best to save them. You had the chance to 100% save them, and you didn't. You chose not to save them. Not saving someone is exactly the same as killing them.

And no, morality doesn't dictate that "you can't kill for any gain," as there's no written morality rule by some authority that takes situations like this into account.

If you want to say, "It's none of my business, I wouldn't want to kill someone," that's perfectly valid, but you're saying that that's the only moral thing to do, and superior to saving the lives.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, if I had saved them, it would have been me killing for them. And that's simply not right. It doesn't matter how badly little Timmy needs that heart to replace his, I will not go out and shoot someone and take their for his sake.

It is the only moral thing to do. Regardless of the situation, you cannot kill someone for gain. I'm not saying it's not a stressful situation, but you CANNOT trade that one person's life for anything because it's not yours to trade. I don't care how many people you allow to live a few more years by killing him. You only become blamable once you take a life.
User avatar #114 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're killing 5 people so 1 will live, that's the exact same thing, except now there's more dead people than alive ones.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
No, you are not killing anyone. The person who tied those people to the tracks is the one who killed them. You are ONLY failing to prevent it.

Killing someone HAS to be defined as: By your actions, causing someone, who would not have died, to die.
By that definition you did not kill those people.

Your definition seems to be: By your actions or LACK OF ACTION, ALLOWING someone to die is killing them.
If that is so then congratulations, you just killed everyone who you physically could have saved. The sick you didn't try to go heal, the hungry you didn't drive 500 miles to feed, and the murdered you didn't patrol the streets to protect.
User avatar #123 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not a lack of action. Anyone who wasn't in your place was committing a lack of action, but they also had a lack of opportunity. You had the knowledge of who was going to die, how they would die, and how you could stop them from dying.

Sure, if you hadn't noticed anything going on on the train tracks, then nobody can fault you for not doing anything. But once you acquired the knowledge of how to save those people, and since you had the ability to save them, their lives were in your hands. You made the action of not pulling the lever, that was your decision, your choice; knowing more people would die. You knew exactly what the situation was, and you made a choice.
User avatar #124 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
But my examples still stand. Right now you know that there are people starving around the world and you know how to find them. And yet you don't. They are dying because of your and other's lack of action.
User avatar #126 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I am not in an immediate situation to help those people with the flip of a lever. This is a very important detail, since the scenario with the fat man is so vastly different, even though it's so similar.
User avatar #127 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving kids in mexico than to help the people on the tracks. So let me ask, where does the line start where it becomes "convenient enough" that it was your fault for not helping? It seems to be somewhere between a trip to mexico and pulling a lever.

P.S. What fat man?
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
User avatar #64 - eatchickendaily (09/28/2014) [-]
but then it won't do the totally sick loop da loop
User avatar #67 - alexstraza (09/28/2014) [-]
Actually the way he is suggesting, it WILL do the sick loop-da-loop, because he is saying don't touch it.
User avatar #65 - Vandeekree (09/28/2014) [-]
Sometimes you have to sacrifice the sick loop da loop for the good of others, thus is the burden we all share.
#132 - Honestly, I think the Westboro church has done more for the ga… 09/24/2014 on Westboro church +45
#2 - Arrrrrr you feeling disappointed? 09/19/2014 on They said I'd get an eye... +38
#16 - Picture 09/17/2014 on tipping 0
#34 - Now that upsets me. The original two games were great but ther…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/17/2014 on Super Mutants +3
User avatar #52 - Epicgetguy (09/18/2014) [-]
The reason Fallout 3 succeeded was because of the hype of an old and popular franchise being made again.

Besides, this same thing happened when Fallout 2 was released, fans were bitching that Super Mutants were ruined.

I honestly hated the BoS in Fallout 3, I preferred the Outcasts
#68 - Oh so it's ok for you to **** her but not him? Hypocrite. 09/16/2014 on Computer fixing risks +15
#9 - He may be insane but he's a damn good father. 09/15/2014 on If Soldier was a father +7
#4 - Wait...does this make that saying true because the grass is gr…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/14/2014 on The grass is greener 0
#5 - willys (09/14/2014) [-]
Whoa there, Philosoraptor, the saying is a metaphor.
#6 - scandalouszander (09/15/2014) [-]
in this case wouldnt it be a meadowphor?
pic related Barbara Punkelman of rooster teeth
#10 - willys (09/15/2014) [-]
At first I didn't want to thumb that shit up because that pun caused me actual physical pain it was so bad. Then I remembered a video I saw of Barbara Punkelman and realized that's exactly what she would say.

So enjoy your thumb.
User avatar #11 - scandalouszander (09/15/2014) [-]
thank you good sir i will treasure it always, also as to the pain of the pun, thats how you know its a really good, or bad one depending on how you look at it. i chuckled then died inside when i thought of it. if someone could post the professor i made myself sad i would appreciate it, i dont seem to have it in my folder
#12 - willys (09/15/2014) [-]
You can thank me with a blowjob in a seedy-looking alley later.


Errrr I mean here ya go.
#13 - scandalouszander (09/15/2014) [-]
ready when you are

...i mean thanks
#19 - And then you give her a llama bestiality fetish...way to go...… 09/14/2014 on Flawless lamas +1
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)