Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (1123)	9/28/2000 2:07:07 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Solon, Solon, Solon LOL! I would debate you on anything you want. Let's use your example of your heart. You have a heart. Well it could be a really crumby heart. SO, if part of having a heart is the function of the heart, then "heart-ness" involves myriad properties (like the heap of wheat, of imprecise degree). I'd be willing to analyze almost any proposition and start refining the definition. He is a doctor - But all of his patients die. Isn't part of being a doctor, being a healer as well as having the diploma? My car works - Its reliability is less than it was so I only use it for some trips, but not others due to the failure rate. Not suitable for support of human life - If that was the ONLY bottle of oxygen in my spaceship and it would keep me alive for another 12 hours, but kill me in 2 years due to low levels of contamination. Was it "suitable?". Some of your links pose this as a problem as vagueness. I'm offering that the data seem to support a conjecture that slippery slopes are always the case. Even in extreme cases it is reducible to some level of precision. Maybe a googol of nines. Vagueness is not just a result of poor thinking or poor problem space definition, it fundamentally maps into reality. Let's play Is Dr. Evil really bad? - Let's say a really evil person was planning to kill all humanity in some grotesquely painful way by controlling the food supply and adulterating it. Over the next 20 years Dr. Evil manages to get everyone eating Dr. Evil's Tasty Bits (DETB's) but he knows if starts killing people slowly, they will stop eating DETB's. He ends starvation on the planet because this new product made from free resources to ensure that he gets ALL of humanity to eat it. No one who eats DETB's has to pay for them. According to his plan, on September 20, 2021, he will dump a catalyst into the atmosphere that will diffuse quickly and convert all DETB's into poison, whether eaten or not, thereby killing all humanity who now rely solely upon DETB's for their existence. On September 19, 2021, Dr. Evil dies, but in the process ends starvation. Was Dr. Evil a good or a bad man? He could have been a really bad man, but ended up being a really good man (we were all clueless regarding his unfortunate name!) Now, what if the cleaning lady who is closing up Dr. Evil's estate breaks open a big jar sitting on the shelf and Dr. Evil's plan gets executed but a new race of enlightened beings that fill the universe with only love replace us?