Jump to content

Creation Museum


Recommended Posts

I'll let the rest of y'all start in on SJ's ethical dilemmas, mostly because I don't really know where to start.
Start with this, I guess:
When handing out a punishment, do we care who he helped or solely who he hurt?
Is stealing from the rich to give to the poor two distinct acts or simply one large act? Do we look at the illegal part and say that is worth X years in prison and just stop right there? Or do we look at the illegal part and say that is worth X years in prison, but all this good stuff here takes off X years?And then how much do we look at intent?Let's say Balloon guy really wants to give a lot of money to an especially needy and worthy cause, but he can't give what he wants IN THIS ECONOMY. So he devises a plan to bilk the super rich from a tiny fraction of their disposable income and then gives most of that money to the Cause (gotta keep some for future fundraising efforts and overhead).And then a couple towns over is vbnautilus who also devises a plan to bilk the super rich out of some of their disposable income. He just didn't think anybody needed to be that rich and he was tired of being harassed by the police about his hippie dogs, so he thought some extra money might ease his pain. But his plan works so well that he has too much money and he decides to donate almost all of that excess money to similarly worthy Causes.Do we deal with them the same way because they ultimately did the same thing?But what if brvheart over here had the exact same plan as BG, but wasn't quite as good at it and only stole enough money to barely cover his expenses and donate just a pittance to the Cause? Brvheart gets a bigger punishment because he's not as good at stealing as Balloon guy?There are probably plenty of holes in my thinking...this is just all off the top of my head without really thinking about it.Edit: tim edited (of course) while I was typing all this out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 962
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I actually believe that, and it's one of the reasons that I've always been a very big fan of yours. You're sincere, and the rarity of sincerity never ceases to amaze me. More importantly, though: you

I looked up that passage and didn't see where it said "salvation is by good works." 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save t

I think it's more like, "Without faith, it doesn't matter what you do." Meaning you can't just be a good person to get into heaven.Regarding the first point, if you're standing in the middle of the r

So let's make this a hypothetical example and ignore any real-life details.A guy steals $2b from a whole bunch of ordinary people. He then takes every last penny of that and donates it to various worthwhile charities. Sort of a modern day Robin Hood. Do we label this as "a good thing?" Let's say of that $2b he stole $30k from middle class Dave. And because of this lost money, Dave has to postpone his retirement for five years. But that $30k was used to buy mosquito nets that saved the lives of thousands of African kids. Good thing?What if middle class Dave "invested" this money with Robin Hood because he needed a way to get more money for some radical new procedure that might cure his daughter's life-threatening disease? But that money still helped hundreds of other people. Good thing?Do we simply judge this sort of thing on a case by case basis? Let's say that he stole $250m from uber wealthy Edward. This stolen money did not harm Edward in any perceivable fashion. The money was used to further an untold number of advances in modern medicine, the benefits which cannot even be calculated. Surely this can't be a bad thing, right?When handing out a punishment, do we care who he helped or solely who he hurt?I'm not trying to make this an argument for any real-life people, I'm just interested in the ethics of it.
stealing from others is wrong, so it doesn't matter what happens from there on out, whether it was for good or not. It wasn't their right to chose what to do with others money.
Link to post
Share on other sites
stealing from others is wrong, so it doesn't matter what happens from there on out, whether it was for good or not. It wasn't their right to chose what to do with others money.
Oh shit. I didn't know Randy was a Republican. Welcome, brother!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course you are right, there is no motivation to say anything but the absolute truth about any man who just gave you $20 million.
Milken paid Walsh $20m? Where and when? If Milken did in fact give $20m to a medical research organization that Walsh was a part of (or heading) [not what you said, but I'll assume it's what you meant], and then that research organization, along with hundreds of others funded by Milken's charity, made huge strides in prostate cancer cures, then no, I don't see a conflict of interests, particularly since Walsh is widely considered one of the top urology and prostate cancer surgeons in the world. And he's not the only one to praise Milken's charities. He's just one of the most well-respected doctors in the field, which is why I quoted him.
I do not know if he knows he is supposed to write a thank you note to Milken..or the republican senators who created the tax loophole that made this particular charity worth while
Once again I love when you give either/or scenarios and both answers are idiotic. The thank you note should go to the doctors who saved his life, quite obviously. Although if he wants to ask his doctors about the practices they used to cure him, and ask where those practices were researched and developed, and if he gets a specific answer, he could also write to the researchers who helped develop his cure and thank them too.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Milken paid Walsh $20m? Where and when? If Milken did in fact give $20m to a medical research organization that Walsh was a part of (or heading) [not what you said, but I'll assume it's what you meant], and then that research organization, along with hundreds of others funded by Milken's charity, made huge strides in prostate cancer cures, then no, I don't see a conflict of interests, particularly since Walsh is widely considered one of the top urology and prostate cancer surgeons in the world. And he's not the only one to praise Milken's charities. He's just one of the most well-respected doctors in the field, which is why I quoted him. Once again I love when you give either/or scenarios and both answers are idiotic. The thank you note should go to the doctors who saved his life, quite obviously. Although if he wants to ask his doctors about the practices they used to cure him, and ask where those practices were researched and developed, and if he gets a specific answer, he could also write to the researchers who helped develop his cure and thank them too.
I'm calling Bernie Madoff's attorney, I think I found a way for him to get out of jail, and be called a great man at the same time. The icing on the cake will be when I get someone to write an article about how Madoff didn't really break any laws because people were helped in the long run.
Link to post
Share on other sites
stealing from others is wrong, so it doesn't matter what happens from there on out, whether it was for good or not. It wasn't their right to chose what to do with others money.
TAXES!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm calling Bernie Madoff's attorney, I think I found a way for him to get out of jail, and be called a great man at the same time. The icing on the cake will be when I get someone to write an article about how Madoff didn't really break any laws because people were helped in the long run.
Why did you quote me for this? Nothing you said is related to my post, and you certainly didn't answer the questions I asked you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did you quote me for this? Nothing you said is related to my post, and you certainly didn't answer the questions I asked you.
What question?The rhetorical one?Or the one where a guy's pet project is funded by another guy and I shortened the process to say he accepted money from him via a tax break system that is funded by ill-gotten gains?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lack of data means unreliable results. With one data point for life, no statistically significant conclusion can be reached on whether or not life exists elsewhere. Analyzing the Drake equation when this kind of conclusion is being sought after, must first start with the beginning data set. In this case, since we are the only origins of life so far (most likely, though not definite since there have been discoveries of sulfur based organisms that may exist from a separate genesis than the vast majority of other life on earth) this kind of analysis is really just a mental exercise.Like sudoku.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, wait...why shouldn't we judge a preacher more harshly for defrauding his flock out of their money than we do a standard Wall Street scammer?
We don'tIn fact after both served their 'time' we now hold the wall street scammer on a pedestal and still hate the defrocked preacher.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We don'tIn fact after both served their 'time' we now hold the wall street scammer on a pedestal and still hate the defrocked preacher.
my-brain-is-full-of-f.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
To bad it is completely without context here.
The context is this thread. This thread where you've argued for pages that society has judged Bakker too harshly compared to Milken.
The outcry over Bakker was disproportionate to the outcry over Milken.
Speedz accepts your assertion for the sake argument that this is the case.
So, wait...why shouldn't we judge a preacher more harshly for defrauding his flock out of their money than we do a standard Wall Street scammer?
The question to you isn't DID society judge Bakker more harshly. The question to you is SHOULD Bakker be judged more harshly and why? And this is your "response".
We don'tIn fact after both served their 'time' we now hold the wall street scammer on a pedestal and still hate the defrocked preacher.
You re-assert that society judges Bakker more harshly.Are you even reading this thread?You're like a lawyer whose client is facing a tough question from the prosecution and yells, "Hey look! A bird!" and points out the window. And then walks calmly back to his paperwork, fully expecting this to work, greeting any expectant glances with a wide-eyed, frowning confusion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're like a lawyer whose client is facing a tough question from the prosecution and yells, "Hey look! A bird!" and points out the window. And then walks calmly back to his paperwork, fully expecting this to work, greeting any expectant glances with a wide-eyed, frowning confusion.
Which is exactly what he always does. Every time. Its the chewbaca defense. Confuse and obfuscate, instead of enlighten. It's the only option when the side your on is just plain wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What question?The rhetorical one?Or the one where a guy's pet project is funded by another guy and I shortened the process to say he accepted money from him via a tax break system that is funded by ill-gotten gains?
It still doesn't make sense that you quoted me since your reply had nothing to do with my post. But my question was very clear and concise. It was the first two sentences of my post.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It still doesn't make sense that you quoted me since your reply had nothing to do with my post. But my question was very clear and concise. It was the first two sentences of my post.
1000x500px-LL-85c05305_Not_sure_if_serious.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...