Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WTFTFTF!?!!!!

@ wrex -
I'm convinced we should argue that the place of society is to protect the weak and ignorant from the predations of society rather their own actions.

There is a certain level of basic understanding of one's environment that should be the responsibility of the individual. The understanding that a tool used to cut (saw example from above) should be stopped before changing the cutting surface should be the individual's responsibility. One should not need a warning to advise not to expose one's digits to the cutting area of a lawnmower much less a kill switch for operator safety (despite being a generally good idea). A person ordering a culturally understood hot drink should understand the reasonable risks involved with spillage.

sebster wrote:We all could have had a good laugh at a couple of idiots who used black marker on their faces.

Instead we get another journey into the fascination a part of the internet has with eugenics. Which is, by the way, a very stupid thing to believe. Spot the irony?

I believe the man with the highest known IQ in the world is actually a big advocate of eugenics.

Which either says a lot about the value of eugenics, or the limitations of the IQ test. (I'm inclined to say the later.)

Oldgrue wrote:There is a certain level of basic understanding of one's environment that should be the responsibility of the individual. The understanding that a tool used to cut (saw example from above) should be stopped before changing the cutting surface should be the individual's responsibility. One should not need a warning to advise not to expose one's digits to the cutting area of a lawnmower much less a kill switch for operator safety (despite being a generally good idea). A person ordering a culturally understood hot drink should understand the reasonable risks involved with spillage.

Truth, Quoted For.

Oldgrue wrote:@ wrex -
I'm convinced we should argue that the place of society is to protect the weak and ignorant from the predations of society rather their own actions.

So as soon as someone takes the 'action' themselves, they are the only ones to be held responsible? That is massively obtuse mate.

There is a certain level of basic understanding of one's environment that should be the responsibility of the individual. The understanding that a tool used to cut (saw example from above) should be stopped before changing the cutting surface should be the individual's responsibility. One should not need a warning to advise not to expose one's digits to the cutting area of a lawnmower much less a kill switch for operator safety (despite being a generally good idea). A person ordering a culturally understood hot drink should understand the reasonable risks involved with spillage.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, but didn't, and by all rational study; who fething cares? Put the sticker on it, and forget about all the morons apt to sue you, for your idealistic negligence. Your speaking in ideals, I am trying to see this from a realistic perspective. It really doesn't matter what 'one' should, or should not need; all that matters is how savvy these companies are about selling their products, feth the morals.

This thread is old, but I am pretty sure that in this time frame (if not within this actual thread) we addressed the fact that a drink can actually be too hot, and no one should expect coffee the temperature of the fething sun. A lady had to get plastic surgery due to the temperature; so feth the nonsense, and cut the goddam butter.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Oldgrue wrote:@ wrex -
I'm convinced we should argue that the place of society is to protect the weak and ignorant from the predations of society rather their own actions.

So as soon as someone takes the 'action' themselves, they are the only ones to be held responsible? That is massively obtuse mate.

Why?

I'm still baffled by the fact that people think you can 'force' evolution. You can direct it in a way which you deem appropriate, which may or may not be beneficial to the species, but you can't actually make it go faster. All that's really being accomplished is the introduction of a new set of determinant conditions into the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Oldgrue wrote:@ wrex -
I'm convinced we should argue that the place of society is to protect the weak and ignorant from the predations of society rather their own actions.

So as soon as someone takes the 'action' themselves, they are the only ones to be held responsible? That is massively obtuse mate.

Why?

Its a bit of a messy idea. Why is the individual to be considered separate from society when society is simply many individuals?

I think its a bit more appropriate to say that the purpose of society is to protect individuals from each other.

Well, that makes sense, although I wouldn't have guessed that's what Wrex was saying.

I thought he was saying something more along the lines of "it's possible to take an action, and have something bad happen to you, and still have it be (at least in part) another person's fault". (For instance, if start hiding bear traps under leaves on forest trails; yeah, they're stepping into it, but they couldn't have reasonable expectations of there being bear traps hidden there.)

dogma wrote:I'm still baffled by the fact that people think you can 'force' evolution. You can direct it in a way which you deem appropriate, which may or may not be beneficial to the species, but you can't actually make it go faster. All that's really being accomplished is the introduction of a new set of determinant conditions into the process.

It is a antiquated idea, based on a survivalist instinct, in a context (society in general), which is meant to counter this very thing. So you fight for yourself, and what happens when your ideals encompass 6 million people? At what point did it actually go wrong? Can you even begin to split the logical hairs behind that one? (Not to Dogma, just a comment)

I think its a bit more appropriate to say that the purpose of society is to protect individuals from each other.

This is the reason for society in general, we are not at a large threat from wolves; as we can easily shoot them in the face. When it comes to fellow human beings, there are obvious reasons to avoid this 'same' situation in perpetuity.

I fear not the reaper, but the human that brings it.

Has no one watched Fern Gully FFS?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, that makes sense, although I wouldn't have guessed that's what Wrex was saying.

I thought he was saying something more along the lines of "it's possible to take an action, and have something bad happen to you, and still have it be (at least in part) another person's fault". (For instance, if start hiding bear traps under leaves on forest trails; yeah, they're stepping into it, but they couldn't have reasonable expectations of there being bear traps hidden there.)

For a person stupid enough to actually attempt acts that would entail the need for a sticker as such; that is essentially the exact same thing. As I said before, feth the morals, this is about simple logic. You though that people can be stupid? Think again, they can be utterly moronic.

I will elaborate a bit here.

Lawn-mower, a stick stuck in lawn mower, don't stop lawn-mower, grab stuck stick, lose fingers. VOILA! A MORON.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, that makes sense, although I wouldn't have guessed that's what Wrex was saying.

Me either. I was just kind of jumping in on that one.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I thought he was saying something more along the lines of "it's possible to take an action, and have something bad happen to you, and still have it be (at least in part) another person's fault". (For instance, if start hiding bear traps under leaves on forest trails; yeah, they're stepping into it, but they couldn't have reasonable expectations of there being bear traps hidden there.)

Yeah, that's about what I got. Though I think he was thinking (spluh?) more along the lines of forced choices; such as compulsion by hostage, ransom, etc. Broadly, extenuating circumstances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
It is a antiquated idea, based on a survivalist instinct, in a context (society in general), which is meant to counter this very thing. So you fight for yourself, and what happens when your ideals encompass 6 million people? At what point did it actually go wrong? Can you even begin to split the logical hairs behind that one? (Not to Dogma, just a comment)

Well damn, I was sort of up for that challenge.

Wrexasaur wrote:
This is the reason for society in general, we are not at a large threat from wolves; as we can easily shoot them in the face. When it comes to fellow human beings, there are obvious reasons to avoid this 'same' situation in perpetuity.

I suppose society did arise in order to protect us from wolves and the like. So maybe its better to say that society exists to benefit its members. Though I suppose that's a bit broad.

Whatever though, just me being overly precise.

dogma wrote:Yeah, that's about what I got. Though I think he was thinking (spluh?) more along the lines of forced choices; such as compulsion by hostage, ransom, etc. Broadly, extenuating circumstances.

I think that you were thinking what I was thinking... are you thinking what I am thinking... hmm-da-durr .

It can be as forced as that, or it could be as simple as an overzealous employer forcing you by threat of the loss of your job to be stupid. You take the chainsaw, which clearly lays out general guidelines for use, and you are forced to make a stupid mistake.

Sure, if one person makes a stupid mistake, for the sake of their job, feth them (realistically, you are probably fethed to begin with). When the majority of employers could give a good god damn about your health and well being (all B.S. rhetoric aside surely), that is a massive problem; and making someone decide between their fingers, and their food is downright despicable.

Point being, feth all of these situation, feth all of these people, we just want to avoid the court case, as we are representing the company who sold the product.

I can think of about a half-dozen more 'specific' circumstances where the company who sold these products would need protection; but I will keep this one brief, as usual. One last thing though; if you think that most contractors really care about anything besides their pocketbooks (NOT RHETORICALLY), you are simply wrong. It is nice to know that some contractors actually care, but back in reality, most could give two flying feths, throughout the whole fething play.

Make your scratch paper, and hope that someone does not snap on you.. that... is the contractors way.

tblock1984 wrote:

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:Yeah a lot of idiots seem to come from America. Kinda makes you wonder why...

True that! I blame government subsidized corn syrup.

@Fateweaver: I agree with you to a certain extent, but I share Wrex's cynicism. STORY TIME!!!

Francis Galton was Charles Darwin’s first cousin, and based on Darwin’s work Origin of the Species, he was pretty much the pioneer of modern eugenics. Galton’s idea seems to have sprung from the observation that civilization disrupts “pure” natural selection. Paradoxically, his solution for overcoming the “unnaturalness” of civilized behavior was to further regulate it.

Galton noticed an interpretation of Darwin’s work whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. His reasoning followed that since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. Only by changing these social policies, Galton thought, could society be saved from a “reversion towards mediocrity”, a phrase he first coined in statistics and later changed to the now common, “regression towards the mean.”

Galton devised techniques such as composite photography in order to establish racial and social ‘types’ which could aid the management of society. He was a proponent of the idea of selective breeding amongst humans in order to halt what he saw as the decline of the British race. His ideas would go on to influence the sterilisation movements in countries such as Sweden, the United States and Germany. His work on eugenics was later adpoted by the Nazi party as a justification for the systematic elimination of the Jews and other races.

Moral of the story: The only "logical" (I use the term loosely) outcome to that line of thought is a dark and twisty road. Besides, Cthulhu disapproves of eugenics...

Apparently Cthulhu Ca't tell the difference between "Desert" and "Dessert"...