EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue May 21, 2013 5:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:33 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20119
Location: Southeastern US
animallover wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Choice A: Person lives

Choice B: Person and infant lives

Choice C: Person and dog lives

Choice D: None live.

The crux of the question has always been between B and C as no rational person should choose either A or D in this case.


You cannot say what the outcome will be for sure....you can speculate what it might be. But then again you refuse to see that the boat is still usable.....it is NOT sunk. But that is the difference in how people look at things. You have missed the forest for the trees. The option of using the boat was always there and could always be used.


Yes, I can as it is part of the premise of the question. When it states there is only one which can be saved it limits the choices. The boat being capsized means it either must be righted, which would be difficult for one person to do given the size of most lifeboats, or it would be used as a flotation device in its present form. The limitation would be related to the time it would take to get to one or the other and get them to safety before being able to go after the second. It could be related to the ability of the person to swim with only one in tow requireing at least one round trip. It could be related to cold water, sharks in the vicinity, the distance needed to travel to save each one, the time involved with each rescue, or another variable not readily defined. The premise is thus set and there is no way to assume such a change without changing the premise and at that point change the need of the lifeboat all together.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:36 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animallover wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Choice A: Person lives

Choice B: Person and infant lives

Choice C: Person and dog lives

Choice D: None live.

The crux of the question has always been between B and C as no rational person should choose either A or D in this case.


You cannot say what the outcome will be for sure....you can speculate what it might be. But then again you refuse to see that the boat is still usable.....it is NOT sunk. But that is the difference in how people look at things. You have missed the forest for the trees. The option of using the boat was always there and could always be used.


Yes, I can as it is part of the premise of the question. When it states there is only one which can be saved it limits the choices. The boat being capsized means it either must be righted, which would be difficult for one person to do given the size of most lifeboats, or it would be used as a flotation device in its present form. The limitation would be related to the time it would take to get to one or the other and get them to safety before being able to go after the second. It could be related to the ability of the person to swim with only one in tow requireing at least one round trip. It could be related to cold water, sharks in the vicinity, the distance needed to travel to save each one, the time involved with each rescue, or another variable not readily defined. The premise is thus set and there is no way to assume such a change without changing the premise and at that point change the need of the lifeboat all together.


Wow.....you can add all othose things into the senario while claiming set restrictions to the question. OK. :shock: =;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:36 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20119
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animallover wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes, but in reality the choices are limited by what will succeed. That choice might actually result in all three being lost instead of saving two.


People make sacrifices everyday......and the choice to do so always exists. To think otherwise makes for a very limited outlook. I would rather try than not but that is me.....and I hope if I needed help that I wasn't stuck with someone unwilling to try whatever they could because they could only think about themselves or by what they "think" will suceed.


Sure, but in the context of this question the sacrifice is, the dog, the infant, both the dog and infant, or the dog, the infant, and the person that is supposed to decide. It seems the last two are not the better choices to me, but they are valid choices.


animallover wrote:

The context of the question was to try to put the value of one over the other and nothing else. No need to over analyse what it really is.


Yes, it is the basis for the premise and one you seemed to want to change.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:38 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Let's try this one for a while.........
Quote:
If Wiley E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that ACME crap, why didn't he just buy dinner?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:41 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20119
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animallover wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Choice A: Person lives

Choice B: Person and infant lives

Choice C: Person and dog lives

Choice D: None live.

The crux of the question has always been between B and C as no rational person should choose either A or D in this case.


You cannot say what the outcome will be for sure....you can speculate what it might be. But then again you refuse to see that the boat is still usable.....it is NOT sunk. But that is the difference in how people look at things. You have missed the forest for the trees. The option of using the boat was always there and could always be used.


Yes, I can as it is part of the premise of the question. When it states there is only one which can be saved it limits the choices. The boat being capsized means it either must be righted, which would be difficult for one person to do given the size of most lifeboats, or it would be used as a flotation device in its present form. The limitation would be related to the time it would take to get to one or the other and get them to safety before being able to go after the second. It could be related to the ability of the person to swim with only one in tow requireing at least one round trip. It could be related to cold water, sharks in the vicinity, the distance needed to travel to save each one, the time involved with each rescue, or another variable not readily defined. The premise is thus set and there is no way to assume such a change without changing the premise and at that point change the need of the lifeboat all together.


animallover wrote:

Wow.....you can add all othose things into the senario while claiming set restrictions to the question. OK. :shock: =;


I did not add anything to the scenario, which is evidenced by the use of "could" so often, but I did try to explain why the restrictions in the premise of the question only allowed for one to be rescued. You were saying rescue both, which would be completely changing the premise stated.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:42 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:49 pm
Posts: 7554
Location: England
If Hunter had fetched all that wood you had for him, he wouldn't have needed to chop the tree down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:42 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20119
Location: Southeastern US
animallover wrote:
Let's try this one for a while.........
Quote:
If Wiley E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that ACME crap, why didn't he just buy dinner?


It was not part of the premise to set up the scenarios for entertainment of children and adults. :mrgreen:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:44 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20119
Location: Southeastern US
jhawk wrote:
If Hunter had fetched all that wood you had for him, he wouldn't have needed to chop the tree down.



It was not for the wood ..... it was to get rid of the cat. The tree was just a ploy.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:45 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:49 pm
Posts: 7554
Location: England
Wayne Stollings wrote:
jhawk wrote:
If Hunter had fetched all that wood you had for him, he wouldn't have needed to chop the tree down.



It was not for the wood ..... it was to get rid of the cat. The tree was just a ploy.


****************
That's what he would like you to think. He just felt guilty of not being brave enough to face AL.

:-$ :-$ :-$


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:46 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9567
Besides, without Wiley keeping ACME in business, some people would have ended up unemployed; and they might in turn become so hungry, they'd consider hunting road-runners for food.

Thus, by allowing Wiley to purchase regularly from ACME, we helped the economy and kept the hunting pressure down on roadrunners.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:52 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
jhawk wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
jhawk wrote:
If Hunter had fetched all that wood you had for him, he wouldn't have needed to chop the tree down.



It was not for the wood ..... it was to get rid of the cat. The tree was just a ploy.


****************
That's what he would like you to think. He just felt guilty of not being brave enough to face AL.

:-$ :-$ :-$


I like that one.....I think you may be right. =D> :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:33 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 6190
Quote:
It was not for the wood ..... it was to get rid of the cat. The tree was just a ploy.

****************
That's what he would like you to think. He just felt guilty of not being brave enough to face AL.

:-$ :-$ :-$


I like that one.....I think you may be right. =D> :lol:


Interesting, like the dog and the child question we have two options,or the possibility of both being right.

I'd lean towards the first one, but that would mean agreeing with Wayne. I could agree with J, but guilt about the passing of a cat doesn't seem possible. And then there is the bravery factor. I'm not sure if it's really bravery, or more like looking out for one's best interest.

In the end it seems it's all Iownaics fault. He was the one that wanted the tree cut down in the first place. And whether it was sunspots or whatever that killed the cat. It is Iowanic that should be held accountable. let's remember he started this.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:38 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
hunter88 wrote:
Quote:
It was not for the wood ..... it was to get rid of the cat. The tree was just a ploy.

****************
That's what he would like you to think. He just felt guilty of not being brave enough to face AL.

:-$ :-$ :-$


I like that one.....I think you may be right. =D> :lol:


Interesting, like the dog and the child question we have two options,or the possibility of both being right.

I'd lean towards the first one, but that would mean agreeing with Wayne. I could agree with J, but guilt about the passing of a cat doesn't seem possible. And then there is the bravery factor. I'm not sure if it's really bravery, or more like looking out for one's best interest.

In the end it seems it's all Iownaics fault. He was the one that wanted the tree cut down in the first place. And whether it was sunspots or whatever that killed the cat. It is Iowanic that should be held accountable. let's remember he started this.



So, if I understand you correctly....it is not in your "best interest" to face me??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:41 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:49 pm
Posts: 7554
Location: England
I don't think it is a good idea to pick on 'Nic....he has the gnomes as back-up..

Be very afraid...

8-[ 8-[ 8-[


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:44 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:49 pm
Posts: 7554
Location: England
So, if I understand you correctly....it is not in your "best interest" to face me?? [/quote]

*********************

I think the reason he is so nervous is that his harem contract is coming up for renewal shortly...

Heh heh...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group