Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Philosophy Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by zachsaints52 View Post
    Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?
    That's not a good enough reason. I believe that even if determinism is true, that does not necessarily change the legal system, because the legal system is more about self-defense from wrongdoing rather than seeking a responsible cause. If a person is caused to be a habitually bloodthirsty person or if they choose to be that way, it doesn't matter - lock 'em up so they don't kill again. Maybe if determinism is true we should find ways to change those societal or biological causes, but we shouldn't sit on our hands in the meantime.

    by BoneKrusher
    <DG> how metal unseen
    <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

    Comment


    • She says that you can use it in a case you could win with that arguement. And I agree, she is dumb, but a nice old lady.

      Comment


      • Yea, I have a real hard time believing that would ever hold up in court in any way. Then again, if you go with a jury anything could happen.


        Speaking of, we were debating that whole McDonald's Hot Coffee incident in my Litigation class and I thought it would be interesting to see what y'all thought about it if it even has any application in this thread.

        Basically(if you don't already know) this woman spilled a cup of coffee on herself at McDonald's and sued for her injuries. She offered to settle out of court for 20k which McD's refused(inexplicably) and was initially rewarded millions of dollars. She ended up settling privately for a different figure so I'm sure it was less than that but it was surely a substantial figure.

        I guess my question is, is it ok for the court to award punitive damages of such an amount for something like this? I mean, she spilled it on herself and their claim was that the coffee was simply too hot(190F) and that they had been warned about it numerous times over a decade through customer complaints.


        Sorry this is probably completely off topic but I had to get that out lol.

        ^A Bonekrusher production^
        #15
        Gamertag= ELDUDERINO1165

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TitleTown088 View Post
          Yeah, deism.
          It would appear to be a different kind of deism, even. Deism is almost solely based around the idea of "God" instead of Epicurus' many Gods. And Epicurus absolutely recognized the contemporary value in the stories of the Gods. That would make him a pretty strange deist.

          Comment


          • http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3e

            by BoneKrusher
            <DG> how metal unseen
            <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

            Comment


            • must...not...die

              Consider the following:

              1) Lois thinks that Superman is hot
              2) Clark Kent is Superman
              3) Therefore, Lois thinks that Clark Kent is hot

              Is this a valid inference? Discuss.

              by BoneKrusher
              <DG> how metal unseen
              <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Unseen View Post
                must...not...die

                Consider the following:

                1) Lois thinks that Superman is hot
                2) Clark Kent is Superman
                3) Therefore, Lois thinks that Clark Kent is hot

                Is this a valid inference? Discuss.
                I don't really feel like dealing with this with respect to philosophy. However, considering women have many factors of attractiveness, including but not limited to confidence, perception of wealth and status, and looks, then Clark Kent and Superman are two different personalities and have different amounts of confidence and wealth and status. The similarity of looks only accounts for one of the three aspects that i listed. The inference would then be wrong.

                Off Topic, but Superman is such a stalker. He could have any job in the world but of course he must work with one girl that he has an obsession with and can stalk her every day of his work. It is creepy.

                Thanks to BoneKrusher Credit and Rep to him for the sig.

                Comment


                • I don't really feel like dealing with this with respect to philosophy.
                  This is philosophy up the wazoo. Philosophy of language, metaphysics, ontology, logic...all there.

                  That being said, your answer basically arrives at mine: No, it is not a valid inference. I say that when it means for someone to think that something is the case, they think certain particulars to be the case about it. If Lois thinks Superman is hot, it is because of various factors you listed. Those factors are not present in Clark Kent. Sure, Clark Kent and Superman share the same real-world body, but in Lois' aesthetic, subjective world, which is what it means to think, they are different. This means that it is possible that Lois does not think Clark Kent is hot, making the inference invalid, a form of equivocation.

                  by BoneKrusher
                  <DG> how metal unseen
                  <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Unseen View Post
                    must...not...die

                    Consider the following:

                    1) Lois thinks that Superman is hot
                    2) Clark Kent is Superman
                    3) Therefore, Lois thinks that Clark Kent is hot

                    Is this a valid inference? Discuss.
                    No it isn't. When you use the words like think then you can't replace words coming after it even if they have the same meaning.

                    Better example to prove why it's wrong

                    1. Unseen thinks that Alice Cooper is a woman
                    2. Alice Cooper is Vincent Furnier
                    3. therefore, Unseen think Vincent Furnier is a woman.


                    Clearly you wouldnt think Vincent Furnier was a woman

                    Comment


                    • This sentence is false.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Unseen View Post
                        1) Lois thinks that Superman is hot
                        2) Clark Kent is Superman
                        3) Therefore, Lois thinks that Clark Kent is hot
                        better syllogism:
                        a) Lois is attracted to Superman
                        b) Clark Kent is Superman
                        c) Lois is attracted to Clark

                        or as an enthymeme:
                        a) Lois is attracted to Superman
                        b) Lois is attracted to Clark Kent

                        this is what I get for choosing the Rhetoric track English degree...

                        Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

                        Comment





                        • +




                          =me finding the Philosophy thread day after Philosophy exam.

                          RIP ST

                          Comment


                          • I don't think anything in here was entirely helpful, but yeah, I or others could've answered some of your questions.

                            how was the exam, what did it cover, etc.

                            Oh, the syllogism I posted is relevant because I was at a talk about the nature of propositions and apparently some philosophers of language would claim that 1) is the same proposition as 3). I guess that means they think propositions are about extensions (the things the words pick out, in this case Superman and Clark Kent pick out the same thing) rather than intensions (the meaning on the whole, which is clearly different). It was a side point and I don't recall the argument. Anyways.
                            Last edited by The Unseen; 03-04-2010, 03:37 PM.

                            by BoneKrusher
                            <DG> how metal unseen
                            <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

                            Comment


                            • bumpededed

                              Comment


                              • why couldn't i find this

                                thanks

                                by BoneKrusher
                                <DG> how metal unseen
                                <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information