> > > > Suppose a man yearns for power and he has a profound hatred of
> > jews.
> > > > He makes multiple statements to many audiences carefully crafted
> > to
> > > > appeal to the particular group he is talking too. Suppose most of
> > the
> > > > people of this nation are committed to the thought that
> > consistency is
> > > > of little importance. They don't bother to weigh one speech
> > against
> > > > another and note the inconsistencies.
> >
> > What if they think consistancy *is* important and that killing jews is
> >
> > consistant with making the world a better place? Same sins without
> > the
> > "poison". Maybe the "poison" isn't the true toxin after all? Maybe
> > the
> > damage comes from another source? (Act like a scientist and look at
> > the
> > problem *objectively*, Nateman!)
>
> Your argument is weak here. First of all you didn't repute the idea that
> inconsistency is bad you merely showed a case of where consistency can
> have Ill effects. I could argue that consistency is a necessary but
> insufficient condition for achieving the good. I expected more from you
> Professor, shall we do this dance again?
If you believe fluoride in the drinking water is giving you impotence, how
would a doctor show that your assumption might be incorrect? She could
either have you stop drinking fluorinated water (six glasses a day,
remember!) or she could point out that other factors are more likely to be
at the root of the problem.
But if you'd rather be thirsty...
> > Defining "alive" becomes very important, doesn't it? And that
> > definition can't help but be subjective.
> Life: 1) A self replicating unit capable of passing information changes
> in its design to the next generation of replicating units. 2)Self
> replicating unit is still taking in and processing energy. 3) If unit is
> sterile then it is still considered alive if it was the product of 1)
> and is still using energy.
Would an automated factory that built automated factories be alive?
-Prof. Tim