Other than what's best for bottom-line corporate profit margins, this was proven false by, as a most consequential example, Boeing’s decision to keep its ill-fated 737 Max planes flying, regardless of indicators, including employee warnings, they should be grounded and serious software glitches corrected. — FrankGSterleJr

That. Or is just goes to show myopic oversights and quick, no-holds-barred, bum-rushed gains don't always constitute "what's best for bottom-line corporate profit". Especially in the long run. Someone up the chain of command might have gotten lazy, greedy, complacent, or a little of all three. That's what happens when the person knows no matter what happens his golden parachute will open.

Doubt it, otherwise we'd all be living in fear, as what is (not asked to 'live in fear' but rather to possess knowledge or 'fear of God'). I look at it all as more of a test to see who takes care of the business when the boss ain't looking, hence the importance of 'faith' which by definition couldn't exist with proof. But that's tired reasoning at this point to a skeptic so I'll give it a shot.

Just imagine. The vastness of the universe. Trillions of light years of rock, void, and various gases. With radar we can see Alpha Centauri, over 25 trillion miles away. In fact we can detect systems even further, such as MACS0647-JD, being over 13 billion light years away. And still, no signs of intelligent life. But let's look a bit closer at our own solar system. Eight (or nine if you're old school) heavenly bodies perfectly suspended by just enough gravity to stay in sync without either drifting too close to the sun or too far away into the void of space. Something to marvel at in it's own respect. But let's look even closer, on our planet. Intelligent life, with no rival or anything that even comes close. Plants have been here since the beginning, with reptiles not being far behind. Only mammals possess some inkling or resemblance of intelligence, but is exponentially dwarfed with our modern marvels and society (such as they can bring or be at times). Why don't we have other species, mammals even with societies that remotely resemble ours? Not detectable billions of light years away, nor right here at home. If this isn't at least a starting point for the case of intelligent design, I frankly don't know what is!

You have to have suffering or pain or whatever it is for some gain. Again, just because that is the reality, doesn't mean it is then automatically a good thing. That is what I am trying to decouple from what seems to be your presumption there. — schopenhauer1

I guess you could play a video game with all items unlocked, infinite health, ammo, etc. and still find some entertainment value from just going around and following the storyline. But would you really? I wouldn't call existence good or bad in comparison to some unknown construct made up on the spot just for sake of debate, it's simply "what is". What is your ideal reality you describe like exactly? No pain? I wouldn't be able to tell if I'm carrying too much or exposed to too much heat until my arms snap or flesh singes? Or would that just not happen and we'd all be supermen. Or just magically healed shortly after? If we're all super than technically no one would be. What about becoming trapped somewhere? Can we teleport out? Boredom? We'd all just be insanely fascinated by the slightest thing like a drop of water dripping from a faucet or some inllectual way like how paint drying actually is pretty interesting scientifically? How would this work?

"You need to suffer to not be bored" — schopenhauer1

You need to be able to suffer or otherwise have the possibility of failure, misfortune, or loss to have any sense of passion or life of purpose. Naturally we all work to avoid these things but after accepting their inevitability we learn to cope with them better when they do arise.

Why is gambling, playing a video game, skydiving, or riding a roller coaster exciting and not boring? Because each has a danger, some minor, some major, that invigorates us and is a departure from the normal routine.

Yes, but if we cannot know it as an object, as Wayfarer avers, then we cannot ever know it in the sense that we know the objects we can talk about. — Janus

Do we really know the objects we do talk about? Sure, basic things like Laws of Motion, chemical reactions (at least, what substances do what when introduced to others), other forms of easily observable reality (which have been found out to be wrong constantly ie. geocentricism), but just look at the animal kingdom. Or less advanced forms of our own like babies. The peek-a-boo game. If you cover your hands in front of your face, to the baby, you completely disappeared off the face of the Earth. We live in a world of infinite possibility. Those who doubt it are clearly stuck in their ways and blinded by their own ingrained beliefs. It's just how the mind works. Anything that challenges your ingrained beliefs ie. your sense of identity/who you are or one's understanding of reality is instantly ridiculed/laughed off. Cognitive dissonance 101.

Your answer is suggestive of some mysterious 'other' form of existence; which we can never know. — Janus

Technically, if there is some other form of 'existence', which we, understandably if not narrowly assign the life we live as what encompasses and consists of it, it wouldn't be 'never'. Just not now.

The problem is how is there a conscious experience at all? — Marchesk

By simply asking the question you answer it. What are we even talking about? Do you know? What are the arguments, what are yours? I understand it's how not if (or is it?). Neurons, man. It's just happening. It's exact nature should not be pinpointed. Otherwise we'll inevitably have Terminator: Rise of the Machines. Makes sense don't you know?

In ancient Greek enlightenment many thought that there is only one absolute and it's ideal logic, therefore the one God must be the god of logic. — magritte

in Ancient Greece women were not used for sexual pleasure, only procreation. Therefore the only way to enlightenment must be illegal relations with younger citizens. I would've (and wanted to) phrase this one logical comparison more bluntly or vulgarly but decided not to.

You could solve the problem by killing anybody that disagrees with you. — Restitutor

You could. But that would never happen. Even dogs (I know I remember reading this though I struggle to remember exactly what the source was, nor do I really wish to know) together in a cage after seeing each killed in front of them will have a sense of time/consciousness (past, present, future) and become aware of what will likely happen to them next. Ergo, if I see that. I'll listen to you. I'll agree with you. I'll participate. I'll even try to gain rank or position. Just don't turn your back. They always do though. Eventually. :grin:

In my view, procreation that leads to a life of mostly suffering is wrong, and procreation that leads to a life of mostly pleasure is right. — Down The Rabbit Hole

How could you know? Sure there are indicators but that's all they are. An alleged well-off child could be born with a debilitating defect or have an accident that will be with them their entire life. An alleged poor or unfortunate child can end up being a genius or win the lottery or something. You never know. Just Google "rich people born poor", for a few examples. It's rare, no doubt. But it happens.

Furthermore, why is "procreation that leads to a life of mostly pleasure" right? Is there some religious basis for this? A "soul" being rewarded with the pleasures of this world? If not, many would liken all of us, rich or poor, to little more than slightly-advanced animals living a meaningless existence of chasing shiny objects.

Regardless, who are you to "gamble" with a life, be it divine or animalistic. Just someone who can- simply because you can at that moment. What meaning is there at all from that standpoint?

I guess what people need to ask themselves is would you rather feel something than nothing at all? Would you rather have loved and lost than to have never loved at all? It's a fair shake, really. :grin:

Anything else, contrary to what many think, and you even say "[something unpleasant] is easily forgotten until one actually endures it", being able to get everything you want when you want it without possibility of failure, is one of the worst hells that can be experienced. There's no thrills or excitement, no fear of death or injury or failure sure, which of course means, no passion. It would quickly become difficult to distinguish one's own existence from that of a vegetable growing in a garden.

The less people you tick off the safer you'll be generally. If you could live in or visit a city where everyone gets along, where you can safely walk the streets at night and one that's the opposite, where would you rather expend your time, effort, and money? Why would you risk you and your families safety when you can just go somewhere else? Think TripAdvisor reviews for cities and places. Not so farfetched. Google autocomplete "is it safe to visit..." the more that comes up the less encouraging the place is to visit as is the chance of it to continue to thrive.

I'm reminded of a blank slate. It can be inscribed with words or pictography of either stunning beauty or resounding degeneracy. Because something can be turned into a weapon or tool for evil is it so intrinsically?

"... like a brick. You can build a house or you can sink a dead body."
- Lady Gaga

The author of the quote in question was from a time when there were just over a billion people in the world. Point being, due to the nature of finite resources, the quote may have lost some relevance over time. In short, we have a social contract that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and so, by sticking to this social construct, we ensure few are left behind. Compared to before said social construct was in place. Long story short even so, people would rather work together than work alone even if both paths produced identical fruits (which they don't).

"The only paradise is Paradise Lost."
- Marcel Proust

"[be aware of the possibility] ... the utopia you seek is actually a dystopia of the worst kind."
- Unknown

but unless you’re willing to somehow assert that it is right/wrong to be hypocritical, this doesn’t say anything interesting. You’ve successfully separated most actions into two groups, but aren’t able to say which group is good/bad. — Pinprick

I'm not willing. My point was if you would volunteer yourself to be strapped to a chair or otherwise in a controlled society and I do various things to you, you and anyone in such a position will quickly find out what's "good" and "bad".

While views on morality can be as diverse as the day is long, I hold that most views can be classified as either hypocritical or non-hypocritical 95% of the time.

Would you like someone to steal, injure, or otherwise destroy something of yours? Probably not. Now if you believe it would be OK to do so to an innocent other simply because they're from another place or hold a different system of beliefs, that's a hypocritical view of morality.

There are exceptions. Maybe you're a masochist or feel guilty for belongings you do have and don't mind being injured or robbed from. Seemingly it would appear I'm stating if that was the case you can do so without your view of morality being hypocritical.

We all have an inherent sense of pain and in a way right or wrong. What makes us happy, what makes us sad or angry. Most of the time. Save for psychopaths or sociopaths and other unique minds of that nature.

The story you bring up is interesting because even under a normal mindset and after applying empathy (ie. "what if I were that person?") many questions arise and circumstances and factors that may or may not have been mentioned in the story or exist in most peoples understanding of it. Example, what if you're thinking as the rich person. Maybe you struggled your whole life and been through hell to get it after applying yourself literally every waking moment and yourself planned to give it to the poor only using your knowledge to ensure they actually develop themselves and hold on to their money. Maybe the poor people in that story are poor because the were the worst of criminals responsible for inconceivable amounts of bloodshed and human misery. Maybe they're just drug addicts. Maybe Robin Hood was just looking for a tax write off. Or to be "that hero", which as you can see, we still talk about to this day. Maybe they were poor because they were misguided and if you just drop them money and leave without teaching them how to manage it properly, said monies will just get spent on drugs, hookers, or one-off experiences leaving them worse off than before. Or someone will just rob them. Maybe it just went to fund ISIS. Nobody knows. There's 1,000 questions to be asked even with some attempted "standard" of morality based on something reliably observable and intrinsic to us all.

I would [...] I will — TheQuestioner

Sounds pretty solid to me. :grin:

Most of each person's important choices and decisions are influenced by the drive to procreate sustain themselves, and to protect their offspring individual ideas of what the pinnacle of their combined or overall works, pains, and pleasures will (or should) amount to or ultimately leave behind. — TheQuestioner

FIFY?

Is there always a choice between being happy and being sad ? — healing-anger

Perhaps. Many schools of thought. Ignorance is bliss. Life is what you make of it. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Jesus saves lol. Take your pick really.

So how then China or India have far less prisoners than the US? — ssu

I've heard a few less than flattering stories that offer plenty explanation. Do I know if they're true? Nope. Not one to spread propaganda. Though it doesn't take much imagination bearing in mind commonly available knowledge.

Essentially people "know better". Take that as you please. All nations/peoples actively work to maintain their own cultures, customs, and norms. Some joke around that American culture is really just a lack of one. Not everyones a melting pot, basically. Less to disagree with/rebel against.

Hence Americans can be in amazement of other prison systems — ssu

Not really.

Norway population - 5 million (150k sq. mi.)

USA population - 350 million (3.8m sq. mi.)

That's 70x more in population with only 25x more space.

If I added 70 people to your household overnight do you think things would run as smoothly as they do now? How do you think things would be? The US hasn't had 5 million since before the 1800s. (or to be fair if i randomly added 2-3 people to your house based on the proportions)

domestic terrorist — ssu

Difference between a "domestic terrorist" and "foreign combatant" = raising your hand and saying whatever to a 10 second pledge (that really means nothing to pretty much any religion [the world is temporal and without everlasting meaning or consequence]). So. Yeah.

You're suggestion that the ease of fixing something with modern technology means restitution is infeasible suggests that you think that such restitution "isn't punishment enough". — Pfhorrest

Not at all. I'm saying if I'm broke and useless (as most violent criminals are) what use do I have. None whatsoever. All I could hope for is given time to think about what I've done and perhaps even the tools and resources to do so, again in a confined penal setting. Ok. Say I'm as I said and I steal some guys $5,000 Rolex and in the process shoot someone close to you who tries to defend you, killing them. I'm broke. You can't fine me. I mean, maybe some system or insurance will pay you back, maybe. But then what? You can't bring the person back to life. What good am I if I were to be some sort of servant to you? Aside from the thought of killing you every waking moment or whenever I could get away with it I'd probably just do an all around s***t job. So then what? I'm a useless, talentless criminal. Barely worth the weight I can lift/labor I can provide. Which, was my point, can be replaced by a machine with (at least) 50x efficiency and literally zero risk/cost minus a few cents (ok maybe slightly more today) an hour. Back to the original argument, assuming I'm an a**hole who couldn't care less if you or anyone other than me lives or dies, I don't care about pain. A 5 minute or even day long flogging or beating just makes me angrier and even more of a prick. I'll just take my lickings and learn to be more careful next time I rob, injure, or otherwise wrong someone. Which would probably be someone close to you at that point. Because I don't have time to actually think about what I've done, know how it hurts people (which granted a beating can emulate), and most importantly realize, wow, all this time that's been taken from my life, maybe whatever I stole or whoever I hurt or killed is missing that also. Just something to think about.

Or maybe Russia would rent us a couple of gulags in Siberia. — Bitter Crank

I dunno man, there's something strategic about freezing cold. Not only with generational knowledge can you learn to not only adapt but be comfortable, think about how the universe works. Heat powers everything. If you're alive, you're warm ie. produce heat. You can create heat, powerful, even painful, blistering heat with just two twigs. You can't "create" cold. Without modern chemicals rather their application (Freon, air conditioning, etc). Everyones talking about global warming, who knows, maybe those areas will remain the last habitable zones.

then those could then create a sub-sub banishment zone until they had finally separated out the worst person of all time. — Hanover

How or why would felons doing so separate the good from bad let alone the worst person of all time lol. If anything it would be the opposite.

just retribution — Pfhorrest

I didn't mean that, I meant in tandem with again a utopian idea of prison where the person has time, opportunity, and resources to reform, while realizing "oh I f***ed up", which often expands into two schools of thought: A.) let me not do that again or B.) let me not get caught so easily which both- usually involve some sort of discouragement of egregious (if not just blatant) behavior that is destructive to others.

No machine can bring a person back to life or restore peace of mind and faith in a given justice system. I'm speaking about "restitution" to avoid incarceration from a useless, broke criminal- it can't be done. The entire lifetimes of 50 of them can be replaced by a machine, hundreds, thousands even. All of them can actually. You can't "make someone pay you back" and have justice if they don't have anything to begin with, which is why some steal and/or murder (even not by original intent), often because of laziness or inability to do anything useful. And people who don't care about one another enough to steal or harm another obviously don't view pain or suffering as a deterrent. These are hardened criminals, some at least, I wouldn't even call them human, who would kill you, your mother, and who knows perhaps even theirs for a 50 dollar bill.

So we're back to my point as to why people who commit crimes have to be in jail. If they don't have anything worth anything to take, and they're effectively useless per modern innovation, what else can you do but lock them up? The answer is nothing. Nothing constitutional and that's just how it is.

but I think many criminals would prefer it — tim wood

Pain is part of life. It's something we all experience. To someone who views another person as low enough to steal from or injure, has more than likely already been through a significant amount of displeasure as is- ie. you're right. And that's the problem. People (most people and usually) have things because they worked for them. That took time. If you're broke and rob someone of a nice watch or something you're not taking "pleasure" from them per se, you're taking something much more valuable. Their time. Something they (again usually) worked hard for. You can't replace that with a five minute beating or "flogging" because that's what separates the criminal from the law-abider, the "good" person from the "bad" person- an ingrained and inherent lack of concern for pain and suffering, be it toward them or toward another. Naturally, pain hurts. So if a criminal would have the option to be in pain or not be, obviously they'd choose the latter. Anyone would. Selfish or not. But incarceration not only punishes the perpetrator but was supposed to (and I agree most of the time it does not) rehabilitate the person and/or give them time to "change their ways". Again, just watch prison survival videos. Someone decent enough, perhaps not perfect but with some sense of decency, goes in for getting a little too drunk and mistakenly (sometimes not even remembering) hurting someone again by accident- and leaves as a hardened criminal with almost no if any compassion or humanity left. If it weren't for that, as some people are really bad, not only does incarceration punish/rehabilitate it removes people who are a cancer to society from said society. It was supposed to rehabilitate, at least give them every chance and opportunity to, where they come out reformed, and not worse out then when they went it. It doesn't. A huge moral and financial hellhole.

My point about being broke, is that if someone steals and/or kills (rather, doesn't mind doing so to steal) they often have little to no money or talent. It's a crime of "necessity" be it by their own laziness or ineptitude or not. Perhaps they just spend whatever they stole on drugs/fun times/intangible goods. You can't "restitute" that today seeing as all they'd be good for is physical labor and you have machines that can do the work of 50 men at 2 cents an hour for current without any chance of hostility/subversion/laziness/purposely not working. So. That doesn't work.

drug-related crimes — The Questioning Bookworm

Sure, until some kid gets too high (I mean REALLY high and overlooks a traffic light or sign and ends up making a seemingly minor yet incredibly consequential driving or operating error resulting in injury to property or persons. Or even, quite literally smokes his whole life away. Wasted potential. Or someone takes a little too much coke and has a heart attack -- or thinks he is lol. Ambulances are expensive. Or takes too much mushrooms or LSD and thinks the lady next to him is a shape-shifting creature and punches her in the mouth. Or screams and runs, disturbing the peace at least.

non-violent robberies — The Questioning Bookworm

So just because a person isn't shot to death it's "non-violent" -- no the trauma can last a lifetime. Total withdrawal from society, PTSD, flashbacks, etc.

Etc, etc..

Edit: No I get the idea of a non-violent robbery, breaking and entering into an unoccupied residence (which is still pretty freaky) or even just swiping something when the person isn't looking. Fact is, people do these things and get away with it. If there weren't any punishment or penalty for it if caught, why would people especially a young and possibly misguided youth be discouraged from doing so? It's a chain reaction, snowball effect.

Fyodor Dostoevsky once said: "The degree of a civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." — The Questioning Bookworm

I don't disagree. What you're neglecting to keep in mind is some countries are not "free and open", as in.. some people don't make it to prison. And no, there is no social media and people pulling out phones to document it.

You can't just throw away the dream job and try and turn it into some ridiculous situation outside of any and all reality. I mean, really? What? Seriously? If they were dressed in work attire I fear the image you'd have to post to convey it- I'm sure it would be illegal in most countries and frankly rally PETA. By these standards.

I would rather dialogue with Christians though. — Gregory

You believe there is one "truth, way, and (the) life", and no one may reach God without these things, correct? As long as your savior is savior for the message and fulfillment of prophecy and not just owing to being a powerful, ethnically familiar figure- I'm sure we seek the same things at the end of the day.

I invert the roles of divinity and humanity (ego) and because of logical reasons put humanity on top of its ground (God) and say humanity can even transcend the goodness of divinity. — Gregory

Sort of like the Son defeating or otherwise assuming the role of the Father? Not so. See the story of Chronos. Or as some speak of him, having different names. Save for one. So the silly story goes, his lady friend/female consort replaced his child with "a rock" .. you'd think even a normal human would be able to differentiate the two. Must have been a pretty good replica. Which opens up the possibility of how some tell of how god(s) are not "allowed" to directly interfere with the (permitted and permissible) lives and actions of mortals (by their own pleas it's said- I mean just think about it. The human mind is I don't want to say fragile, just, when several things go wrong many have tantrums so- imagine something actually unexplained..) and so introduces the idea of (a) Medusae.

Imagine. People, perhaps some related to you, used to actually believe such tales. Heh, makes for great lore though that's for sure.

On what basis do you assume that the future state of entropy is a "return" to the past state and, therefore, that "activity" itself is not fundamental and needs to be "spurred"? — 180 Proof

Big bang theory, for one. First there was nothing, then there was something. "Heat death of the universe", etc. You'd be competing with a lot of brilliant minds to oppose that. Aside from that most if not literally every single thing in existence. Generators and engines need to be activated to produce power. Boulders need to be rolled or otherwise be uphill (potential energy) to turn into kinetic (active) energy. Without extreme heat steam turns back into water and without some form of heat energy it turns back into ice. Not fun to think about but apparently that would appear to be how it is.

So, entropy, in a way. The slow and inevitable process of what is in motion returning to a state of inactivity. Yet, what spurred the activity in the first place is just not even in the picture? Do you think that really makes sense to anyone?

Some seek new lands to share a gift they've been given, others do so to take what gifts were given. This is the only true divide between men and what actually defines nations. Though, they won't tell you that. #Atheism - because, why not right?

Then I think you should be fighting for a world unified under the same flag. — Daniel

Wise man, who's no longer with us (thank God- don't take that the wrong way) once said: "you can't make everybody happy".

large corporations, as though elected heads represent big money interests over those of the working citizenry. — FrankGSterleJr

This is the problem with society. Like children disobeying their parents because they have some sort of say over their actions and behaviors, completely neglecting the fact said authority were once children themselves and subject to the same level of authority. Yes, in modern Western countries you can work hard and said work, time, and effort counts for something. I don't see why that even needs to be explained or worse "apologized" for. I get the (one and sole) argument some may have that those who have reached the top or "pinnacle" of human success in this world seek to and do "lock down" opportunity for those outside to ever reach said spot, but in a democracy with laws, rules, and order- that gate is more of a hurdle or obstacle that builds character and resilience while increasing one's own talents as opposed to a solid wall or mountain that does the opposite. So they say anyway, eh? :grin:

Meaning is often weighed against observable and measurable (usually repeatable) real-world circumstance. If a bridge is measured to safely support a 5,000 pound weight- that's generally what it is. For obvious reasons.

If you place both bets on one game then your odds of winning are 0.2. If you place one bet on each game then your odds of winning are 0.19. — Michael

I was never any good at math. How does this work out exactly? In my mind, by playing the two games instead of one, someone or something just seems to magically lower the chance by .01 for no rhyme or reason.

Irrespective of one or more unusual and unlikely scenarios described in this thread, the average bloke can afford to toss away say $1 (or so) with the 1/10 chance of netting an additional $9. Why not right? That's how it gets enough to give away such large amounts in the first place. Of course, most lotteries offer far larger prizes.. granted at an extremely smaller chance of winning. And still, the tax or some profits (up to 40% I hear) go toward education and other universally beneficial causes. A win-win either way, no?

Do you agree they are different things? — tim wood

I agree people say things as both that are actually neither. I suppose it does come down to semantics doesn't it? What do you think?

So, not all "facts" are true yet all truths are actual facts? Or no? Or do some facts either by design or not exclude or dismiss larger more relevant truths then one may otherwise benefit from in a greater way?

Example: it's a fact taking something from someone is the quickest way to obtain something. However, a larger truth is that sometimes justice is served and may relinquish said object from you, hence, the truth being it is not the best way. As in, many people believe quicker is better, even if it's not as secure in longevity as other ways, and so, since many people believe quicker is better it can be said it is indeed a "fact" that quicker is better.