Political Discussions for "Adults"

OccultHawk · 04-17-2020, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

That is an entirely different question because corporate level ****s at BK are if not lizard people then functionally lizard people and I'll have their ****ing reptilian heads! A bunch of dumbasses who despite all available knowledge still somehow know not what they do are more infuriating than hate inducing. If they kill people I know with their dumbassery it will make me exponentially hate them more but they are still not vampires who seek their own betterment through my misery. There would still be a wide gulf between the two groups and murder would not be my go to response for them.

Just so I have this straight, Faulkner, your answer is yes for the top tier echelon and no for middle management?

The Batlord · 04-17-2020, 07:25 PM

We're not talking about middle management, you twit. We're talking about lower level randos who go out cause they're bored or too lazy to feed their kids PB&J's. Stupid people, yes, but not vampires.

WWWP · 04-17-2020, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Automated cars have to learn to evaluate and decide trolley problems.

The tools to measure is what makes the trolley problem so that’s right but merely an illustration isn’t right when they’re made all the time. Is it worth having plane crashes in order for aviation to exist? That’s a trolley problem.

But would that even be useful? Is it worth having plane crashes in order for aviation to exist? A trolley problem doesn't answer that question.

OccultHawk · 04-17-2020, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

We're not talking about middle management, you twit. We're talking about lower level randos who go out cause they're bored or too lazy to feed their kids PB&J's. Stupid people, yes, but not vampires.

Ok yeah. I mean I was changing the subject for a bit. So it’s a clear yes on the corporate elite then?

OccultHawk · 04-17-2020, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWWP

But would that even be useful? Is it worth having plane crashes in order for aviation to exist? A trolley problem doesn't answer that question.

On one track aviation and plane crashes exist on the other aviation and plane crashes do not exist. We solved, so to speak, this problem by allowing aviation to exist and therefore inevitable plane crashes.

Whatever it was with Boeing they decided the path where they didn’t pay however much for a safety feature instead of protecting the lives.

WWWP · 04-17-2020, 07:43 PM

The point of the whole thing is to illustrate an impossible choice. It is not relevant to a company decided that to skimp on materials in order to spend more in advertising.

OccultHawk · 04-17-2020, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWWP

The point of the whole thing is to illustrate an impossible choice. It is not relevant to a company decided that to skimp on materials in order to spend more in advertising.

If that’s all you can learn from it then fine.

WWWP · 04-17-2020, 07:45 PM

Lol. Ok.

The Batlord · 04-17-2020, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Ok yeah. I mean I was changing the subject for a bit. So it’s a clear yes on the corporate elite then?

I salivate at the thought of Jeff Bezos's throat between my nail filed teeth. Not simply for the class win but for the thought of his blood spilling down my throat as the ultimate sustenance.

Oh god I'm a vampire.

**Frownland** · 04-17-2020, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Trolley problem.

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means. What you're describing is cost-benefit analysis.