The Stab Case

Decide who should win this case and why:

Defendant: Mark
Other guy: Tristan

Tristan's claim: Mark was walking along with me and we were talking about his girlfriend who cheated on him. He was really mad, and I was making jokes, he joked that he would stab me, and then he did! In the arm with a pocketknife! I was just rushed off to the hospital. Shouldn't he get arressted for stabbing me?

Mark's claim: I was walking along with Tristan, really mad at my girlfriend for cheating on me, and I said "Okay, if you say that one more time, I swear TO GOD I WILL STAB YOU WITH THIS POCKETKNIFE!" Then Tristan deliberately said something about my girlfreind, and I stabbed him. It wasn't sharp, and he deserved it. He knew that I was going to stab him, but he didn't take me seriously. It's not my fault because I warned him before, when he had a chance to stop me or go away, and all he did was egg me on so I stabbed him. And I agree, it's not moral, but I wasn't stabbing to kill, and he asked me to do it.

Who should win this case and why?

Afraid of Planes?

Most people would say, if you asked them if they were more afraid of flying in a plane or driving in a car, would say flying in a plane. Maybe it's because they don't do this every day, or because it seems to be simply a more frightening thought. Plane: flying thousands of feet above the ground with no control over what is going to happen to you. You are in an extremely heavy plane, relying on propulsion, fuel, and a good pilot to get you to your destination. Car: You are sitting in a small, flimsy compartment, driving along with millions of other cars that you are extremely close to. You are in control of the car, but cannot control what other cars may do. Although car crashes are SO MUCH MORE FREQUENT than an occasional plane crash, people still respond "plane". My thought is that they are afraid that they do not have control. There is that word again. People like control. When you're in a plane, you have no control. You're sitting in a plane relying on someone else to take you thousands of miles across land and ocean whereas in a car, you are relying on yourself to take you wherever you need to go, even if it may include risking your life at a much higher scale. This relates to my last post. Does this mean that people find control more important than their own safety?

MUA HA HA HA POWER

It seems to me that our whole society revolves around power and who is better than who. It is shown in the animal kingdom as well. The fast, healthy bunny will survive, where as the slow sickly one will not. Though our human society has tried to change it, people seem to still be better than others and have more power. The whole concept of money revolves around this. Things have value, some things are better than others so they have more value. Someone always needs to have more than another. There needs to be a leader that has power over all and that is better than everyone. The entire human race believes they are better than any other race. They, or should I say we, believe we are smarter, more efficient, more powerful, and all controlling. We have taken over the world to take control. To have power. Better, Power, smarter, more efficient, controlling. These are all words that describe the way the human race is built up. Why do you think this is?

Immortality

This post was inspired by squabs's post. I was just thinking about immortality. Living forever sounds pretty great but really. Imagine that everyone you love dies and you are the only one still alive. All of your loved ones die and your the only one alive, knowing that it is useless to get attached because you know that in the end they will die too. When I was 7 I asked one of my friends if they could have any super power in the entire world what would it be and she answered I would live forever. At the time I didn't really realize how awful that would be. Living knowing that everyone that I loved will die and I will live forever... Just a thought :P

Can We touch Anything????

Though a strange thought, it is worth thinking about. The concept of touching. The dictionary definition is: to come close to an object as to be or come in contact with it. Are we coming in contact with it or is there something in between? Aren't there tiny molecules seperating us from it?If we come in contact, wouldn't we physically connect with that object? The dictionary definition simply states "an object". Does that mean that we are not able to touch humans? Or Air? What are your thoughts?

The Big Bang Theory

How do you think the Big Bang Theory exactly start?

The Value of a Life

When a person is killed purposefully, it is considered murder. However, when someone goes hunting, they kill many animals with the full knowledge 0f what they have done and the opinion that it is not murder. Why would people do that when they wouldn't to humans? Many say that animals like deer are overpopulated, but they aren't nearly overpopulated as us. What do you think about an animal's life versus a human's life?

Possible Immortality and the Implications

Scientist have been researching growing replacement organs for people, recently they've been able to replace a mans liver. This research could save many lives and could even eventually lead to almost complete immortality, and it might not be too far away, scientists believe that in the next 20 years they'll be able to create a replacement heart. At first this sounds like a wonderful thing, and it could very well be. However, how would immortality affect laws, populations, crime rates, and people's ethics? Should only certain people get immortality? Who would decide and how? And what would people be willing to do if they didn't fear dying?

Rene DesCartes Views Contrary to mine...or just a fancy title for my disagreements

Before I state my argument, let me just say that I am having the feeling that this is something I can't express in words. Okay. That didn't come out right. Have you ever had the feeling that you have this great idea and then when you write it down, or use words to tell somebody, it doesn't sound so great anymore? It's like the words that you chose changed your idea when you said/wrote them. (We could probably start a discussion about this after?) That's the way I feel about this idea. So, it might not sound great, or intelligent, or even SANE! But it was something in my mind...so here goes!

Rene DesCartes said that in order for him to have the idea of a perfect being, there had to be one.

Okay. There are many things wrong with that statement.

First, let me restate: In order for HIM to have the idea... He was only thinking about himself. What is "perfect" to him, might not be considered "perfect" for another person. So, with stating this idea, DesCartes had to take into account the possibilites of several different "perfect ideas" and "perfect beings".

Second: The view of having the idea of a perfect being largely depends on the idea that you, yourself, (the thinker) is imperfect! If you think of yourself as perfect, you are implying, in essence, that you are your own perfect being! Not everyone may believe that they are imperfect, another flaw (I believe).

Third: If there is a perfect being, why does it have to be God (here I capitalize for the same reason Mr. Sewell did)? Who said that the ONLY perfect being is God? This once again relies on the person. God might be the "perfect" being to some people, but to others, there is some other supreme being that overpowers him in all things perfection.


You might not agree with my posts, and if you don't (or do) please tell me! But please take into account what I said earlier, about words.

Some Ideas I had Branching Off Sophie's Post (A world of Color)

Okay, so Sophie said that there really is no color. Well that got me thinking, if one is blind, how would they perceive color? Even if they are told what color is like, how do you think they would imagine colors look like? Do you think we (humans) are born with understanding of color? And then if what Sophie’s post says is true, that there really is no color, than do you think that that would mean that the world would be in black and white, or nothing at all? What do you think?

All Philosophers Please Read

I post this as an entry so everyone reads it.  It is an addendum to my first comment under Sandra J. Polk III’s post, “A World of Color.”  Please read both her post and my comment; then either come back to read this or read the addendum below the first comment.  At times, I will need to clarify language so we’re basically on the same page.  Many times, posts or comments will raise the opportunity to address the whole class.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wanted to add and clarify my first comment.  First, the issue of the question, "So what?"  When I ask this question (as I may do more), I do not mean to be flippant at all – even though the question by itself seems to have that connotation; I don’t think it has to by the way. 

Instead, I ask the question honestly to elicit more questions and responses.  In effect, it is shortcut for, "So what follows from the observation/proposition/

assertion?"  Since I am a student of mathematics, science, philosophy, theology, history, and culture, I am intensely interested in where and how these disciplines intersect, and how to resolve conflicting (or even contradictory) propositions among those disciplines.

Some questions or responses that I can think of in response to the “So What?” question are: “Does the fact (if it is one) that color does not exist, and is a mere human perception due to the sun’s light, call into question the basic reliability of our senses and should we change our behavior because of it?  If so, how?” or “Do scientists believe this is an objective (independent of human existence) scientific truth, and if so, then why do they think some truths are objective, but others are not?  Is it only a matter of the strength of evidence or are underlying philosophical assumptions also at work?” or “Some philosophers and language academicians in literature think meaning is constructed by the interpreter of the text and not in the text itself, but if that’s the case, then what are the implications for a proposition like, “There is no such thing as color?”

Lastly, everyone cite your sources (usually a URL I would suspect).  Everyone would probably like to read the original articles from which ideas for posts come.

~Reasons