Whoopi Goldberg Moon Denier

[tom502]

I'm on the fence that we either did not go, could not go, but faked it to win in the cold war race to the moon, or, we did go, saw things there that would shatter our reality, and so faked the public footage, to keep people believing it's just a desolate ball of rock.

[sgreger1]

to keep people believing it's just a desolate ball of rock.

The problem is that it can be seen with the human eye using a walmart telescope. It just seems like if there were any activity it would be visible, and yet it is not visible, leading me to believe it is as desolate as it appears.

[NonServiam]

and Nonserviam wins the trophy for best, most plausable explaination. YAA!!

Ceiling cat agrees..

Lol! Occasionally I experience a moment of clarity. Actually, I heard something similar to that a long time ago, but I don't remember where. Might have been in a college philosophy class. Philosophy professors are always throwing out ideas at ya that while usually are pure rubbish, end up being just fun little things to think about that challenge your perception of reality.

[sgreger1]

Lol! Occasionally I experience a moment of clarity. Actually, I heard something similar to that a long time ago, but I don't remember where. Might have been in a college philosophy class. Philosophy professors are always throwing out ideas at ya that while usually are pure rubbish, end up being just fun little things to think about that challenge your perception of reality.

I think it's ample time for a complete and full thread derailment.


One classic scenario philosophy teachers like to throw out is this one, which path would you choose?

1)A man has a bomb rigged up to a building that is filled with thousands of people. The bomb would surely kill them and destroy the building. It is rigged to go off at a pre-determined time.
You know who the man is, and have him in your custody.

Would you torture him to obtain information about how to stop the bomb, or would torturing him make you just as criminal as him.

2) 300,000 people are going to die at the hands of one man. You know who this man is, do you kill him to stop the killing of 300,000 or is it just as bad ethicaly for you to kill him to prevent it? Kill to prevent killing? Is it worth

3) You have the option to kill 3 innocent men in order to save 300,000. If you do not kill the 3 men, the 300,000 will die. Do you kill the 3 men to save the 300,000, or is it equally as bad ot kill 3 as it is to kill 300,000?

The answer seems obvious in all of these questions, but as demonstrated on this forum and in philosophy classes around the nation, there are arguments for both sides.

[CoderGuy]

I'm on the fence that we either did not go, could not go, but faked it to win in the cold war race to the moon, or, we did go, saw things there that would shatter our reality, and so faked the public footage, to keep people believing it's just a desolate ball of rock.

I lean toward the latter... so does this guy http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/

Although I think some of his photo explanations are reaching a little, there are some that are hard to explain away. Plus he has links to the original NASA photos to show he hasn't manipulated them in any way.

Edit: mostly Mars stuff but he does have a Moon section.

[NonServiam]

I think it's ample time for a complete and full thread derailment.


One classic scenario philosophy teachers like to throw out is this one, which path would you choose?

1)A man has a bomb rigged up to a building that is filled with thousands of people. The bomb would surely kill them and destroy the building. It is rigged to go off at a pre-determined time.
You know who the man is, and have him in your custody.

Would you torture him to obtain information about how to stop the bomb, or would torturing him make you just as criminal as him.

2) 300,000 people are going to die at the hands of one man. You know who this man is, do you kill him to stop the killing of 300,000 or is it just as bad ethicaly for you to kill him to prevent it? Kill to prevent killing? Is it worth

3) You have the option to kill 3 innocent men in order to save 300,000. If you do not kill the 3 men, the 300,000 will die. Do you kill the 3 men to save the 300,000, or is it equally as bad ot kill 3 as it is to kill 300,000?

The answer seems obvious in all of these questions, but as demonstrated on this forum and in philosophy classes around the nation, there are arguments for both sides.

Yeah, I think the obvious answer is to kill. It's the lesser of two evils. You're committing murder to prevent the murder of a greater number. It's a sacrifice. You're murderous intent is based on an outcome for the better. His murderous intent is based on malice more than likely and is self-serving.

Of course, torturting the bombmaker is an easy one. Killing three innocent men to save 300,000 people? Hmmmm... well, depends how many of that 300,000 are innocent. You may even be able to convince the three innocent that their deaths will result in 300,000 being saved, and they will become martyrs.

Although, I've learned there are two words that can begin to answer any philosophical question: "That depends"

[lxskllr]

Easy answer. 300,000 fewer dumbasses to get in my way ;^)

[sgreger1]

Yeah, I think the obvious answer is to kill. It's the lesser of two evils. You're committing murder to prevent the murder of a greater number. It's a sacrifice. You're murderous intent is based on an outcome for the better. His murderous intent is based on malice more than likely and is self-serving.

Of course, torturting the bombmaker is an easy one. Killing three innocent men to save 300,000 people? Hmmmm... well, depends how many of that 300,000 are innocent. You may even be able to convince the three innocent that their deaths will result in 300,000 being saved, and they will become martyrs.

Although, I've learned there are two words that can begin to answer any philosophical question: "That depends"

But what if that man was killing 300,000 people because they are americans and America is the great evil who kills his people. What if he feels he is saving thousands of his own people by killing these ones. What is the difference, other than the scales involved, in killing 1 to save 100, especially when he may be killing 100 to save 1,000. Do either of you have the right to be judge/jury/executioner? Who's cause is more valid, and is killing for any reason ethical? If you kill one man to save 2, are you any more ethical than the man you are killing?




In the field one time I had this conversation with my fire support officer and it pissed the shit out of me because I was like "Are you joking sir, the answer is obviouse. Kill/torture the bastard". At which point he threw out a million rebuttals to why it may not be the moral thing to do and lots of "that depends" & "what if" statements lol.



It's unanswerable really, but I say torture them. I'll take the risk and let God sort it out when my time comes.

[tom502]

This is how the abortion doctor killers think.

[lxskllr]

:^D

Tom's on the ball :^)

[truthwolf1]

I lean toward the latter... so does this guy http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/

Although I think some of his photo explanations are reaching a little, there are some that are hard to explain away. Plus he has links to the original NASA photos to show he hasn't manipulated them in any way.

Edit: mostly Mars stuff but he does have a Moon section.

I do have to agree that there are very many oddities with the photographs. Used a hassleblad back before digital also.

[sgreger1]

This is how the abortion doctor killers think.

Ive been looking for a new career. I hear it is quite lucrative!

[NonServiam]

But what if that man was killing 300,000 people because they are americans and America is the great evil who kills his people. What if he feels he is saving thousands of his own people by killing these ones. What is the difference, other than the scales involved, in killing 1 to save 100, especially when he may be killing 100 to save 1,000. Do either of you have the right to be judge/jury/executioner? Who's cause is more valid, and is killing for any reason ethical? If you kill one man to save 2, are you any more ethical than the man you are killing?




In the field one time I had this conversation with my fire support officer and it pissed the shit out of me because I was like "Are you joking sir, the answer is obviouse. Kill/torture the bastard". At which point he threw out a million rebuttals to why it may not be the moral thing to do and lots of "that depends" & "what if" statements lol.



It's unanswerable really, but I say torture them. I'll take the risk and let God sort it out when my time comes.

Eye of the beholder I suppose. If he feels his murders are justified and are the means to a positive end, then more power to him, but he may find himself picking his brains off his patent leather shoes as another man will feel the murder he is about to commit is also justified. Vicious circle in a way given the circumstances of a murder(s) fueled by ideologies.

It's a matter of who is quicker on the trigger and whose aim is true. May the best man win.

[justintempler]

I think it's ample time for a complete and full thread derailment.


One classic scenario philosophy teachers like to throw out is this one, which path would you choose?

1)A man has a bomb rigged up to a building that is filled with thousands of people. The bomb would surely kill them and destroy the building. It is rigged to go off at a pre-determined time.
You know who the man is, and have him in your custody.

Would you torture him to obtain information about how to stop the bomb, or would torturing him make you just as criminal as him.

2) 300,000 people are going to die at the hands of one man. You know who this man is, do you kill him to stop the killing of 300,000 or is it just as bad ethicaly for you to kill him to prevent it? Kill to prevent killing? Is it worth

3) You have the option to kill 3 innocent men in order to save 300,000. If you do not kill the 3 men, the 300,000 will die. Do you kill the 3 men to save the 300,000, or is it equally as bad ot kill 3 as it is to kill 300,000?

The answer seems obvious in all of these questions, but as demonstrated on this forum and in philosophy classes around the nation, there are arguments for both sides.

2 is the only one where killing the man is justified and obvious.

The problem with scenario 1 is that you think by torturing your suspect he is going to give you any information to stop the bombing.

Scenario 3... what if the threat of killing 300,00 people is just a ruse to see if he can get you to kill 3 innocent men. What guarantee do you have that killing 3 innocent men will save the 300,000. What if the sick bastard gets enjoyment of watching you kill 3 innocent people and then kills the 300,000 anyway.

[sgreger1]

2 is the only one where killing the man is justified and obvious.

The problem with scenario 1 is that you think by torturing your suspect he is going to give you any information to stop the bombing.

Scenario 3... what if the threat of killing 300,00 people is just a ruse to see if he can get you to kill 3 innocent men. What guarantee do you have that killing 3 innocent men will save the 300,000. What if the sick bastard gets enjoyment of watching you kill 3 innocent people and then kills the 300,000 anyway.

All of these scenarios are based on pre-established absolutes and do not leave room for variables. I.e., it is assumed that by torturing him you will get the information. The question is whether it's worth it or not to do that to another human being, or does it make you the bad guy. Same with # 3, it is assumed that killing the 3 will in fact save the others. It's not a question of the judging the risk/benefit of the outcome, it's about the moral dilema of the decision.