who...

[Brahman]

answer the question before you click.

If a man goes into the forest and pokes a bear with a sharp stick, and the bear kills the man, whose fault is it? (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/09/philosophical_q.html)

[Brahman]

QUIT READING THIS THREAD TILL YOU HAVE READ THE DAMN LINK !

:P

[Brahman]

now my opinion...

i don't really think its all that compareable, but everything political he posts tends to be ment to make you think, if only for a moment, in a different way.

deffinitally made me LOL though :)

[Zaxlothon]

Originally posted by Brahman@Sep 27 2006, 03:47 AM
now my opinion...

i don't really think its all that compareable, but everything political he posts tends to be ment to make you think, if only for a moment, in a different way.

deffinitally made me LOL though :)
Islamofacists are murderous monsters who kill over verbal insults, cartoons and well, I was going to put a list, but there isn't room. They live to kill. A palestinian militant said it best when he said "America loves freedom, but we love death".

The comparison is just the opposite. The US is the sleeping giant that was awakened to find 3,000 dead and a large portion of the middle east celebrating and passing out candy.

[Xislaben]

Originally posted by Brahman@Sep 27 2006, 03:43 AM
If a man goes into the forest and pokes a bear with a sharp stick, and the bear kills the man, whose fault is it?
When did a bear become a who?

Then in what passes for a sophomoric attempt at profundity our humble narrator changes the question by asking you to substitute an irrational human being for the bear. All human being are irrational to some degree, the question is quite different as base assumptions about a person of 'any given religion' will differ from base assumptions of say a bear, anthropomorphized or otherwise, in a forest.

The problem is, it's not people who are running around the woods poking bears that are being killed for their poking, it's mostly people who have never even seen a bear, let alone offended one with stick-poking, who are getting killed by the bears.

This does make me think, it makes me think Adams is less and less worth reading.

[Brahman]

yeah, if you can't take a hypothetical question for what it is. just ment to make you think a bit.

even if it is just "thats rediculous, because..."

it does exactly what its suppose to do, it makes you consider from a differnet perspective, even if only long enough to realize that perspective is stupid.

[daephyx]

Originally posted by Brahman@Sep 26 2006, 10:33 PM
yeah, if you can't take a hypothetical question for what it is. just ment to make you think a bit.

even if it is just "thats rediculous, because..."

it does exactly what its suppose to do, it makes you consider from a differnet perspective, even if only long enough to realize that perspective is stupid.
Come on, don't be naive. It isn't "just a hypothetical question to make you think, man <toke> <toke>" - it has a clear agenda. The problem is he somehow expects us to equate a man poking a bear in the woods with a stick to a complicated war between disparate ideologies and religious beliefs. Let us know if Hagar the Horrible weighs in on the subject.

[Brahman]

i respectfully dissagree.

having read far more of his comments on the subject, while indeed his comments usually lean one way, i don't think he actually thinks his analogy is even remotly acurate.

[Brahman]

Answer to the Philosophical Question of the Day

In a prior post I asked who is at fault if a guy pokes a bear with a stick and the bear kills him. Then I sweetened the pot by supposing the bear was actually an irrational guy whose religion says you need to kill people that poke you with a stick.

And then the fun began.

I haven’t read every comment to that post, but all of the ones I saw could be sorted into two categories:

1. Humorous
2. Wrong

Those of you who said we should blame the stick or the maker of the stick get bonus points for both humor and comprehension of analogies. Nicely done.

I’ll also give partial credit to people who needed more information before making a decision: What constitutes irrational? Why the hell would a guy be poking a bear? I applaud the desire to have all the information before making a decision, but in this case you already had it and didn’t realize it.

The correct answer, and the one that no one offered as far as I could tell, is that it was no ones fault. Not the guy with the stick, not the bear, and not the irrational religious guy. Each creature acted according to its nature and its programming, as all moist robots must.

We don’t need to know if the guy with the stick is irrational or not. He’s a moist robot. He does what his environment and his brain chemistry mandate him to do. In this case, he has irresistible bear-poking tendencies. End of story. He has the illusion of free will, as all moist robots including you and I do. But in the end, he must poke, you must incorrectly attribute fault, and I must mock you for it.

The bear is a furry moist robot. You poke him, he mauls you. It’s that simple. The bear’s brain isn’t equipped for free will. Neither is yours or mine.

The irrational religious guy is another moist robot, and probably furry too, but that’s just a guess. He’s simply programmed with more harmful code than other moist robots. That’s not his fault any more than it’s the lawnmower’s fault for running out of gas.

“Fault” is a perception. It’s not an objective quality of any person, creature, place, or thing. The concept of “fault” comes in mighty handy for organizing society and for reducing guilt. I like thinking that the people rotting in jail are at “fault.” It makes me feel better. Society needs to protect itself from the more harmful moist robots, and the concept of “fault” is useful for doing that. I have no problem treating domestic criminals as faulty and punishing them as such.

The problem with the “fault” concept is apparent when you apply it to world affairs, where you can’t lock up the people at fault. (With rare exceptions such as Saddam.) When nations have differences, they’re pretty much forced to work out their problems, or die trying. But as soon as you buy into the irrational notion of “fault,” you surrender your flexibility and thus your hope of success. No leader can compromise with an enemy he has labeled as the one at fault.

You NEED the concept of fault when you’re dealing with domestic criminals. It makes everyone including the criminals buy into the whole justice system. But when you’re dealing with problems between nations, as soon as both sides assign the “fault” to the other, no solution is possible, since both sides believe they are fighting for what is right against an enemy who is at fault.

Many of you interpreted my bear-poking question as a clever way to blame the Pope for stirring up trouble with Muslims. As a humorist, I blame him because it’s funny. But on a rational level, I know he’s just a moist robot with an excellent hat.

And the Muslims who are burning churches because of the Pope’s comment are moist robots with beards.

I know that many of you will argue that in some cases it is “obvious” who is at fault. That would certainly be true if free will existed anywhere but in your superstitions.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert...r_to_the_p.html (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/09/answer_to_the_p.html)

as always, it makes me laugh, and its an interesting point of view, even if its one i don't agree with.

[Xebitikz]

Smells like shit.

[Sarnath Creed]

Imagine being a bear. Sitting in the woods minding your own business. What are you going to do today? Are you going to go look for some food in the woods? Are you going to go take a nap? Go for a walk?

Hey look, a human. Should I go eat him? Nah. I'll just sit here and ponder the meaning of my creation.

OUCH! Wtf did he poke me for? @$$hat. I am gonna eat him now for damn sure.

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

Take it from the bear's point of view, and you'll notice that its in perfect reason to kill a person that just stabbed you with a spear. You stab me, I eat you.

Practical Real Life Application: WARNING - SOME MIGHT FIND THIS DIS-TASTEFUL.


Now at the same time. If your a stingray swimming through the ocean, and some big swimming thing comes down on top of you, do you spear it in defence of your life? or let the "brave" mamal film you being annoyed.

[Zandramadass]

Two words...

COMMON SENSE

From a personal observation i'd say its seriously lacking in the majority of the population of the planet, and is behind nearly every problem big or small in the world.

[BlackHeart]

I don't believe either the bear or the man with the stick is at fault.

The bear is reacting to a percieved attack. Actually, it wasn't an attack but just some guy annoying him but being a bear he thinks pretty much everything is an attack that annoys him.

The guy with the stick is not at fault either. He obviously doesn't know any better or he wouldn't be walking around in the forest with a stick looking for a bear to poke.

I blame the parents of both the bear and the guy with the stick. The bears parents, because they didn't teach him that stick poking is just gettting poked with a stick and not really an attack, it's just annoying.

The stick-poking man's parents are to blame as well because they didn't teach him that poking things with sticks is not acceptable behavior.

=)

[Nadori]

Originally posted by BlackHeart@Sep 28 2006, 08:13 AM
I don't believe either the bear or the man with the stick is at fault.

The bear is reacting to a percieved attack. Actually, it wasn't an attack but just some guy annoying him but being a bear he thinks pretty much everything is an attack that annoys him.

The guy with the stick is not at fault either. He obviously doesn't know any better or he wouldn't be walking around in the forest with a stick looking for a bear to poke.

I blame the parents of both the bear and the guy with the stick. The bears parents, because they didn't teach him that stick poking is just gettting poked with a stick and not really an attack, it's just annoying.

The stick-poking man's parents are to blame as well because they didn't teach him that poking things with sticks is not acceptable behavior.

=)
That made me LOL irl

[Rijak]

A family of bears is living happily in the forest when a family of humans shows up and builds a house nearby.

The humans cut down a bunch of trees to build their house, raize a few acres of land to build their farm, dig a well for drinking water, tap into the local stream for irrigation, and hunt small animals in the rest of the forest to put some meat on the table.

Around this time, things aren't going so well for the bears. They aren't being hunted, but the forest is getting smaller and food and drink more scarce. Papa Bear decides it's time to strike back, so he sneaks up to the farm one night with the intention of scaring off the humans. His growling wakes up the farmer who grabs his shotgun and kills Papa Bear.

The farmers wonder what possibly could have made the bear so aggressive. They figure it must be rabbies. So the next day, the family puts together a hunting party to eliminate these dangerous bears. They proceed to kill all the adult males, leaving the females and cubs.

The next year, most of these cubs have grown to be adults and the situation isn't any better. In fact, it's worse. They decide it's time to end this human menace once and for all. They invade the farm one night, killing all the humans inside, men, women, even children.

Whose fault is it?

[Rdarkwill]

Whose fault is it?
Eve.
Everything that is wrong with the world can be traced back to a single woman.

[BlackHeart]

Whose fault is it?

Eve.
Everything that is wrong with the world can be traced back to a single woman.


Adam actually is at fault.

See, God and Adam talked everyday before Eve was made. One day Adam said, "God, you're great and all that, but I still feel lonely sometimes being the only human."

God said, "Hmmm... well how about if I make you a companion?"

"Awesome!" Adam replies.

God says, "Ok.. I will call your companion a woman. She will cook for you, she will clean up your messes, she will support you and help you through hard times. She will be a comfort to you and keep you warm in winter. She will bare you children and work with you side by side in everything you do."

Adam replies, "Wow! That sounds perfect! When can you do this God?"

God says, "Oh... I am God. I can do it in an instant. But, nothing is free and to have this perfect woman you must pay the price."

Adam asks, "I'd be willing to pay almost anything for a companion like that! What is the price?"

God answers, "Merely an arm, a leg, an ear, one quarter of your brain, and a rib."

Adam taps his foot on the ground in deep thought then answers, "Well.. what can I get for just the rib?"

[Aegrusnecrox]

I think the rest of us are thinking:

Who gives a flying fuck what the man did to the bear or vice versa?

You could be out studying Quantum Mechanics or composing plays of Shakespearean quality, but no you are pondering over a completely hypothetical situation which A.) has no effect on reality what so ever; and B.) is pretty much the most retarded thing that has ever been cooked up in the history of humanity.

Go read a book or something, stop this senseless mental masturbation and do something productive (like playing EQ).

-Egg

[najiwench]

Originally posted by Aegrusnecrox@Sep 28 2006, 07:40 PM
I think the rest of us are thinking:

Who gives a flying fuck what the man did to the bear or vice versa?

You could be out studying Quantum Mechanics or composing plays of Shakespearean quality, but no you are pondering over a completely hypothetical situation which A.) has no effect on reality what so ever; and B.) is pretty much the most retarded thing that has ever been cooked up in the history of humanity.

Go read a book or something, stop this senseless mental masturbation and do something productive (like playing EQ).

-Egg
somebody needs a nap

[Zandramadass]

One evening last week, my girlfriend and I were getting into bed.
Well, the passion starts to heat up, and she eventually says, "I don't feel like it, I just want you to hold me."

I said, "WHAT??!! What was that?!"

So she says the words that every boyfriend on the planet dreads to hear...

"You're just not in touch with my emotional needs as a woman enough for me to satisfy your physical needs as a man."

She responded to my puzzled look by saying, "Can't you just love me for who I am and not what I do for you in the bedroom?"

Realizing that nothing was going to happen that night, I went to sleep.

The very next day I opted to take the day off of work to spend time with her. We went out to a nice lunch and then went shopping at a big, big unnamed department store. I walked around with her while she tried on several different very expensive outfits. She couldn't decide which one to take, so I told her we'd just buy them all. She wanted new shoes to compliment her new clothes, so I said, "Lets get a pair for each outfit."

We went on to the jewelry department where she picked out a pair of diamond earrings. Let me tell you... she was so excited. She must have thought I was one wave short of a shipwreck. I started to think she was testing me because she asked for a tennis bracelet when she doesn't even know how to play tennis.

I think I threw her for a loop when I said, "That's fine, honey." She was almost nearing sexual satisfaction from all of the excitement. Smiling with excited anticipation, she finally said, "I think this is all dear, let's go to the cashier."

I could hardly contain myself when I blurted out, "No honey, I don't feel like it."

Her face just went completely blank as her jaw dropped with a baffled, "WHAT?"

I then said, "Honey! I just want you to HOLD this stuff for a while. You're just not in touch with my financial needs as a man enough for me to satisfy your shopping needs as a woman."

And just when she had this look like she was going to kill me, I added, "Why can't you just love me for who I am and not for the things I buy you?"

Apparently I'm not having sex tonight either....but at least that bitch knows I'm smarter than her.

[Xislaben]

Wow, that's like up there with:

http://www.plig.net/things/pictures/evil-women.jpg

[BlackHeart]

Some of you young guys, here is some advice. I'm older than most of you and probably old enough to be some of your fathers. Below is a list of everything I know about woman in my many many years of dealing with them...


.
.



.
























































...

[Zandramadass]

BTW my last post was a joke not something I actually did, tho to be honest i'd be tempted to do it if I was stupid enough to date a gal like that.

[Rijak]

Originally posted by Zandramadass@Sep 29 2006, 10:06 AM
BTW my last post was a joke not something I actually did, tho to be honest i'd be tempted to do it if I was stupid enough to date a gal like that.
I figured as much. No guy refuses sex, even to prove a point. ;)

[Lylith]

Originally posted by Xislaben@Sep 27 2006, 06:01 AM
[QUOTE=Brahman,Sep 27 2006, 03:43 AM] When did a bear become a who?

Then in what passes for a sophomoric attempt at profundity our humble narrator changes the question by asking you to substitute an irrational human being for the bear. All human being are irrational to some degree, the question is quite different as base assumptions about a person of 'any given religion' will differ from base assumptions of say a bear, anthropomorphized or otherwise, in a forest.

The problem is, it's not people who are running around the woods poking bears that are being killed for their poking, it's mostly people who have never even seen a bear, let alone offended one with stick-poking, who are getting killed by the bears.

This does make me think, it makes me think Adams is less and less worth reading.
I agree in the sense a bear is an animal and not capable of higher thought. Scott Adams and again proven himself an idiot and loves to show it to the world. Geez.

Term I heard about last week on radio - useful idiots. I hadn't heard it in years. Scott Adams is one of them.

[Rijak]

The point isn't whether it's a bear or a human. It's the "rational" human being's lack of perception about what his actions might bring about. He should have known better.

A bear, or irrational human being, isn't capable of higher thought. The rest of us, supposedly, are, though I have my doubts at times.

[Brahman]

i find it humorous that almost everyone agrees this means scott adams is a retard and yet you all can't even agree with why his analogy is so wrong.

I would say its perfect for exactly what he ment it to do, bringing about discussion of the topic.

[BlackHeart]

scott adams is a retard

Be careful about insulting the retards of the world.. k?

[Lylith]

Originally posted by Rijak@Sep 30 2006, 09:24 PM
The point isn't whether it's a bear or a human. It's the "rational" human being's lack of perception about what his actions might bring about. He should have known better.

A bear, or irrational human being, isn't capable of higher thought. The rest of us, supposedly, are, though I have my doubts at times.
Don't forget the term 'irrational' is extermely subjective (and it creates inherent bias to the reader). What 1 person sees as 'irrational'act, another will see as righteous or a measured response. People react in different ways to stimuli, be it a bear, apple or space alien. Social mores only control in part what a person will do, it is their free will to determine if/how they will act or not. Lack of perception or forethought of the bear's responses by the human is not important if you are going to randomly change the senario to suit a specific purpose/response.

Also for subsituting bear for human, that is not a logical jump. If it was, then we'd be doing tricks at the circus while bears watched us. Overall, his (Scott Adams) comments (IMO) are silly to the extreme.

[Rijak]

Originally posted by Lylith+Oct 4 2006, 11:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lylith @ Oct 4 2006, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Rijak@Sep 30 2006, 09:24 PM
The point isn't whether it's a bear or a human. It's the "rational" human being's lack of perception about what his actions might bring about. He should have known better.

A bear, or irrational human being, isn't capable of higher thought. The rest of us, supposedly, are, though I have my doubts at times.
Don't forget the term 'irrational' is extermely subjective (and it creates inherent bias to the reader). What 1 person sees as 'irrational'act, another will see as righteous or a measured response. People react in different ways to stimuli, be it a bear, apple or space alien. Social mores only control in part what a person will do, it is their free will to determine if/how they will act or not. Lack of perception or forethought of the bear's responses by the human is not important if you are going to randomly change the senario to suit a specific purpose/response.

Also for subsituting bear for human, that is not a logical jump. If it was, then we'd be doing tricks at the circus while bears watched us. Overall, his (Scott Adams) comments (IMO) are silly to the extreme.[/b][/quote]
I agree. Everything is relative. Good, evil, rational, irrational, etc. And humans still have a lot of the animal instinct that comes from our ancestory. We are not completely rational, by any measure. Just as a bear is not completely irrational.

But the obvious analogy is the US vs. Muslim terrorists, and it does work to an extent because many of our problems have to do with the fact that we do not understand our adversary's point of view and motivations. We think it's simply about religion, or a few crazy leaders, but it is not.

There's blame to be found on both sides, but much of the current situation has it's sources in being thoughtless in past, and current, actions.

The important thing to take away from it is that things happen for a reason, and if you use some foresight as to the consequences to your actions (i.e. our decades of support for authoritarian regimes in the middle east) you won't get bitten quite so often.

The other important thing to remember is that spending your time placing fault gets you nowhere. Better to spend it looking for solutions.

[Nizerns]

Wait a sec, United States the sleeping Gaint... Not a chance.

We've been screwing around with the middle east since the 1970s.

We installed dictators and propped up friendly regimes even though the people hated them.

innocence have been dying in the middle east because of our positions for almost 1/3 of century.

We might want to sweep all of it under the rug but we shouldn't

[Lylith]

Originally posted by Rijak@Oct 4 2006, 05:32 PM
[QUOTE=Rijak,Sep 30 2006, 09:24 PM] I agree. Everything is relative. Good, evil, rational, irrational, etc. And humans still have a lot of the animal instinct that comes from our ancestory. We are not completely rational, by any measure. Just as a bear is not completely irrational.

But the obvious analogy is the US vs. Muslim terrorists, and it does work to an extent because many of our problems have to do with the fact that we do not understand our adversary's point of view and motivations. We think it's simply about religion, or a few crazy leaders, but it is not.

There's blame to be found on both sides, but much of the current situation has it's sources in being thoughtless in past, and current, actions.

The important thing to take away from it is that things happen for a reason, and if you use some foresight as to the consequences to your actions (i.e. our decades of support for authoritarian regimes in the middle east) you won't get bitten quite so often.

The other important thing to remember is that spending your time placing fault gets you nowhere. Better to spend it looking for solutions.
Ah, see. I agree completely with the idea of context. Actions do not occur in a vacumm and you cannot judge past actions by today's standards. It's direspectful to those who lived through it. But, when it comes to questions of ethics or morality, it's hard to understand brutality and killings (despite the random wacko on spree killings.)

Some dweb posted at another web site about how early Christians sacrificed humans to God... um, no.... that was Old Testament stuff. Those are the people I think need to really examine history a bit closer and objectively. Willful ignorance is what is troubling. To further their agrument, people will pick and choose what to devulge vereses real truth or known historical fact. i'd put Scott Adams into that group now too. Sad state of affairs imo.

[Utumaelen]

If Utu eats some bubble gum then spits it out when hes done, whos fault is it? utumaelens for getting tired of the bubblegum flavor , or the bubblegums for going stale ?



Answer before you continue.











Now say the bubblegum was a 19 yr old blonde chick.

Discuss B)

[Xislaben]

Originally posted by Utumaelen@Nov 14 2006, 08:20 PM
If Utu eats some bubble gum then spits it out when hes done, whos fault is it? utumaelens for getting tired of the bubblegum flavor , or the bubblegums for going stale ?

Answer before you continue.

Now say the bubblegum was a 19 yr old blonde chick.

Discuss B)
Why blonde and not red head?

[Utumaelen]

Cause I dont like Strawberry flavored gum :D


And say the gum was engineered to become stale quickly, thus making you want to exchange it for a new piece.