A Moral Compass for Martians

Bill White · 2002-10-02 17:44:16

For example, if a woman felt that her relationship with her husband was "strained and in need of improvement" then she could use the following procedures.

I find that roses and a back massage works wonders.

And, I don't need no stinkin' charts. . .

Phobos · 2002-10-02 17:52:22

2. That any degree of totalitarian control is exactly the same as the American system because... wait for it... we have laws. Yep. We've got laws against drunk driving, he wants mandatory birth control; it's all the same, right?

Yep, and don't forget that we may freely trample free speech and kill freedom of political expression because it's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded building. Apparently some people don't distinguish between fraud which is a malevolent act against an individual or an organization and the right to merely express one's opinions.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-02 18:14:40

Scotty-boy;

For example, if a woman felt that her relationship with her husband was "strained and in need of improvement" then she could use the following procedures. First, she would, from day to day, record and chart (1) the number of positive verbal contacts (PVCs) that she initiates with her husband, (2) the number of negative verbal contacts (NVCs) that she initiates with him, (3) the number of PVCs that he initiates with her, and (4) the number of NVCs that he initiates with her.

Soon to replace candlelight dinners as the world's favorite type of romance, I'm sure.

Do you really want Martians to spend all their time diddling their psychology?

AltToWar · 2002-10-02 19:19:53

Clark:
Here is an example of a cultural practice might be included in a SDP. Under the topic of "Marital Relations," there might be a specification for improving a person's relationship with his or her spouse.
For example, if a woman felt that her relationship with her husband was "strained and in need of improvement" then she could use the following procedures. First, she would, from day to day, record and chart (1) the number of positive verbal contacts (PVCs) that she initiates with her husband, (2) the number of negative verbal contacts (NVCs) that she initiates with him, (3) the number of PVCs that he initiates with her, and (4) the number of NVCs that he initiates with her. After recording and charting these "baseline" measurements, she undertakes to increase the number of PVCs that she initiates and to decrease the number of NVCs that she initiates. She records her efforts and she continues to record the number of PVCs and NVCs that her husband initiates. As the number of PVCs that she initiates go up, and as the number of NVCs that she initiates go down, she will probably start to see a corresponding change in her husband's behavior. And then they will live happily ever after.
This is an example of a behavior modification program that is actually used at Comunidad de los Horcones. The members of the community all expect to be involved in these kinds of programs. Conducting these sorts of behavior modification programs is an integral part of their culture. However, a visiting anthropologist can find this a bit unnerving at first.
Scott
P.S. The Los Horconans use up lots of chart paper.

Or, they could just break up and get on with living their lives.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-02 19:35:57

Scotty-boy;
Do you really want Martians to spend all their time diddling their psychology?

No. But I do want Martians to be aware of the power that their cultures have to shape their behavior. Martians should be taught how to control of the evolution of their cultures.

Scott

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-03 02:03:06

So let's sink lots of man-hours into charts of "PVCs" and inventing and practicing arcane rituals.

I admire your keenly practical mind.

clark · 2002-10-03 06:44:30

Well, if it isn't my good friend A.J.! How have you been, we haven't talked in ages.

So I'm up to my usual tricks and subterfuge, eh? I guess everyone should consider themselves lucky that you so grasiously take the time to cast such meaningless assertions regarding the legitmacy of some of my views. I for one would love to hear about my fallacy in logic, that seems oh so apparent to you. Where have *I* reduced an argument to extremes? Where have I used circular logic? Cast dispersions all you like, it may even convince some of the less brighter bulbs in the group, but I'll wait for some indication that your opinon is meaningful in anyway.

I'm sorry I quote you, I realize that you consider this to be some type of cardinal sin, but i find that it enables us to understand what I am replying to, especially when there are several posts between us.

1. That no matter how undesirable something proposed is, no one is ever allowed to object if there are "details" left out.

Oh, quite the contrary, In fact, I agree with you AJ, vaugness can be a legitimate reason to object or even disagree with an idea. However, no one here was faulting Scott or the idea he proposed as such. Instead, others used the vaugness to apply their own interpretation of what some of the content could be interpreted as supporting- it was the others who engaged in the "sophistry", not I, and then faulted Scott for suggesting an idea that they developed into one specfic extreme.

2. That any degree of totalitarian control is exactly the same as the American system because... wait for it... we have laws. Yep. We've got laws against drunk driving, he wants mandatory birth control; it's all the same, right?

But totalitarian control is the same, irregardless of government type. How the totalitarian control is implemented, what checks and balances exsist to ensure equality, and how laws are decided, or even what punishments are associated with crimes all differ- in implementation.

Totalitarian control is a system whereby obdience to the State is mandatory. Again, I'll ask you and anyone else, do you think that you do not have to follow any laws within the country you live? What happens if you don't pay taxes from your income? Are you free to pick and choose which laws you will abide by, and which you will not and have no fear of being persecuted as a criminal?

As for the whole issue of mandatory birth control, this isn't exactly something I support. However, in terms of neccessity, it may be a requirement for space colonies, or mars colonies. This reasoning is based on the environmental conditions imposed by living in space, not becuase I personally believe this to be "good". Have I suggested mandatory birth control for earth? No, and nor will I becuase there is no legitimate rationale at this time to support that conclusion. I would willingly reappraise anything I have expressed in regards to development on mars if someone can show me how my reasoning is flawed... But I don't expect that since I have done more to sway others to the legitmacy of my reasoning.

Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness. these are things any culture should hold sacred. If they are not, then we are taking a step backwards, not forward.

Who is "we"? Americans? Humans? Isn't a black and white expectation of what should be held sacred, a step backwards? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are notable goals, I agree, but how can we legitimately expect everyone to agree?

This is an example of a behavior modification program that is actually used at Comunidad de los Horcones.

Thank you for that explanation, it provides greater clarity. While others jest, I can at lerast see the practical use of this system. Still, I would like to know how disputes between two seperate communities with opposing social development palns are able to reconcile their differences?

If there are two Los Horcones communities, and there is a dispute over water rights, how is the matter settled? How is the matter settled if they both have different judical process's?

Bill White · 2002-10-03 07:48:24

So let's sink lots of man-hours into charts of "PVCs" and inventing and practicing arcane rituals.

If I "jest" - it is not out of disrespect for Scott's goals but rather because I can easily envision a person skilled in game theory and lacking scruples manipulating all the poor people spending time and energy charting their PVCs. Would I violate Los Horcones rules if I charted PVCs in my head, like blackjack card counters, and thereby ran computational circles around the rest of the community?

In "real time" people do exactly what the Los Horcones community does but we do it subconsciously and therefore very, very much faster. If I buy my wife roses and indulge her with a back massage can I spend another hour on-line without being whined at? A worthwhile cost-benefit analysis *only if* I can assess the odds in seconds, not hours, and without use of graph paper.

Los Horcones is fascinating as a lab to study human behavior - but in real life people do exactly what Scott describes by intuition (meaning subconscious calculation) 1000x faster than anyone can even begin to mark down PVC trends on a chart.

My "jesting" further comes from my belief that the nuances of human behavior are far to complex to be modeled on a paper chart.

Example - my wife gets her hair styled. She looks at me expecting a comment. I reply "Gosh, dear, your pants and shirt match perfectly."

Do we chart that PVC or NVC? It is phrased PVC and is plainly NVC. Suppose my wife seeks to mark it down NVC and I quarrel, saying it is "really" PVC. How many charts do we create for that?

clark · 2002-10-03 08:04:41

Well, yes, none of this stuff is really new. Yes, this is a process many people take for granted as a simple subconsious effort, but the assumption is that everyone is able to do this, or chooses to do this subconsiously.

This is psych 101 stuff being integrated into social norms and behavior. Psychology is merely a process whereby an individual is helped to engage themselevs to understand why they do the things they do, and why they think they way they think- it's about developing a dialogue with yourself so you can better appreciate your behavior- even the behavior you are unaware of Bill.

The charts may not be neccessary for some, but many people are not so lucky- writing something down- keeping a log or journal allows most people to keep their facts straight, or retain that intiail perspective- thats what the charts are about- it captures actual behavior, and then allow a retrospective review. When people are left to "just remember" you allow for the error of memory and countless other subconsious biasis that work against the goal of understanding your behavior.

Yes, doing charts sounds tedious, and I doubt I or many others would really choose this- instead going with roses and what not- but that action, just giving roses isn't actually an attempt to improve a siuation, it is emotional taxation- you do something to avoid an expected outcome or for an expected outcome. The process being delinated by Scott is suggesting that behavior itself be modified so that the subconsious becomes more attuned to the consious desires- you buy roses becuase subconsiously you think it will improve your relationship, but you overall behavior has not changed- the process he seems to be talking about though is designed to modify overall behavior so it becomes intrinsic to who you are.

I believe human behavior to be nuanced, but not so much so that we as individuals cannot understand ourselves or why we behave a certain way. Everyone knows why they do something- all action has reason, but many people have a hard time being truthful with themselves- this system seems to be providing another means for people to dialogue with themselves, which I find hard to believe as being such a bad thing.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-03 17:37:13

clark;

I guess everyone should consider themselves lucky that you so grasiously take the time to cast such meaningless assertions regarding the legitmacy of some of my views.

Did you think of all those adjectives yourself? Mommy must be so proud.

Hey clark, if my assertions are so meaningless, why did you try to refute them?

Oh, quite the contrary, In fact, I agree with you AJ, vaugness can be a legitimate reason to object or even disagree with an idea. However, no one here was faulting Scott or the idea he proposed as such. Instead, others used the vaugness to apply their own interpretation of what some of the content could be interpreted as supporting- it was the others who engaged in the "sophistry", not I, and then faulted Scott for suggesting an idea that they developed into one specfic extreme.

No, they objected to what was already proposed. You jumped up and declared that since not every detail had been laid out, no one could object. If it were that vague, that would itself be a valid objection. But usually, what you defend with this particular trick is bad enough already.

Let's take an example that possibly even a moral monster like yourself would find objectionable. I say, kill all blondes. You're not allowed to object, because I haven't discussed the "details", such as the judicial process to decide who's really blonde and who's a dye job. And if you object to that "judicial process", then it follows logically that you oppose the existence of courts, right?

Totalitarian control is a system whereby obdience to the State is mandatory.

Dictionary.com defines "totalitarian" as:

"Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: ?A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul? (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)."

Quit trying to redefine words.

Again, I'll ask you and anyone else, do you think that you do not have to follow any laws within the country you live? What happens if you don't pay taxes from your income? Are you free to pick and choose which laws you will abide by, and which you will not and have no fear of being persecuted as a criminal?

So if I don't break the law against murder, I'm not allowed to object when you want absolute central control over everything.

And you seem to regard that as some sort of valid argument.

Still, I would like to know how disputes between two seperate communities with opposing social development palns are able to reconcile their differences?

I know! Turn off the life support!

clark · 2002-10-07 09:39:22

Did you think of all those adjectives yourself? Mommy must be so proud.

She is, thanks for asking! I really think our friendship is getting along famously. Lucky for you I enjoy developing relationships with the emotionally retarded. Maybe one day you can come out of the basement and even learn to carry on an actual human conversation- it must be so lonely trying to reach out through the computer. Don't worry AJ, you're nto alone anymore.

Hey clark, if my assertions are so meaningless, why did you try to refute them?

Simply becuase i have a big heart and it seems you could use a friend. I mean, someone who lashes out like you is obviously in need of some sympathy, it must be hard to go through so much of your life unloved and friendless- I mean, what else could explain your behavior? Aside of course from some genetic disease... but then, that's not your fault either, is it?

No, they objected to what was already proposed.

And I objected to the manner in which they voiced their objection. Really, should I go slower? Maybe use smaller words so you can follow? It really isn't all that hard, but if you need the extra time and explanation, I would be happy to oblige.

Let's take an example that possibly even a moral monster like yourself would find objectionable. I say, kill all blondes. You're not allowed to object, because I haven't discussed the "details", such as the judicial process to decide who's really blonde and who's a dye job. And if you object to that "judicial process", then it follows logically that you oppose the existence of courts, right?

LOL. Does that work on the four year olds? Contrary to what you suppose, I am not daft. While you do disagree with some of my points, you also take great pains to avoid dealing with the actual logic of the arguments- here, you have offered a mindless and meaningless premise and unsupported conclusion- I can, and should object becuase the conclusion cannot be accepted, irregardless of any details provided. You are suggesting that all blondes, based on an arbitrary qualifier, should be killed. No manner of judicial system could be used to support this since if it did, the judicial system itself would be circumspect and should be rejected as a viable entity by which to establish the legitamacy of the conclusion. Now, my suggestions, how ever you may wish to interpret them are at the very least, operating from a set of premises that are wholly supported on their own. But at least you make it sound pretty!

Quit trying to redefine words.

I apolgize, no, really, I do. I was actually applying the meaning in a slightly different context- my minds way of thinking is to interpret totalitarism as simply being subjected to the will of the state- but i will accept your defintion for clarity. Thanks.

So if I don't break the law against murder, I'm not allowed to object when you want absolute central control over everything.

No, object all you want. However, I would prefer if you actually tried to address the reasons that I have outlined as being the CAUSE for the neccessity of absolute central control. The reasons all stem from the ENVIRONMENT on mars or in space. Most of what I discuss does not apply, nor should it, to earth becuase our environment is much different. Do you understand yet, or should I send pictures?

And you seem to regard that as some sort of valid argument.

Well considering I am working with a set of facts and extrapolating from them.... oh wait, that is the critera for "valid argument". So, Yes.

You must be fun on dates. Bet the ladies just love to be around you, huh? Don't worry AJK, your secret is safe with me.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-07 18:38:35

clark;

It's surprising how little effort it takes to push you into, not just ad hominems, but inane ones. "Oh yeah? Well I bet you live in the basement, so nah nah nah nah!" But what should we expect for someone who would say, "I am working with a set of facts and extrapolating from them.... oh wait, that is the critera for 'valid argument'"? If you think that's all it takes for a valid argument, you aren't worth the time to argue with.

clark · 2002-10-08 09:43:48

Awww, AJ, I'm just joshin ya! I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. Poor thing. I am soooooo sorry. Would a hug make you feel better?

Maybe you could help me though, I know it may be a lot to ask, but I'll go slowly- not saying you need me to, no no no, but just in case.

Now, I seem to be under this delusion, you see, I was once taught that in order to come up with a conclusion- you know, an understanding of a cause and effect relationship, one must first begin with a hypothesis. Now this hypothesis, or let's just say "guess" can be anything we want. However, if it is to bear fruit, your guess is well served to be formed by extraploating (or working from) a set of facts.

Whoa! Wait a sec, maybe we should agree on what a "fact" is. A fact, as I understand it, is something that is real- tangible, measurable in some way. Kinda like, the weight of your ego- if i claimed that your ego was bigger than the size of this planet, I would ber making an unfactual statement- you see, the weight of your ego, while apparent in your behavior, offers no tangibile means by which to establish my conclusion as factual. Do you understand?

Now, again, i was taught that a good argument is one predicated on as many facts as possible, and that such an argument wouldn't need to resort to circular logic, ad homin attacks, straw man, or countless other childish debating semantics. Now, you may disagree with my interpretation of the facts- but you have yet to even try to address that. In all honesty, I would LOVE for you to try- you won't though will you, and your cowardly retreat betrays you.

in all of you dealings with others, you resort to the same tricks. I for one am truly entertained to watch you try to pull the sly manuevers that you have- you do us all a service by showing those who can see through the intellectual slight of hand, and those who cannot- it at least helps me to decide who is a patent moron, and who is not- you see, only the moron would buy a tenth of the garbage you spout out as sensible.

I really am enjoying my discussions with you AJ, I consider you a good friend, if a bit misguided.

But, please, for the class AJ, what do YOU think is neccessary for a valid argument- apparently using facts as the basis to form a premise and conclusion isn't. Please, I would like to know.

How are classes going by the way?

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-08 23:40:46

clark;

Most of your post consists of babbling about my "tricks" (from the same guy who thinks no one can ever object to anything if the "details" of "implimentation" are left out, even if the thing itself is bad), or more idiotic comments about what you imagine my personal life is like. This is the same person who says, "I consider you a good friend," about some guy on the internet he's never met, who holds him in evident contempt. How hard up can a guy get? Seeing your transparent tricks, and your desperation for human contact, some of your comments start looking like projection. And your eagerness to "hug" me looks like something else altogether, not that there's anything wrong with that.

The abnormal psychology on display was almost enough to distract me from your latest knee-slapper: "A fact, as I understand it, is something that is real- tangible, measurable in some way." I suppose "something that is real" is a sideways reference to the correctness of a statement, so you're not totally off, but with mental gunk like that built up, no wonder you think like you do.

I think I'll not tell you what a valid argument is, just for the sake of watching you make an idiot of yourself. I will, however, take facts and extrapolate from them (your "criteria" for a valid argument), and see how it works out.

If it's a fish, it can swim.

John can swim.

Therefore John is a fish.

clark · 2002-10-09 06:59:21

Most of your posts consist of pure babble. Shall we simply charge each other posts as inadquete then? I am still amused by your dedication at maintaining this attitude and behavior. So John is a fish now, is he? Well, I'm sure that little display works with the four year olds, but do I really need to take the time to point out the fallacy you are commiting here? The fact that you still refuse to deal with the legitmacy of my arguments, and what they are predicated on demonstrates that you truly are an ass, and know it. The fact of the matter is you demonstrated circular logic and are trying to imply that somehow this is the way I support all my arguments.

I don't.

But hey, keep ranting like an idiot, not skin off my back. Are you here becuase you couldn't quite make the debating team cut? I've complimented you before, but your attempts here hav e been done by others better, and smarter.

I know your contempt for me is probably some sort of repressed latent desire, or some unresolved issue stemming from some childhood trauma. Lashing out here on the board becuase you feel powerless in your own real life, if you can call it that. Yes, yes, i am desperate for human contact, please please please be my friend. Pretty please!

I am surprised though by your veiled assumption that my attempts at greeting are somehow construed as a romantic advancement- you are so funny. Yes, that's right AJ, people who take the time to talk to you are really trying to get into your pants! Don't you know, here on the internet, boys and girls alike want to be with you- see, isn't the internet so much better than your real life?

So AJ, where is the circular logic evident in the facts I use to support my argument? As far as I am aware, i haven't used the conclusion to support the premise, but hey, more power to you if you can show me where.

You're a twit, but I like you.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-09 22:33:45

clark;

You're whipped, so now you're babbling senselessly (and continuing your pattern of projection, of course). And asserting that I haven't dealt with your arguments won't make it so.

Now, of course I know the argument I presented was invalid. The four year old you keep mentioning would at least have enough sense to figure that out. No, I don't need you to tell me why, I know exactly why, and circularity has nothing to do with it.

But here's the point, that YOU have refused to address (mainly because you obviously can't): by your standards, the argument was perfectly valid. I took facts, and extrapolated from them. Arguments valid by your stated criteria, using true premises, can reach absurd conclusions.

clark · 2002-10-10 06:35:08

Ah, I get it, you win by linguistic technacality. Happy?

However, what you are doing is not using facts in the manner in which I was reffering to, you are merely trying to tie seperate facts that cannot logically support the overall conclusion.

Now, in my arguments, I am operating from the facts related to the environment on mars and how that would effect social development- I am not making absird relationships between facts, like your "john is a fish" example.

So AJ, where is the circular logic evident in the facts I use to support my argument?
Where have I assumed incorrectly?

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-10 06:38:32

I think my eccentric arguing ablities have rubbed off on you clark. You should avoid me!

clark · 2002-10-10 06:51:11

You may have a point. Perhaps we should quarentine you.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-10 16:15:09

clark;

Ah, I get it, you win by linguistic technacality. Happy?

No, it's not a "linguistic technicality". The substance of your criteria for a valid argument has been shown to be nonsense. If you disagree, demonstrate why the argument I constructed doesn't extrapolate from facts.

I must confess to being at an unfair advantage. People smarter than you have been thinking about this stuff since Aristotle. You obviously have no exposure to formal logic, while I do.

However, what you are doing is not using facts in the manner in which I was reffering to, you are merely trying to tie seperate facts that cannot logically support the overall conclusion.
Now, in my arguments, I am operating from the facts related to the environment on mars and how that would effect social development- I am not making absird relationships between facts, like your "john is a fish" example.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I am fairly sure it's bullshit, but I don't know what sort of bullshit it is. Are you saying the nature of the facts determine the validity of the argument? If so, how do you sort out "related" from "unrelated" facts?

So AJ, where is the circular logic evident in the facts I use to support my argument?

1) Circular logic has nothing to do with facts. It has to do with what you do with the facts, as do all logical errors. (Here I've let slip a part of what makes an argument invalid. If you keep it up I might eventually tell you what was wrong with the fish one.)

2) What makes you think you'd have to commit that failing in particular for your arguments to be wrong?

clark · 2002-10-10 16:56:21

The substance of your criteria for a valid argument has been shown to be nonsense.

Okay, poor choice of word then. Now what? I was trying to be brief. So, now I ask you, what in particular regarding my arguments is illogical, or based upon fallacies?

You obviously have no exposure to formal logic, while I do.

Obviously.

Are you saying the nature of the facts determine the validity of the argument?

Did I? What determines the valditiy of an argument?

If so, how do you sort out "related" from "unrelated" facts?

I believe this is what most people end up disagreeing about to begin with. So, I am am willing to listen to how you do it. How do you do it AJ?

1) Circular logic has nothing to do with facts. It has to do with what you do with the facts, as do all logical errors..

So your "john is a fish" is not an example of cicular logic?

2) What makes you think you'd have to commit that failing in particular for your arguments to be wrong?

Whicf failing are you refering to? Sounds like circular logic, but cirular logic is jibberish since the premise derives legitmacy from the conclusion alone.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-10 18:01:55

clark;

So, now I ask you, what in particular regarding my arguments is illogical, or based upon fallacies?

I don't have all day.

What determines the valditiy of an argument?

I said I wouldn't tell you, but I think I'll change my mind.

The syllogistic form.

Note here that an argument's truth and its validity are two different things. A valid argument, with true premises, cannot fail to produce a true conclusion. With an invalid argument, on the other hand, you can create an argument following its form, with true premises, which will produce a false conclusion.

On reflection, the worst example of your "thought" may well be a valid argument, if you put it like this: If details are left out, you're not allowed to object; details are left out; therefore you aren't allowed to object. The problem here is an absurd first premise, the absurdity of it being shown by the fact that you refused to follow your own logic, with a few weak excuses that boiled down to nothing else but that fact that you happen to disagree with killing all blondes. Of course you do. That was what I was hoping for.

So your "john is a fish" is not an example of cicular logic?

No, it's not. I deliberately constructed it to follow a classic (and non-circular) invalid form: If A, then B; B; therefore A. Now, the conclusion could well be true (maybe John is the name of a pet goldfish) but the argument does exactly nothing to prove it.

That having been said, I can change it from an invalid argument to an error of fact, like this: If it can swim, it's a fish; John can swim; therefore John is a fish. I switched the A and B, so it now says: If A than B; A; therefore B. It's just than the first premise is wrong. I'm saying this so you don't get cocky about the fact that I formed your argument into a proper syllogism.

Whicf failing are you refering to? Sounds like circular logic, but cirular logic is jibberish since the premise derives legitmacy from the conclusion alone.

There are any number of errors not dependent on basing a premise on your conclusion.

Byron · 2002-10-11 06:19:51

Enough already! This business of arguing about arguing is getting to be a bit tedious..

B

clark · 2002-10-11 08:11:21

Enough already! This business of arguing about arguing is getting to be a bit tedious..

This coming from the person who has been discussing martian calanders and what day the months start on?

Thank you AJ for taking the time to show me my errors. I believe many people could learn a great deal from you.

In regards to your example, i would like to note that i never stated someone may not object if details are left out, quite the contrary, I fully believe that when details are left out, we should find fault with the argument. In the context of the discussion though, no one was pointing out the lack of details, in fact they commited their own errors by assuming their own "details" and then assuming the poster of the original idea was suggesting that. You can go back and look, you'll notice that I agreed with you then that a lack of detail is a sign of a weak argument. Just like you are trying to show me here where I am making mistakes or misunderstanding, I was pointing out their mistakes and misunderstandings.

Whatever terminology we use is fine by me, I do understand what you are taking the time to explain to me- it seems my misunderstandings stem from a different definition of certain terms. To me though, it is unimportant.

So some more questions.

Do you think the environment effects social development?
Do you think the environment on mars will effect social development of people on mars?
Given what we know about the environment on mars, can we assume that mankind will be living in enclosed environments with one another?
What effect do enclosed environments have on communal groups of humans?
What dangers exsist in a hostile environment for humans, where any mechanical failure of any system can mean the death of everything and everyone?
What has been the historical response for socieites when determining between freedom of the individual and the saftey of society?
What purpose do laws serve?
What is the greatest threat to people's lives on mars?

These are the questions I have asked myself- which guide my thinking. The things I discuss are reasoned from the answers to these questions. Am I making a mistake here? Where and how?

If not AJ, anyone?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-04-12 10:30:41

an old topic maybe worth looking at again

'Elon Musk's Vision for Mars Seems Increasingly Realistic'
https://www.realclearscience.com/2024/0 … 3831.html#

Kiev Mayor Klitschko: 'This is not war. This is terrorism'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kiev-mayor-k … 00055.html

and the Japanese moving in another direction in its post-war culture?

Japan's Kishida to Congress: U.S. doesn't have to do it alone

the Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said that Washington does not have to single-handedly shoulder the responsibility of upholding the international order -- and that Japan is ready to be a "shipmate" in that endeavor.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern … o-it-alone

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-04-12 13:47:04)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-10-02 17:44:16

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#27 2002-10-02 17:52:22

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#28 2002-10-02 18:14:40

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#29 2002-10-02 19:19:53

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#30 2002-10-02 19:35:57

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#31 2002-10-03 02:03:06

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#32 2002-10-03 06:44:30

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#33 2002-10-03 07:48:24

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#34 2002-10-03 08:04:41

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#35 2002-10-03 17:37:13

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#36 2002-10-07 09:39:22

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#37 2002-10-07 18:38:35

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#38 2002-10-08 09:43:48

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#39 2002-10-08 23:40:46

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#40 2002-10-09 06:59:21

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#41 2002-10-09 22:33:45

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#42 2002-10-10 06:35:08

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#43 2002-10-10 06:38:32

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#44 2002-10-10 06:51:11

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#45 2002-10-10 16:15:09

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#46 2002-10-10 16:56:21

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#47 2002-10-10 18:01:55

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#48 2002-10-11 06:19:51

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#49 2002-10-11 08:11:21

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#50 2024-04-12 10:30:41

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

Board footer