Is Ted a monster?

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
The alien claim isn’t much more redicuoius than you pretending a absurdly small likelihood of of someone coming out of knownere in a blizzard makes any significant difference to the analogy.
Of course it is, since an alien landing has never happened, whereas in your scenario, somebody DID come out of nowhere a few minutes earlier.

And you continue to not even address the other reasons your analogy fails.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Of course it is, since an alien landing has never happened, whereas in your scenario, somebody DID come out of nowhere a few minutes earlier.

And you continue to not even address the other reasons your analogy fails.
And in either case it’s absurd to claim one should base a decision to save a child upon such remote chances. Making the analogy tight enough on that point. And we both know that you know this. People being geniuine in Debate would grant that and move on.

Few others would ever challenge this particular aspect, because they wouldn’t want to look silly. I am certainly not going to waste time on the other points if you can’t be sincere on this one.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
And in either case it’s absurd to claim one should base a decision to save a child upon such remote chances. Making the analogy tight enough on that point. And we both know that you know this. People being geniuine in Debate would grant that and move on.

Few others would ever challenge this particular aspect, because they wouldn’t want to look silly. I am certainly not going to waste time on the other points if you can’t be sincere on this one.
Sorry, I'm not interested in your insults. My point remains that your analogy is a poor one. Not to mention, of course, that you've not even addressed the other two points I raised (not to mention the others I haven't raised).

Your analogy fails.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
And in either case it’s absurd to claim one should base a decision to save a child upon such remote chances. Making the analogy tight enough on that point. And we both know that you know this. People being geniuine in Debate would grant that and move on.

Few others would ever challenge this particular aspect, because they wouldn’t want to look silly.

Sorry, I'm not interested in your insults. My point remains that your analogy is a poor one. Not to mention, of course, that you've not even addressed the other two points I raised (not to mention the others I haven't raised).

Your analogy fails.
Yes like I can trust you to discuss the other points honestly after this fiasco.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
No, you didn't. And you weren't game to even address the other two. You lost. Big time.
And in either case it’s absurd to claim one should base a decision to save a child upon such remote chances. Making the analogy tight enough on that point. And we both know that you know this. People being geniuine in Debate would grant that and move
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
And in either case it’s absurd to claim one should base a decision to save a child upon such remote chances.
We're not talking about whether or not to base a decision on it. We're talking about how good (or bad) your analogy is.
Making the analogy tight enough on that point. And we both know that you know this.
No, it's not tight enough. It fails for that reason among others.
People being geniuine in Debate would grant that and move
You mean people who agree with you. Here's a news flash - as you go through life, there will be people who genuinely disagree with you. You need to learn to deal with it without insulting them.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
We're not talking about whether or not to base a decision on it. We're talking about how good (or bad) your analogy is.

No, it's not tight enough. It fails for that reason among others.

You mean people who agree with you. Here's a news flash - as you go through life, there will be people who genuinely disagree with you. You need to learn to deal with it without insulting them.
If the decision should be based upon that it's a moot objection and doesn't show a bad a analogy.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
Ted lives alone in the remote subarctic. A few scattered natives live in the area. One family is in such a difficult survival mode they drop their 6 year old off in his yard and leaving, hoping ted will take her in.

It’s in the middle of a blizzard in early winter. Ted answers the door and finds the cold little girl. It’s 30 below and she has minutes before dangerous hypothermia takes hold.

Ted ponders what taking this child in means. It means a major inconvenience. She will require feeding though he has a large stockpile more than enough. She will make a mess and he will be cleaning more. She could (though it seems a remote chance) even have a mental problem and kill him in his sleep. He would have to keep her until the late spring thaw at least 6 months before it would be feasible to take her to authorities.

Ted decides it’s his house, his food his labor and he has a right to use them how he sees fit and slams the door as she comes forward hoping for salvation. She cries for help but within 20 minutes she dies.

The questions on the table are is ted morally ok in this decision? Do you approve of ted? Should ted be held accountable in any way?
Bump
@vibise
 
Top