So tomorrow is Hawaiian shirt day

[hiromizu]

so you know, if you want to, you can go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.

Any entrepreneurs here want to brainstorm on solving unsolved problems in society today?

 

[weflyhigh]

tomorrow is wear your college colors day... do you not watch espn??

 

[dank69]

I believe you have my stapler.

 

[BoomerD]

EVERY Friday is Aloha shirt day.

I've worn an aloha shirt nearly every Friday for more than 20 years.

It started out when a bunch of construction guys I worked with decided that would be our response to the "casual Fridays" in business. Since we wore jeans and t-shirts every day...we'd spice it up a bit.

For a while, it seemed like every time I wore an aloha shirt to work, I ended up quitting the job, so I stopped wearing one unless I planned to quit that day. (aloha means hello...and goodbye) So folks knew that if Boomer came to work wearing one...he was leaving that day.

After a couple of years of that, I finally went back to wearing one every Friday...and have done so nearly every Friday since. (maybe 10 years) (H&R Block wouldn't permit it, so I wore Hawaiian print ties to work...then changed into an aloha shirt when I got off work.)

 

[Saint Nick]

Let's talk about moral luck.


The problem of moral luck is that some people are born into, live within, and experience circumstances that seem to change their moral culpability when all other factors remain the same.

For instance, a case of circumstantial moral luck: a poor person is born into a poor family, and has no other way to feed himself so he steals his food. Another person, born into a very wealthy family, does very little but has ample food and does not need to steal to get it. Should the poor person be more morally blameworthy than the rich person? After all, it is not his fault that he was born into such circumstances, but a matter of "luck".

A related case is resultant moral luck. For instance, two persons behave in a morally culpable way, such as driving carelessly, but end up producing unequal amounts of harm: one strikes a pedestrian and kills him, while the other does not. That one driver caused a death and the other did not is no part of the drivers' intentional actions; yet most observers would likely ascribe greater blame to the driver who killed.

The fundamental question of moral luck is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control.

 

[BoomerD]

Let's talk about moral luck.


The problem of moral luck is that some people are born into, live within, and experience circumstances that seem to change their moral culpability when all other factors remain the same.

For instance, a case of circumstantial moral luck: a poor person is born into a poor family, and has no other way to feed himself so he steals his food. Another person, born into a very wealthy family, does very little but has ample food and does not need to steal to get it. Should the poor person be more morally blameworthy than the rich person? After all, it is not his fault that he was born into such circumstances, but a matter of "luck".

A related case is resultant moral luck. For instance, two persons behave in a morally culpable way, such as driving carelessly, but end up producing unequal amounts of harm: one strikes a pedestrian and kills him, while the other does not. That one driver caused a death and the other did not is no part of the drivers' intentional actions; yet most observers would likely ascribe greater blame to the driver who killed.

The fundamental question of moral luck is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control.

Someone taking a philosophy class?

 

[Saint Nick]

Someone taking a philosophy class?

No. Moral luck is a very serious issue. Similarly and intuitively, it seems to be the case that we know certain things with absolute, complete, utter, unshakable certainty. For example, if you travel to the Arctic and touch an iceberg, you know that it would feel cold. These things that we know from experience are known through induction.

The problem of induction in short; any inductive statement (like the sun will rise tomorrow) can only be deductively shown if one assumes that nature is uniform. The only way to show that nature is uniform is by using induction. Thus induction cannot be justified deductively.

 

[spacejamz]

You have to ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?"

 

[hiromizu]

You have to ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?"

That's a question everyone in any part of the hierarchy should think about but the problem with that is if they accurately believe what they think, many will quit their jobs because they won't see themselves as a valuable asset to the company that fulfills the answer to the question. In a similar sense, a true capitalist is often destructive to oneself and highly critical towards others to the point where the aggregate productivity of all members of the organization gets sucked into a vacuum and the company implodes. With that said, as a criticism towards unilateral thinkers, you have to realize that you can't have one without the other. Hence, the sequential idealism of socialistic and capitalistic schools of thoughts cannot exist without an unstable equilibrium. It's a chicken and egg problem really.

 

[bfdd]

Let's talk about moral luck.


The problem of moral luck is that some people are born into, live within, and experience circumstances that seem to change their moral culpability when all other factors remain the same.

For instance, a case of circumstantial moral luck: a poor person is born into a poor family, and has no other way to feed himself so he steals his food. Another person, born into a very wealthy family, does very little but has ample food and does not need to steal to get it. Should the poor person be more morally blameworthy than the rich person? After all, it is not his fault that he was born into such circumstances, but a matter of "luck".

A related case is resultant moral luck. For instance, two persons behave in a morally culpable way, such as driving carelessly, but end up producing unequal amounts of harm: one strikes a pedestrian and kills him, while the other does not. That one driver caused a death and the other did not is no part of the drivers' intentional actions; yet most observers would likely ascribe greater blame to the driver who killed.

The fundamental question of moral luck is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control.

Stealing is stealing, it doesn't matter if you were born lucky and got to be spoon fed or if you were born unlucky and eat half a meal every two days. That said, if there was absolutely no way to feed myself besides stealing, I would steal. It's wrong, but as far as I'm concerned my survival is on the top list of my priorities.

 

[shortylickens]

You have to ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?"

That's a question everyone in any part of the hierarchy should think about but the problem with that is if they accurately believe what they think, many will quit their jobs because they won't see themselves as a valuable asset to the company that fulfills the answer to the question. In a similar sense, a true capitalist is often destructive to oneself and highly critical towards others to the point where the aggregate productivity of all members of the organization gets sucked into a vacuum and the company implodes. With that said, as a criticism towards unilateral thinkers, you have to realize that you can't have one without the other. Hence, the sequential idealism of socialistic and capitalistic schools of thoughts cannot exist without an unstable equilibrium. It's a chicken and egg problem really.

Either you are being brilliant or you are being retarded, and I honestly dont know which one.

 

[hiromizu]

Either you are being brilliant or you are being retarded, and I honestly dont know which one.

 

[zinfamous]

is it cool to admit that this thread confuses me?

 

[joesmoke]

nothing like manditorily expressing your individuality on the appropriately designated day of the week...

 

[shortylickens]

Most of us are quoting lines from the movie "Office Space" and we arent taking anything seriously.

 

[destrekor]

tomorrow is wear your college colors day... do you not watch espn??

Back up in your ass with the resurrection

 

[hiromizu]

Most of us are quoting lines from the movie "Office Space" and we arent taking anything seriously.

Neither am I but that's the beauty of language isn't it? We can jump from one conversation to another at the whim of a few seemingly connected but random thoughts from a finite source of vocabulary and yet we are on this same planet day after day. We can enjoy and complete subsets of a thought within a thought. A PIP of thoughts if you will. Now if we could consistently replay such complex thoughts and massage our cognitive functions and apply applicably to a grand scheme to inspire and create even more, can you imagine how much of a social and economic progression we would have endured?

 

[dank69]

Neither am I but that's the beauty of language isn't it? We can jump from one conversation to another at the whim of a few seemingly connected but random thoughts from a finite source of vocabulary and yet we are on this same planet day after day. We can enjoy and complete subsets of a thought within a thought. A PIP of thoughts if you will. Now if we could consistently replay such complex thoughts and massage our cognitive functions and apply applicably to a grand scheme to inspire and create even more, can you imagine how much of a social and economic progression we would have endured?

I could set fire to your office building.

 

[shortylickens]

Neither am I but that's the beauty of language isn't it? We can jump from one conversation to another at the whim of a few seemingly connected but random thoughts from a finite source of vocabulary and yet we are on this same planet day after day. We can enjoy and complete subsets of a thought within a thought. A PIP of thoughts if you will. Now if we could consistently replay such complex thoughts and massage our cognitive functions and apply applicably to a grand scheme to inspire and create even more, can you imagine how much of a social and economic progression we would have endured?

No, we really cant.
We're all just lame fucktards with short episodes of brilliance.

 

[hiromizu]

No, we really cant.
We're all just lame fucktards with short episodes of brilliance.

I can't wait till this high wears off and I get home from work.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

I can't wait till this high wears off and I get home from work.

Are you gonna drive your 325 with 22 spinners home?

 

[hiromizu]

Are you gonna drive your 325 with 22 spinners home?

I thought I said I didn't get the wheels. I don't drive to work, I take the subway for that. I pretty much only drive on the weekends for recreation like going to the beach or to play tennis and sometimes golf. That's it.

 

[zinfamous]

Back up in your ass with the resurrection

this response made me lol for real and I don't know why.

(yes, I know the reference).