Ladies and Gentlemen,

I decided to go on tour from my usual abodes which I have grown bored of to come here and offer you the chance to:

a) Ask Jim Anything or

b) Date Jim

Consider the thread open for business.  Honest answers will be forthcoming to all of your wonderful questions!*

*(conditions apply).

I will go for option "a"

Who do you think would win? And could you give data and schematics for your conclusion.

Robocop vs Terminator

Let's look at the key facts!

Robocop

Profile:
 

Armament - Auto 9 Pistol, Arm machinegun w/flamethrower, Jetpack w/Rockets, Data spike
Armor - Good for light arms, seems to get fixed a lot when dealing with anything heavier
Successes - Upheld the public trust, wrecks OCP despite restrictions, defeated Cain
Positives - The human spirit, likes puppies
Failures - Seems to get severely trashed every film, only eats baby food, cannot interfere with OCP

Terminator

Profile:


Armament - Whatever he can find, appears limited to Shotgun, Pistol, SMG and Assault Rifle and Sunglasses
Armor - Skin breaks off quite easily, requires melting or crushing in industrial machinery to truly destroy.
Successes - Protects John Connor from superior terminators. Conquered the world
Positives - Looks seriously bad ass, doesn't stop for anything
Failures - Doesn't seem to succeed even against fragile and fleeing foes

Forecast

Looking at the available information it would appear that the Terminator does not have the weaponry required to 'terminate' Robocop, alas the opposite is true and thus 1v1 Robocop would win.

Thank you for the data outlay. I would however just like to bring to your attention that the weapons used by T-800 are more varied than the ones you mentioned.

not to mention the ones used in the future.

And what would the effect be if this

is thrown in to the battle with Robocop's OCP?

Posted By Stripes on 21 Jun 2011 11:10 PM

Thank you for the data outlay. I would however just like to bring to your attention that the weapons used by T-800 are more varied than the ones you mentioned.

Yes, I was aware of this.

Let's pull back the scope to the fact you can give either plasma cannons.  Then both have mutually assured destruction.  No-one wins, everyone loses.

* Writes down final entry on research paper and closes folder *

Well then my job is done

For those who wish to exercise option “b” it would seem that my research has shown InvisibleJim is a fully functional INTJ.

o.O Anything?  Hehe

Does morality exist without a god?
 

Posted By PurpleGiraffe on 22 Jun 2011 10:08 AM

o.O Anything?  Hehe

Does morality exist without a god?
 

Yes, because I am entirely indifferent to god but I'm a staunch believer in the power of morality and you can observe it's consequences.

Yes, because I am entirely indifferent to god but I'm a staunch believer in the power of morality and you can observe it's consequences.

But would you have the "morality" you possess if not for the ethical framework created by a "god" (ie., an antithesis to "evil")? I'm not religious at all but one could argue that without a juxtaposition of good versus evil (god versus bad), we wouldn't have the ethical soapboxes we have in society because these structures would not have been created for us to claim as our own.

Posted By PurpleGiraffe on 22 Jun 2011 03:36 PM

Yes, because I am entirely indifferent to god but I'm a staunch believer in the power of morality and you can observe it's consequences.

But would you have the "morality" you possess if not for the ethical framework created by a "god" (ie., an antithesis to "evil")? I'm not religious at all but one could argue that without a juxtaposition of good versus evil (god versus bad), we wouldn't have the ethical soapboxes we have in society because these structures would not have been created for us to claim as our own.

Yes, there are plenty of people who are athiest/agnostic and moral/ethical even if they are moral/ethical simply to their own standards.

Ethical/moral structures are more often generated out of whole cloth than you have aluded to; it's a weak pro-religious argument which I've heard before to claim that religion is the singular ethical benefactor upon us.

Posted By Nadette on 23 Jun 2011 12:38 AM
But, wouldn't everyone being moral/ethical to their own standards kind of ultimately result in a lack of morality....or, a good definition of what that is.....therefore, without a definition, it ceases to exist? Perhaps you are really arguing that morality can be humanly constructed. That is, humans can collectively decide what is right and wrong, call it a moral code, and follow it?

Yes and more importantly that would be a consequence of the somewhat Neitschke-esque will to power philosophy NTJ types tend to embody.

'I love kittens because I love kittens therefore this is universal truth as I deem it to be so because I cannot deny what I feel and understand to be true regardless of the lack of external validation.'

Whereas when considering logic.  If logic and decision mkaing is not backed up with external and coherent thinking it is not a decision based upon logic but a decision based upon morality, ethics and personal choice.

Posted By Nadette on 23 Jun 2011 06:04 AM
1) Wait, so you define morality as what we base our decisions and reasoning on when there isn't unbiased logic used?  2) So, are you a fan of morality? Is morality bad? 3) Perhaps your morality is using only cold, hard logic to make decisions. I am not sure what you mean by your example.  4) Are you saying that universal truth can be something that is relevant to only one individual? 5) Why bother with the universal thing at all?  6) What sort of external validation might one find to prove that they truly love kittens, and 7) what does this have to do with morality?

1) More importantly it rolls up into how we base even our logical decisions.  One can ignore all contrary logic in favour of an ethic/morality that declares 'thou shalt not...'

2) Yes then No!

3) Not at all, I understand that I have drives which are not logical, however I attempt to abridge the ethics and morals and choices that people make and understand them logically so I can make decisions which are less global than my own needs and wants.

4) Now we are getting somewhere.  Yes.  There is no universal truth outside the individual.

5) Every truth is universal at some time, place and to some individual or circumstance, it's futile to deny what has been or will be on the basis that it cannot be maintained globally.  It is true under the correct circumstances, perspsectives and frames of reference.

6) Review kitten -> I like kittens -> the universal truth that can be observed and felt is a like of kittens

7) There is little real difference between morality and liking kittens.  We do not kill one another to steal each others stuff if we don't like doing that, much in the same way that we don't kill kittens because we like kittens; we don't steal because we do not like to be stolen from, thus stealing is universally wrong to the individual that experiences that impulse.

Posted By PurpleGiraffe on 23 Jun 2011 06:53 AM
But I do have to ask this: 1) why do you like kittens?  2) Were you inherently designed to like kittens or have you experienced positive interactions with kittens (through other people's positive interactions with kittens)? 3) Is it just in your nature?

Moreover, to me, whether or not you like kittens isn't a state of morality. It is a preference, in much the same way as I like chocolate (and kittens too). However, I wouldn't harm the chocolate because it serves a vested interested for me, not simply that of morality. I don't feel bad for throwing the chocolate in a fire other than my knowing that I have lost out and can no longer eat the chocolate. In the same way, I wouldn't not throw a kitten in a fire simply because I like kittens but because I felt it wrong to harm the kitten. Therefore, the simple state of liking something doesn't dictate the morality behind how I interact with it and treat it. Therefore, my question is this: 4) what dictates how we treat an object or individual if that isn't morality instead of the simple partiality for one thing over another?

1) Because of 2

2) Yes on both accounts; they are designed to be appealing and I have positive experiences with kittens

3) Not just, but that is a part of it.

4) Aren't all of these factors included in such a complicated scenario?  Ethics/Partiality/Morality/Logical Trade-offs etc?  Specifying such a narrow answer to such a broad question would be an unneccesary hasty generalization.

Posted By PurpleGiraffe on 23 Jun 2011 07:38 AM
2.) Wait, what? How are kittens "designed to be appealing?" It seems to me that we simply find them appealing because of our partiality to them. If you liked snakes they would be "designed to be appealing." You find kittens appealing because you associate positive feelings to kittens, not because they were inherently "designed" to be appealing. The kitten just is. If we are to get into the discussion that it is "designed to be appealing" then we have to discuss what factors "designed" it to be this way, and that is another can of worms I don't know if I want to open (other than it - in some ways - arguably brings us back to the "god"/morality relationship).

4.) I disagree but only to the extent that my question was designed to prove a point. I was simply expounding upon your original statement and following the logic - train. To state that your liking of kittens is morality is a tad simplistic because it doesn't begin to fully address the reality of what morality is.

2) Kittens and indeed all baby animals are designed by nature to be cute as a survival mechanism, its an evolutionary perogative.  The cutest babe is more likely to survive than the ugliest babe.  The idea is that if the mother/family vanish that another member of the pack or a another mother/family will adopt them.  It is also designed to have cute fur.

4) Not at all, do you really think there is more to morality other than what we work out that we want and what we don't?  I think thats a frighteningly nieve and also rather dangerous notion to not realise the individuals position has an equal level of universal parity as the position of the other individual.  Wars and genocide have occured over due to such notions!