Why The Dog Posts.

[David Sklansky]

I am sorry to say that I didn't totally accomplish what I set out to do with these questions. The idea was to come up with a question that was emotionally charged, had about equal numbers of people on both sides, yet had no obvious well accepted precepts that could be used for justification of one side or the other. It was totally unrelated to any stance I might have about animals. It just seemed like using dogs would be a good way to come up with such a question.

If I had succeeded in creating that perfect question, I would have then challenged people to try to figure out any way to persuade someone to change their mind. Basically by showing that their stance presupposes a principle that they must not really adhere to based on other stances they have. (For example someone might claim that they would always choose the human because all animals are objects. You might then ask them why they prefer a live dog to a Sony dog. etc. etc.)

But I'm not happy with the way things came out for various reasons and will abort the project. Please feel free to continue on without me.

[sexdrugsmoney]

I knew that is where you were going with that David when you proposed the other question mentioning "he had already said his goodbyes", meaning certain variables were brought up you originally didn't count on.

Thankfully though, this dog issue is over with, and we can all get back to observing the intellectual masturbation of the forum.

Cheers,
SDM

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea was to come up with a question that was emotionally charged, had about equal numbers of people on both sides, yet had no obvious well accepted precepts that could be used for justification of one side or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh.

So why did you not use George W Bush instead of a collie ?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Please feel free to continue on without me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sould please notready since he can't 'continue on' without a God (and insists no one else can either).

-Zeno

[ QUOTE ]
I am sorry to say that I didn't totally accomplish what I set out to do with these questions. The idea was to come up with a question that was emotionally charged, had about equal numbers of people on both sides, yet had no obvious well accepted precepts that could be used for justification of one side or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same thing can be accomplished by asking if God exists, or if ghosts exist. Arguments like this end when both sides get bored, they dont end.

[DougShrapnel]

I actually enjoyed the dog posts. Although frustrating I know I am smarter for having read them. Also if you where able to succeed in your quest, what would be the ultimate object of the question? Is there more than...

[ QUOTE ]
Basically by showing that their stance presupposes a principle that they must not really adhere to based on other stances they have.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have then challenged people to try to figure out any way to persuade someone to change their mind. Basically by showing that their stance presupposes a principle that they must not really adhere to based on other stances they have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are controlled by their emotions, so while you might occasionally change someone’s mind using logic, you would be much more likely to succeed by looking for some emotional trigger.

[Zygote]

Right or wrong is defined by what is valuable and what is not. The questions are easy because you only need to distinguish the more valuable choice. Then, you tried to make the question tougher by removing the value of each option from the equation by saying, "you will have no assocaition with your choice". Although, if there is no differential value to distinguish the choices then there is no identifiable correct answer. This is sort of like choosing between the sides of a fair coin because nothing can bias your choice.

The questions were still interesting, though, and they will be fun to throw at people in an attempt to test the consistency of their moral stances.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
Right or wrong is defined by what is valuable and what is not. The questions are easy because you only need to distinguish the more valuable choice. Then, you tried to make the question tougher by removing the value of each option from the equation by saying, "you will have no assocaition with your choice". Although, if there is no differential value to distinguish the choices then there is no identifiable correct answer. This is sort of like choosing between the sides of a fair coin because nothing can bias your choice.

The questions were still interesting, though, and they will be fun to throw at people in an attempt to test the consistency of their moral stances.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.