Trayvon Martin Case

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.

Originally Posted by Monksdown

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.



Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)

So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.

You tell me, you've appointed yourself expert. I'm sure you won't deny we have a justice system in place, right? What are we currently using and why?

I could care less, I'm too busy trying to reprogram an old Commodore 64 to execute mice.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

You tell me, you've appointed yourself expert. I'm sure you won't deny we have a justice system in place, right? What are we currently using and why?

I could care less, I'm too busy trying to reprogram an old Commodore 64 to execute mice.

Three strikes, you're out.

I asked a simple, basic question about the ethical basis for the system of justice you are proposing. Three times you have failed to offer an intelligent response. Obviously you have not at all thought through the very foundation of your system.

The fact is, Monksdown was correct above. The fact is that you cannot simply turn ethical decisions into mathematical equations. Anyone who knows anything about ethics knows this fact.

I suggest that before you start pontificating again about making ethics into quantifiable equations, you first learn the basics about what ethical theory is all about.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Three strikes, you're out.

Like most of your comments that wasn't a strike. Also, you weren't appointed Ump so I'm still very 'In'.

Originally Posted by Lotus

I asked a simple, basic question about the ethical basis for the system of justice you are proposing.

Which I answered: Whatever 'we're' currently using. Why do you refuse to accept the answer?

Originally Posted by Lotus

Three times you have failed to offer an intelligent response. Obviously you have not at all thought through the very foundation of your system.

Again, I responded. Oh, and by the way; you can't count.

Originally Posted by Lotus

The fact is, Monksdown was correct above. The fact is that you cannot simply turn ethical decisions into mathematical equations. Anyone who knows anything about ethics knows this fact.

Do we have any ethics experts here? Any math experts? My theory is sound even without evidence.

Originally Posted by Lotus

I suggest that before you start pontificating again about making ethics into quantifiable equations, you first learn the basics about what ethical theory is all about.

Feel free to make any suggestions you like, you're not any kind of authority here so I'll continue to theorize to entertain myself and you can mock away.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Do we have any ethics experts here? Any math experts? My theory is sound even without evidence.

Nope. Doesn't sound a bit like a faith based argument to me!

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Feel free to make any suggestions you like, you're not any kind of authority here so I'll continue to theorize to entertain myself and you can mock away.

You make faaaarrrrr to easy.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Which I answered: Whatever 'we're' currently using. Why do you refuse to accept the answer?

My theory is sound even without evidence.

First, "Whatever 'we're' currently using" is not an intelligent answer. It is an obvious admission that you have no idea what you are talking about. You've made an argument which is inherently ethical yet you obviously know nothing about ethics.

Second, Your statement about not needing evidence is hilarious! Thank you, I will laugh about that claim for a long, long time. You argued that science has all of the answers and then you completely abdicate science, which always demands evidence. You stabbed yourself in the back by abdicating the essence of science, the reliance on evidence! There is no need to defeat you in argument; you have voluntarily defeated yourself.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

You tell me, you've appointed yourself expert. I'm sure you won't deny we have a justice system in place, right? What are we currently using and why?

We are using judicial system based on an amalgalm of ethical judgments made by individual judges, jurors and lawmakers over the course of several hundred years and filtered through a broader (and growing broader every day) amalgam of ethical systems used by current judges, jurors and lawmakers. I shall call this "HA" or the Holy Algorithm.

Please demonstrate the equation that can quantify the pre-existing amalgalm of ethical systems currently in place as it applies to every existing statute, regulation & legal precedent and previously decided factual situation and account for the ever growing and changing ethical systems used by individuals and the ever growing ever changing laws, regualations and precedent currently in play that could resolve and address every factual situation that arises such that the equation would, for example, account for the fact that 50 years ago, two men having a sexual relationship could be imprisoned and that now, in several states they may engage in State sanctioned marriage.

It's simple, HA + Facts = "Correct" Result! Ta daaaaa! All we gotta do is quantify the Holy Algorithm and all humanity will be saved!!


Preach on brother Rat, I know that science can save us from ourselves!! I have faith that your

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

theory is sound even without evidence.

As an aside, I cannot wait to download the Computer Judge app. It will make my job sooooo much easier.