Trayvon Martin Case

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.

I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?

Just plug right in and the matrix will take care of you, after all really all we are is electrical impulses flowing through water.


Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using Tapatalk 2

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.

I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?

Fear not 12th, for unto us an algorithm will be created. And yea, it shall be mighty and smite down prejudice, hatred and bad calls on 4th & short. The prophet RR has foretold its coming and those that doubt his words shall be mercilessly mocked for their lack of faith in the ultimate omniscience and infallibility of science.

[NC_Skins]

Coming soon to a courthouse near you.




Never mind, this guy brings the courthouse to you! Should save on legal fees in the future.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Coming soon to a courthouse near you.




Never mind, this guy brings the courthouse to you! Should save on legal fees in the future.

I didn't know the neighborhood watch had such snazzy uniforms now.

[Lotus]

Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.

My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?

One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory. Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.

My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?

One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory. Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.

Actually, no human choice is necessary - science will solve those sticky little ethical problems for us. We simply have a representative of the various schools of ethics provide unbiased oversite to the judicial rules committee that is provideing oversite to the computer programmers creating the algorithm.

Well, I guess we should have multiple representatives from each school to cancel out the bias of any one human's bias instead -

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system.

So we have a consortium of programmers designing an algorithm that will dispense justice consistent with the oversight of judicial rules committee and a representative consortium of various consortiums of ethical scholars. ... I thought this would stop being funny, but I was wrong.

Have faith lotus. Science will save us from ourselves. Just as with Icarus, we can touch the sun. Oh, wait ...

And, in the end, Trayvon Martin is still dead and a fallible jury of randomly selected humans, with all their foibles, emotions, rationality and irrationality, will adjudicate the facts and apply the law in the best way they can to decide the fate of Zimmerman.

I would have it no other way.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Just cut and paste the original quote header ([ mlmpetert;920072 ]) before each partial quote and end it with the close quote portion. Its not hard. But if you miss a bracket or / then it gets odd looking fast

I thought that there was an easier way to do it thats embeded in the normal Quote feature that i was missing.

What Joeredskins did above when quoting 2 different people makes perfect sense. But when its the same person i dont see the need to repost there SN each and every time. Seems like overkill. Just my humble 2 cents.

Also Im against robot judges.

[Lotus]

If we have robot judges, I'm infecting the judge with a computer virus which will ensure my victory. Call it a cyber-bribe.

[firstdown]

Why not just flip a coin?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Lotus

If we have robot judges, I'm infecting the judge with a computer virus which will ensure my victory. Call it a cyber-bribe.

Oh no! You've just found the kryptonite to RR's master plan to make robots rule humankind!

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Why not just flip a coin?

Your proposal is inheritenly flawed! Everyone knows a coin flip is a fundamentally unfair proposition!

The Coin Flip: A Fundamentally Unfair Proposition?

We would use a robot coin flipper designed by a consortium of engineers, that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the specs of the automatic coin flipper. Your argument is invalid.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Your proposal is inheritenly flawed! Everyone knows a coin flip is a fundamentally unfair proposition!

The Coin Flip: A Fundamentally Unfair Proposition?

We would use a robot coin flipper designed by a consortium of engineers, that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the specs of the automatic coin flipper. Your argument is invalid.

All your base are belong to us!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Your proposal is inheritenly flawed! Everyone knows a coin flip is a fundamentally unfair proposition!

The Coin Flip: A Fundamentally Unfair Proposition?

We would use a robot coin flipper designed by a consortium of engineers, that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the specs of the automatic coin flipper. Your argument is invalid.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

All your base are belong to us!

[firstdown]

Coin Toss Confusion? - YouTube