Swiftstryker, The Contributor
Profile pict is from this awesome young woman.
And...I'll probably be drowning in classes...which means inactivity...so...yeah.
Recent PostsFat Men on 2/24/2021 4:24:48 PM
I don't think the specifics matter much in this case; either way, the responsibility falls to you to decide who lives and who dies.
The ClocKKK on 2/23/2021 1:08:11 AM
Fat Men on 2/23/2021 1:02:05 AM
It's almost like moral desert in the sense that you leave people alone to their own devices; after all, if the five individuals chose to die on train tracks or the fat man elects to sacrifice himself to save the other five, there is nothing necessarily wrong. All individuals involved have elected to live and die by their own choosing.
If we're taking a softcore approach to egalitarianism (in that it is a correction to classic libertarianism), we should be approaching this from an equal opportunity point of view; everyone should have an equal opportunity to die and live. In this case, throw the fat man onto the track / divert it to him, and jump in front of him and defer the responsibility to the next person in control. Better yet, set the track to half and cross your fingers.
If we're taking a fundamentalist approach to this, in the sense that we're trying to create equality of outcome, it should be best considered to throw the fat man and yourself onto the train tracks in a wild rush. By randomizing the order in which people will die, everyone will have an equal opportunity to die in an equally gruesome and slow/fast manner. Life is terrible enough as-is, and the sooner we're out of the equation, the better.
Fat Men on 2/23/2021 12:57:54 AM
Lame Pareto Optimality :
Ideally, you'd derail the train prior to it reaching its destination. Conductor seats have some (minimal) safety measures to mitigate damage to the conductor, and as such you'd save all parties involved. Everyone walks away free to live with none of their right to live violated (except maybe the conductor, who has insurance and a union to support his family thereafter).
Minimin Principle :
Suppose that in the normal operating day of a train, incidents like these occur often enough to expect regular lawsuits (albeit, frivolous, as the train company is not responsible for tying people to the tracks / having fat men shoved in the way). Assuming that the railroad companies and stations have had all their safety measures bypassed, would it be optimal to maximize casualties and seek the worst possible outcome?
Maybe, if we assume that :
- every death results in a litigation
- in the event of a class action, every claimant joins together in the same "class" and expects to divide the reward by the end
- payments to litigation are written off as an expense and thus contribute to tax benefits
As the operation of the railroad is not made for the expressed purpose of making sausage fillings out of people, our railroad stands to lose money over events they have no control (and yet are still liable) over. To minimize the amount of compensation per claimant, killing as many people as possible at one time would add more individuals to the overall class, at which point the reward for each claimant could be diminished (if the rate at which the reward is divided is greater than the rate of settlement costs per death). This reduces the incentive to sue the railroad company, and if we're lucky, charges may be dropped due to the lack of proportional reward to the effort put into the lawsuit. The capability of the litigating lawyers does not increase in spite of the greater amount of people affected.
You should, in this case, time the derailment to maximize casualties and create a large write-off for the tax year.
If the fat man is on the track but you have to switch the track to kill the fat man, abstain from doing so and let natural events run their course. The five fucks on the track deserved to die for simply being on the tracks.
Likewise, if he's standing at the platform, don't push him; he has done no such thing to warrant getting pushed, and as such does not deserve to die.
There's two interpretations :
1. The fat man dies because society overall benefits from having more bodies, even if it's five skinny guys who survive. After all, five skinny guys can experience more pleasure (and therefore utility) than any single individual can.
2. The five skinny people die because their adverse living conditions has caused them to be skinny; they would have never expected to experience much pleasure compared to the one fat man anyway, so you could cut the losses then and there.
Fat Men on 2/22/2021 11:43:13 PM
For the sake of philosophical exercise (and primarily because you jackasses have few moral qualms), it's time to dust the rug and argue for the best solution to the problem :
If a trolley is on a diverging track and it will inevitably run over 1. five relatively skinny people 2. one fat man, who should we kill?
Any outcome for any reason is fine, but explain your rationale.
Rise up Gamers! (trim some hedgefunds) on 2/2/2021 4:23:51 PM
Rise up Gamers! (trim some hedgefunds) on 1/30/2021 6:41:40 PM
The Mandalorian on 11/22/2020 4:43:04 PM
^That's all it took to trigger them.
I don't know if I should laugh or take an arsenic tablet.
Best Disney Villain? on 11/21/2020 6:02:28 PM
Second on the Frollo.
Best Disney? on 11/21/2020 5:51:32 PM
Obligatory "Disney's / Bob Chapek is the best villain" because someone has to :
1. 100/10 evil. Buy out entire companies of opposing sides and reduce them to their most controversial / banal parts, generating income off of shrieking and wrist-shaking from all kinds of people. Constantly reneg on contracts to tighten control over IP. Water down cultures into something vaguely relatable for the LCD instead of doubling down on faithfulness to adaptations. Concentrate the most talented performers and creative minds and force them into shitting out unoriginal, often white-washed / rose-tinted content. Well-executed, still.
2. They have theme parks all over the world that generate stupid amounts of income and amenities just by existing off of brand alone. They own sports, news, video games (sorely lacking on that department), and have a solid finger in just about every bit of social media they can get their hands on. They have chicken coops dedicated to pecking out bugs, and have eliminated mosquitoes (mostly) from their park in Florida. In fucking swampy-ass Florida.
3. Its sheer size makes the lives of tens of thousands of employees dependent on it. Even with all the criticisms raised against Disney, it leads the forefront on animation studios, IPs, marketing, and music like no other. If Disney were to be dissolved overnight, even the contractors from musicians to construction workers would be out of a job. Disney also owns Fox and other companies that share dissenting opinions from its mainline mission statements, and because of its diversity is practically included in all parts of a family's life (provided said family consumes mainstream media), even if said families don't share the same values.
4. Its own sheer size and complexity makes it bursting at the seams at any given time, and a single antitrust investigation (should a wrinkly old Senator / judge get tired of his shitty 100k/annum bribe) could rip it apart and have all the internal companies and studios burst out into independent media production corporations. Considering the dumbing-down approach though, Mr. Walt still gets the last laugh as any follow-up company would probably be too dependent on mediocre materials and topics to overtake Disney. Literally too big to fail.
5. It's A Small World is literally a jab at the entire globe for sucking up to Disney as easily as it does. It open admits to using your internal and external struggles as fuel to create relatable content that you pay money out the ass for you or your kids to watch. There's so many renditions of the theme that it becomes timeless in any era, from the shitty 2000s remixes to the 10s remasters to the broken, crackling speakers still used in 2020. The echo of Disney's global anthem will reveberate for at least a century after its death (whenever that may be), based solely on the power of nostalgia. I wouldn't be surprised if someone wrote a religious book out of its practices two centuries down the line.