Ethical Insanity

[Travis Retriever]

I'm not sure if I understand the bolded part, but If you are wondering about the subsidies at CSU for students, they work something like this: the State government hands a substantial portion of it's money to fund a uni, artificially depressing prices for instate students. And they also provide the students proper (courtesy of the federals) loans with ridiculously low interest. added to that the social and governmental mandate that "college=success" and that it's for everyone..... did I mention the ridiculous residency laws? in other states, I'd already be a resident (21, lived here 3 years), but Colorado has apparently said "fuck you" to logic, so I will not be able to get it...ever. because I'm already in my last semester at CSU, and want to get out ASAP, and pay my loans back..all 27,000$ of them (I'd owe more, but scholarships and my parents helped a lot-esp. the former).

and don't worry about the sarcasm thing...

The bolded part "And how" usually means agreement, and that what it was a response to was an understatement.

[Travis Retriever]

*sighs*
You know, I really didn't want to add anymore to this thread, but my TA (whom I really thought would know better) made some shit I really cannot excuse.

Today, we have a special guest: Dave.   The following was said over AIM (reposted with permission):

Me:  So in my engineering ethics discussion section, I keep going on about how the "intent" in terms of law (e.g. following the intent of the law, not the letter) or punishing people for their intentions, doesn't even make sense unless you can read peoples minds. And the TA and the other students response to this? Repeat the argument again and/or ignore me. *facepalms*

D:  circular reasoning

Me:  Because fuck the results of actions, right?

D:  we do something because we do something

Me:  I mean, if Stalin's actions--that killed 60 million--people had "good intentions" would that seriously make things better?  Give me a fucking break!

D:  actually, circular reasoning is giving them too much credit.
circular reasoning at least has more than 1 point

Me:  No kidding.
Yeah.

Me:  Reminds me of when I would talk about how corporations being a legal person doesn't make any fucking sense. His response?
"Well, they need to do that so they can donate to political candidates anonymously."
Are you fucking shitting me?
That's a good reason to NOT have corporations you twat!

D:  Well, it sounds to me like they are LTH's definition of evil
    "the ends justify the means"

Me:  Of course.  We also read a case study about how General Motors followed all the laws and regulations, and did what ever other company at the time was doing. GovCo's response?  Punish them for "high emissions".  And my fucktarded TA went on about how, "Well, it's about following the intent of the law instead of the letter of the law."
I responded with, "Unless you can read their minds, how can you know the intent?"
He either ignores me and/or repeats the argument.

D:  It's also special pleading really.  If I kill someone, but I intended something great for them, it doesn't justify my murdering of that person.

Me:  No kidding. As Shane would always say:  Intentions are 100% irrelavent.  Only actions and results matter.

D:  exactly.  People tend to believe intentions mean everything. That's because they like to defend concepts like "the noble thief"

Me:  Fuck the noble thief.

D:  sorry, but there is no such thing as a "noble thief"

Me:  Indeed. "Noble thief" is a contradiction in terms.  Like expropriating property protector.

D:  Well remember, we were taught to praise characters like Robin Hood as kids:  steal from the rich to give to the poor.  leftist socialist bullshit

Me:  To be fair, he stole from gov't which was overtaxing people, but the point still holds.

D:  Of course some argue that he stole from the state; but that was never the phrase they used

Me:  Which would make him closer to libertarian.

D:  the phrase was always "steal from the rich to give to the poor."

Me:  True.  But he DID steal from the state, but again, gotta love the spin.

D:   Exactly.  They equate the state with all rich people.  of course except when they want shit

Me:  Which is massive equivocation, if not full on bigotry.
Something else my TA went on about was how he dislikes how when Ford designed the Pinto, that Ford tried to calculate the "value of a human life".
Dude.
You're defending the state, you have NO right to complain about loss of life you fucking twat.

D:  Wasn't he the one who just earlier was defending "intentions over results"

Me:  yes.

D:   that is the very definition of "calculating the value of human life"  Because who cares what happens to them as long as your intentions are good right?

Me:  Yup.

D:  Honestly, I think that moral bullshit comes from religitards

Me:  Not to mention to the fact that Pintos were no less safe than any other vehicle at the time.
Yeah.

D:  and I use "moral" loosely

Me:  Indeed.
As for the GM thing?  I had to call him out on that one.  I can only take so much stupidity.  I pointed out that, if they did follow the law, gov't had no reason to go after them.  This was just a case of them throwing a hissy fit and temper tantrum.  I was glad to see one student agreeing with me.  Of course, he just said that gov should just close the loophole.
Yeah...

D:  That's the same bullshit people use with the tax code

Me:   How about not having govco regulate at all?  Why not let private bodies like an equiv of UL do it?  One person argued about private regulation. "But who will watch the watchers?"

D:  We do

Me:  Um, that ("Who will watch the watchers") applies to gov't far more than to private organizations.  (Again, just look at UL!)

D:  duh

Me:  Funny you should mention that the intentions make the action mentality comes from religion.  Because my TA admits that he was brought up in a very religious household; and believe me it shows.

D:  Well, really, when you think about it, it's the same bullshit.  you could be as much of a cunt in life as you want, as long as you "convert" on your death bed, you are golden

Me:  Eyup.

D:  Not to mention things like the crusades and witch hunts, all in the name of religion.  "Oh sure, we killed all kinds of innocent people...but we did it in the name of GAWD"

[Travis Retriever]

I just experimented with a new format for these kinds of threads.
let me know what you think.

As for the Pinto:

How about the fact that Pintos would NOT explode* upon impact, it was all a bogus scare brought on by attention-seeking media? See the scientific examination of the evidence:  http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf
Facts: The car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time. The fatality rates were actually LOWER than similar-sized cars. And, oh yeah, this document supposedly showing that Ford was greedy and unfeeling was a document based on NHTSA regulations. Yes, that phrase everyone says is so indicative of free market greed is FROM THE GOVERNMENT!
Then of course, there's the fact that people weren't forced to buy the pintos...
I also didn't like how my TA went on about how, "Regardless of the car cost, safety should be included!"  Translation: "Safety is a human right!"
Fuck you.  If people are willing to pay less for less safety, it simply means they are satisfied with the current level of safety and would rather the additional money be spent on other things they need more urgently.  YOU are not in a position to dictate what people will buy, you tyrannical prick.

*OK, to be fair, he didn't actually say that they exploded, but went on about a safety feature where if they are rear ended, the gas tank would be punctured by a bolt or something.  Since Ford engineers were tasked to make the 2000 lb car cost less than $2000, they had to leave it there.
Of course, why they didn't just allow customers the option of buying the safety feature later on is beyond me.

Bonus:  [yt]iPqdRqacpFk[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

Something else that pisses me off from this class is (from the professor, the TA, and from the textbook):  "Well, engineering; like medicine is professional field with knowledge that most laypeople can't grasp.  This means that it is very easy for engineers and doctors to scam the public--they won't know when they've been scammed, or who did it.  So it's up to you to be ethical; to police yourselves.  Or, in many cases, for the government--our democracy to step in and regulate."
(Because fuck the Wisdom of Crowds, right?  Or the 100 years of research verifying it.  Then how do they explain UL?  They deal with electronics and specialized knowledge and have for full on a century and have never had the issue of corruption.   Also, if they believe that "We The People are the Government" platitude bullshit--which they most likely do, they're even stupider.  What they'd be saying is.  "We the people can't regulate the professionals, so we'll have We the people regulate the professionals."  Some consistency would be nice.  Gotta love the elitism.)

[Travis Retriever]

Another common quip from my professor is the idea of having government and the country run by experts.
Because that worked so well for the USSR, right?

[MrBogosity]

Another common quip from my professor is the idea of having government and the country run by experts.
Because that worked so well for the USSR, right?

And we saw what the Nazis did with experts.

[Travis Retriever]

And we saw what the Nazis did with experts.

I forget.  What did the Nazis do with experts?

[AnCap Dave]

I forget.  What did the Nazis do with experts?

Slaughtered millions.....

[Travis Retriever]

Slaughtered millions.....

What do you mean?  Are you saying the Nazis slaughtered millions of experts?  Or are you saying they used their expertise to slaughter millions of other people?

[AnCap Dave]

What do you mean?  Are you saying the Nazis slaughtered millions of experts?  Or are you saying they used their expertise to slaughter millions of other people?

The latter

[MrBogosity]

I forget.  What did the Nazis do with experts?

Like Karl Brandt and that crowd.

[Travis Retriever]

Like Karl Brandt and that crowd.

*One Google search later*  oooooh.  Yeah.  That was the first thing that came to mind when I read your post.

[Travis Retriever]

The following is posted to serve as a bit of background for my next post of TA fail.  I referenced the boldface bit when talking about the engineering issues of the levies from Hurricane Katrina.  Long story, short, the TA responded with, "I don't think that is relevant. Well, I'll have to look into that.  I don't think anyone was forced to leave there."

From 6:55 to about 8:29 of this video:

[yt]yAa6dYBwy7M[/yt]
[Thunderf00t]: "The socioeconomic scars of this history are graphically visible in the United States, and I speak with the experience of one who has seen more of it than most.  You can still walk in many areas of America from a white neighborhood to a black neighborhood and watch the quality of housing drop, and the number of people on the streets increase as their wealth decreases. It's visually conspicuous.  The only way you can not see it is denial.  Well? Does anyone have any comments on the effectiveness of the healing of these socio-economicscars, in a primarily capitalistic society?"
But we're NOT primarily a capitalist society! We're primarily a CORPORATIST society, and have been for full on a century now! These are NOT problems stemming from the free market.  The reasons for the racial disparity stem from government actions.  It's easy to see how the Jim Crow laws led to this; what isn't easy to see is how government attempts to help this situation--put forth by well-meaning people--have contributed to the continuing poverty of these areas.  The victims of Katrina and other disasters are largely black because of government housing projects.  They built these projects in areas where no one else wanted to live.  But there's a reason why no one else wants to live there. In Katrina, it was only the areas that were below sea level that were a problem;  people who lived in the original French settlements got off relatively lightly.

[evensgrey]

*One Google search later*  oooooh.  Yeah.  That was the first thing that came to mind when I read your post.

Not quite one of German's BEST minds, though.  I once saw a wonderful comparison of what the (admittedly fascist on both sides) Western Allies and Nazi Germany did with their Best minds:

The (Western) Allies put their Best Minds into R&D.
Nazi Germany put their Best Minds into...concentration camps.
(The USSR did BOTH in at least some notable cases.  Their camps were somewhat slower at being lethal as well.)

[Travis Retriever]

(The USSR did BOTH in at least some notable cases.  Their camps were somewhat slower at being lethal as well.)

Funny you should mention this.  As part of the readings for this same class, we're reading a case study on a Russian Engineer called "Peter Palchinsky:  Ghost of the Executed Engineer"
It points out that he kept giving engineering and humanitarian advice to the Bolshevik government, and, despite a stellar track record of both efficiency AND working conditions greatly improving where his advice WAS taken prior in the Tsarist government, Stalin and Lenin would ignore him.  Eventually, Stalin ordered he be shot (1929) and so he was.

It also pointed out more than 5000 slave laborers who lost their lives in a canal project alone, AND the number of engineers decreasing from 10k to about 7k "with most simply disappearing" (read: getting shot).