The Stupidest Things on the Internet

2»

Comments

  • We are nearly to the point where embryo selection will be feasible. I can foresee parents being socially blamed for having children with known genetic problems, but holding them legally responsible is a higher hurdle.

  • There was a star trek episode about this. A psychopath had his brain fixed so he could empathize and he was crushed by guilt/regret.

    Voyager "repentance"

    It was Voyager so probably not good.

  • edited August 13

    @Clme said:
    If a problem with brain chemistry turns out to be genetic, do we hold the parents responsible instead?

    Only if their Republican....

    <_<

    >_>

  • edited August 13

    @fenomas said:
    I think he's aiming at the idea that our standard for what is and isn't an exercise of free will seems to depend not only on the choice being made but also on how we understand the brain, implying that advancements in the latter will someday change the former.

    Where I think we differ, is that you feel that the definition (with respect to accountability) will change with our understanding of the brain and it's operation... I am not so sure that is likely... I (personally) believe in free will, and understanding the mechanics won't necessarily make free will any less free.

    That's not to say that I'd be unwilling to consider a redefinition in light of new science... I just think it's really unlikely.

  • edited August 14

    If we do reach the point that we understand what is and isn't free will, I don't think the standard for punishment/incarceration will change right away.

    I believe things will stay status quo until there are methods in place to 'fix' or rehabilitate the brains of those so afflicted. However, that will start an ethics fight that will take at least two decades to work out. Especially if there is a lack of trust of those in charge of deciding what is a normal brain.

    Wow. I'm suddenly to the part of the theoretical 1960's sci-fi book where a person stands up and says that they want to keep their flawed brain, because they don't feel like they'd be 'themselves' without the flaws.

  • @Rufus said:

    Where I think we differ, is that you feel that the definition (with respect to accountability) will change with our understanding of the brain and it's operation... I am not so sure that is likely... I (personally) believe in free will, and understanding the mechanics won't necessarily make free will any less free.

    Before we knew what tumors were we'd have judged the first guy guilty of falling asleep at the wheel, right?

    Or for a better example, suppose two different people call you an offensive name - and you know that one has Tourette's, while the other doesn't. Doesn't that knowledge affect how you judge their free, and if you later found out that the second person suffered from some newly-discovered brain abnormality, mightn't that again change your thinking?

  • @fenomas said:
    Or for a better example, suppose two different people call you an offensive name - and you know that one has Tourette's, while the other doesn't. Doesn't that knowledge affect how you judge their free, and if you later found out that the second person suffered from some newly-discovered brain abnormality, mightn't that again change your thinking?

    I'm open to the idea that there is an unknown disorder out there that renders a person unable to control some behavior, but... undiscovered or not, I think experts are able to distinguish between someone who has made a conscious decision to take an action and someone who does not have the capacity to control a behavior; whether we understand the cause or not.

    To accept your premise, it must be possible to someone to be unable to control their behavior, in a way that cannot be detected or understood by current science and psychoanalysis techniques. As I said, I can't say that isn't possible... I just think it's very unlikely... At least, not without attacking the very foundation of free will.

  • For awhile on various social medias I was trying to make the most extreme parodies I could of various right wing figures. Dana with the NRA is one of them.

    I can no longer parody them without pulling in alien mind control or some shit. :-( I... I'm broken. I'm actually at a loss for words. I have to give up on the parody.

  • @Clme said:
    For awhile on various social medias I was trying to make the most extreme parodies I could of various right wing figures. Dana with the NRA is one of them.

    I can no longer parody them without pulling in alien mind control or some shit. :-( I... I'm broken. I'm actually at a loss for words. I have to give up on the parody.

    American society keeps finding new lows...

  • in a world so full of stupid, how about this piece of stupid, to cleanse your pallet: https://www.delish.com/food-news/a23135716/mac-n-cheese-candy-canes/

  • But... why?

    I mean, I would still have to try one, but what in the everloving hell?

  • I don't think I could bring myself to try one...

  • edited September 20

    Is it like everything-flavored jellybeans?

    "Oh look, this one tastes like earwax/boogers/wood/scotch-breath-kissing-me-goodnight"

  • edited October 10

    Sometimes I think the phishing scammers aren't really trying...

    I never knew the Canada Revenue Agency operates out of Redmond, Washington.

Sign In or Register to comment.