0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Europa on 20/07/2021 19:46:45In other words you want a communist utopia?If that is what communists do.
In other words you want a communist utopia?
Quote from: Just thinking on 20/07/2021 19:56:21Quote from: Europa on 20/07/2021 19:46:45In other words you want a communist utopia?If that is what communists do.The truth is there, right in front of you, not that you will ever see
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 18:05:52What is the criteria to say that the future has been improved? Even and fair wealth for all no weapons governments or public stricter law to remove perpetrators for the good of the good.
What is the criteria to say that the future has been improved?
Actually in my opinion the people who need help are the people ignoring that the Chinese cook dogs alive.
Would the child looking for the dog that it played with earlier consider it morally acceptable for her mother to kill her playmate by tossing it into a fire and listening to the screams, then offering the child the dog to eat? Would this child care about the method of death or just mourn the loss of it's friend?So the atrocities of Nazis were done in government camps, similar things happen in millions of chinese kitchens every day while the children watch and laughIs it more acceptable to saw off a Jews or Christians head?
Quote from: Europa on 21/07/2021 13:33:53Would the child looking for the dog that it played with earlier consider it morally acceptable for her mother to kill her playmate by tossing it into a fire and listening to the screams, then offering the child the dog to eat? Would this child care about the method of death or just mourn the loss of it's friend?So the atrocities of Nazis were done in government camps, similar things happen in millions of chinese kitchens every day while the children watch and laughIs it more acceptable to saw off a Jews or Christians head?If they did that without laughing, would you think that they are less evil? Which act do you think is more immoral? The killing or the torturing? If they can be done independently, (kill without torture, or torture without kill) which one is more acceptable?
While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible. So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious conviction
Where did these “elements of a finding” come from?Greek philosophers outlined the elements of a persuasive argument centuries ago.Some smarty pants (and I say that in a complimentary way!) at the GAO (Government Accountability Office) was wise enough to include the elements of a persuasive argument in the Yellow Book (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards) and rename them as the elements of a finding.
What questions do the elements of an audit finding answer for the reader?Condition: What is the problem/issue? What is happening?Effect: So what? Why should the reader care about this condition? What is the impact?Cause: How or why did the condition happen?Criteria: Says who? Who says this is a problem?Recommendation 1: How do we resolve the condition?Recommendation 2: How do we resolve the cause?
For example, let’s say that you are auditing a school lunch program and you find that approximately 5% of the kids who receive free lunch are not eligible. The finding might look like this?Condition: Ineligible students are receiving free lunchEffect: 6 out of 120 students tested were not eligible resulting in $X of questioned costsCause: Admin not screening for eligibilityCriteria: Federal grant requirements say….Recommendation 1: Ensure only eligible students receive free lunchRecommendation 2: Admin screens students for eligibility
Quote from: Europa on 21/07/2021 14:02:02While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible. So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious convictionBy saying that their actions are immoral, you are thinking that they are violating your moral standards, whether or not they are doing it rationally. By saying that they are being irrational, you are thinking that they are not being logical, or their conclusion doesn't follow their premises.
We can use elements in audit findings to evaluate moral behaviors.QuoteWhere did these “elements of a finding” come from?Greek philosophers outlined the elements of a persuasive argument centuries ago.Some smarty pants (and I say that in a complimentary way!) at the GAO (Government Accountability Office) was wise enough to include the elements of a persuasive argument in the Yellow Book (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards) and rename them as the elements of a finding.QuoteWhat questions do the elements of an audit finding answer for the reader?Condition: What is the problem/issue? What is happening?Effect: So what? Why should the reader care about this condition? What is the impact?Cause: How or why did the condition happen?Criteria: Says who? Who says this is a problem?Recommendation 1: How do we resolve the condition?Recommendation 2: How do we resolve the cause?QuoteFor example, let’s say that you are auditing a school lunch program and you find that approximately 5% of the kids who receive free lunch are not eligible. The finding might look like this?Condition: Ineligible students are receiving free lunchEffect: 6 out of 120 students tested were not eligible resulting in $X of questioned costsCause: Admin not screening for eligibilityCriteria: Federal grant requirements say….Recommendation 1: Ensure only eligible students receive free lunchRecommendation 2: Admin screens students for eligibilityhttps://yellowbook-cpe.com/questions-answered-by-the-elements-of-an-audit-finding.html
Anyone like yourself that in any way defends the behavior is also irrational. Do you believe that little girls need to have their clitoris removed? Is that immoral or is it moral because the illiterate man who heard voices and dictated the Koran to others who could write said to do so?
No we can not do that, just trust me
Quote from: Europa on 19/07/2021 14:14:55No there is no Universal moral standard as if there were the Chinese would not be cooking dogs alive and Muslims would not be cutting off little girls body parts.The fact that someone is doing immoral actions is not a proof that moral standards don't exist.
No there is no Universal moral standard as if there were the Chinese would not be cooking dogs alive and Muslims would not be cutting off little girls body parts.
Quote from: Europa on 21/07/2021 14:02:02While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible. So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious convictionAll religious conviction is is irrational and misguided. But it is just as possible to carry out a moral action as an immoral one for religious reasons. The difference is that moral actions do not require justification: religion may be a reason, but it is never an excuse.The two questions of rationality and morality need to be separated, because there are cases where logic (survival, mercy killing) depends on an act that in other circumstances would be seen as immoral.Torture is always immoral, but at what point does interrogation (of humans, not other species) become torture? Just to repeat an interesting insight from Max Moseley: as far as we know, humans are the only species with a concept of cruelty, and certainly the only species that deliberately inflicts pain for its own entertainment.
The difference is that moral actions do not require justification:
The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problem
Torture is always immoral, but at what point does interrogation (of humans, not other species) become torture?
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.
We can use elements in audit findings to evaluate moral behaviors.
Quote from: Europa on 22/07/2021 12:33:49The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problemTo be fair, not all Chinese do that. On the other hand, there are others who do that but not Chinese.Is it equally unacceptable to do that to other species, such as oyster, lobster, crab? What's the difference?