Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do. • Hacker News Board

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#111

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 3:31 AM UTC

mustpax wrote: post #54

ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

A tree, left undisturbed, will go on to live for hundreds of years. So, a tree being relatively elderly does not reduce its remaining life. The medical researcher, on the other hand, has gone through approximately 2/3 of his life. Thinking in terms of person-years saved, it might make sense to save the baby instead. Of course, this is ignoring the aggregate benefit to society the researcher might provide over his rem…

[deleted]

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#112

Post by gensym » Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 4:41 AM UTC

logicalmind wrote: post #91

jrockway wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your footnote. It's very easy for drivers to slow down and share the road, but they don't want to. They are Very Important and are late to their next appointment. (Of course, so am I, and I have to pedal there! They should be making way for me!) I ride my bike to work (almost) every day and do about 100 miles of road riding a week in addition to that. Rarely do I have problems on the streets of Chicago,…

Every aspect of the roads were built for multi-ton automobiles. From the lane widths, to the radii of the curves to the posted speeds. You don't drive a car on railroad tracks or bike paths. I honestly don't follow the logic. It's like me saying I can ride a horse to work on the roads. If a bicyclist wants to be equivalent to an automobile on areas that are designated for travel by automobile, then that bicyclist sho…

The roads were built for multi-ton automobiles and bicycles. Because automobiles are less flexible than bikes in terms of radii and lane widths, their needs set the constraints for those factors. By "posted speeds", I assume you mean the designated upper-limit. No one is proposing that cyclists should be able to ride on roads with minimum limits that cyclists cannot maintain. This isn't that difficult to understand.

Bicycles can travel safely with automobiles. Automobiles, on the other hand, can often not travel safely with each other. Perhaps you mean "quickly" rather than "safely"?

Is your username some kind of a joke?

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#113

Post by philwelch » Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 4:51 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #110

logicalmind wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with you (which was why I didn't respond to what you said). Doing something like adding a extra bike lane next to the car lanes and things like that. I would love to see something like that and it would probably make me want to bike to places more frequently as well. It would be safer for everyone.

How would it be safer for everyone? Most cyclists die because they are going straight through an intersection where a car is turning right. Move the bikes farther to the right, and it's even more likely that they'll be turned into. Very few people die because they get hit from behind, despite that seeming like the most likely way to get hit. Drivers use the "see and avoid" principle -- if they see you, then it's like…

Most cyclists die because they are going straight through an intersection where a car is turning right.

The worst is when the bike lane is sandwiched between automobile traffic on one side and parked cars on the other. That way, not only do you have the problem you point out, but there's also the risk of going headfirst into some guy and his open car door.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#114

Post by jrockway » Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 7:09 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #113

jrockway wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it be safer for everyone? Most cyclists die because they are going straight through an intersection where a car is turning right. Move the bikes farther to the right, and it's even more likely that they'll be turned into. Very few people die because they get hit from behind, despite that seeming like the most likely way to get hit. Drivers use the "see and avoid" principle -- if they see you, then it's like…

Most cyclists die because they are going straight through an intersection where a car is turning right. The worst is when the bike lane is sandwiched between automobile traffic on one side and parked cars on the other. That way, not only do you have the problem you point out, but there's also the risk of going headfirst into some guy and his open car door.

Exactly. And if the cars doors don't get you, all the broken glass that blows into the bike lanes will.

The only special cycling facilities I want are those signs that say "bicycles have equal use of road" and the picture of the bicycle on all the lanes. Those make drivers aware that I am not being an ass and trying to delay them, but am rather trying to find a compromise between banning cars and me dying on my bike.

They are pretty good about doing this in Chicago, and I don't detect much resentment that I exist. It's even better in Seattle. (They don't even need signs there anymore, everyone is used to all the bikes.)

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#115

Post by ewjordan » Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 8:50 AM UTC

smallblacksun wrote: post #95

ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

Forcing anyone out of the lifeboat is murder, period. If someone chooses to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the others, good for them. The baby cannot make the choice for itself.

Sure, it's murder. But I suspect most people would, on occasion, find justification to murder in order to save lives (or even just to save "more important" lives - wars are fought all the time on the theory that the lives of a country's citizens are more important than the lives of foreigners).

On reflection, perhaps a better reframing of this thought experiment (to avoid many of the issues that others have brought up) would be that a murderer has broken into your house and tied you up, along with a baby and a highly accomplished but relatively young person, and offers you the choice of which one of the others he's going to kill, along with a credible assurance that he'll kill all of you if you don't choose one (and you're not allowed to pick yourself, just because), and he'll really let the remaining two of you free once you've made a choice. Further, you're not allowed to discuss with the others, so there's no opportunity for anyone to sacrifice themselves.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#116

Post by calloc » Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 3:08 PM UTC

lookACamel wrote: post #108

calloc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you are asking for people to stand up, yes I will toss the baby overboard. I have no qualms about it in any way shape or form. The baby has no value, it won't be able to help with our decision making process to get back to shore, it won't be able to solve problems we may find along the way, if we get stranded somewhere it won't be able to build shelter or find food. At that point the baby is nothing but dead we…

You could always sacrifice yourself (you have to be in the boat to throw someone overboard). So baby vs doctor is actually a false dilemma. Also, I'd like to point out that if you make your opinion known that you plan to throw the baby overboard, everyone else is probably going to want to throw you overboard anyway.

Sorry, my self preservation is rather strong. Thus I will not sacrifice myself.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#117

Post by sprout » Sat, Sep 18, 2010, 1:35 AM UTC

defen wrote: post #79

sprout wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please finish reading my comment.

I didn't mean in your response to the hypothetical question ('assume each is a model citizen') - I meant in real life: "my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society."

I was being honest about my prejudices and examining them. I think yes, from the finish of my comment, I should assume either the best or the worst of both of them.