|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 28 2024 19:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 19:10 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 11:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:[quote] I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/bc0c38e0442cf659652c47d9272213af.png) You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense. So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life" Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive). I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular. This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant. You still don't understand what murder is. Murder is willfully taking an innocent life. It's also an act of destroying infinite value. That's your personal addendum for "murder", because of how you claim to value each life. The ethical and legal definitions of murder don't say anything about "infinite value". Just because people disagree with your personal addendum or are skeptical that you truly believe in that addendum or think you're applying that addendum illogically, doesn't mean they "don't understand what murder is". Also, there's no such thing as "infinite value", and the abstract, hand-waving "infinity" math you've been doing to support your position is utterly ridiculous and not applicable to actual physical events, like murder. I'm referring to your statements like this: "Infinity times a million is not a greater infinity than infinity times one. It's the same. One murder equates to a million murders." I've been trying to ignore it, but you keep doubling and tripling down on your position, despite everyone poking holes in it from all sides. I guess I have myself and my fellow math educators to blame, when it comes to people casually asserting "infinity" to avoid doing actual arithmetic or logical reasoning.
I'm not using the legal definition of "murder" to arrive at "infinite value". I'm using the legal definition to prove that people have conflated all forms of killing with murder in this discussion without realizing it because they don't know what murder entails and how self-defense is different from murder.
From the start I've used the term "murder". People in their minds thought I was including self-defense in that. I wasn't, never was.
|
On August 28 2024 19:34 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 19:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 19:10 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 11:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity.
You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense. So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life" Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive). I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular. This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant. You still don't understand what murder is. Murder is willfully taking an innocent life. It's also an act of destroying infinite value. That's your personal addendum for "murder", because of how you claim to value each life. The ethical and legal definitions of murder don't say anything about "infinite value". Just because people disagree with your personal addendum or are skeptical that you truly believe in that addendum or think you're applying that addendum illogically, doesn't mean they "don't understand what murder is". Also, there's no such thing as "infinite value", and the abstract, hand-waving "infinity" math you've been doing to support your position is utterly ridiculous and not applicable to actual physical events, like murder. I'm referring to your statements like this: "Infinity times a million is not a greater infinity than infinity times one. It's the same. One murder equates to a million murders." I've been trying to ignore it, but you keep doubling and tripling down on your position, despite everyone poking holes in it from all sides. I guess I have myself and my fellow math educators to blame, when it comes to people casually asserting "infinity" to avoid doing actual arithmetic or logical reasoning. I'm not using the legal definition of "murder" to arrive at "infinite value". I'm using the legal definition to prove that people have conflated all forms of killing with murder in this discussion without realizing it because they don't know what murder entails and how self-defense is different from murder. From the start I've used the term "murder". People in their minds thought I was including self-defense in that. I wasn't, never was.
The issue isn't with murder vs. self-defense. The issue is with your statements like "I attribute infinite value to every single individual life." That's not a thing. Nobody can attribute infinite value, because infinite value is a meaningless phrase. You asserting that you magically grant infinite value to each life, just so you can provide a post hoc rationalization that 1 arbitrary murder is as bad as 100 or 1,000,000 of them, "because anything times infinity is infinity", is just bullshit and a bastardization of math.
|
On August 28 2024 19:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 19:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 19:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 19:10 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 11:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one.
Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense. So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life" Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive). I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular. This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant. You still don't understand what murder is. Murder is willfully taking an innocent life. It's also an act of destroying infinite value. That's your personal addendum for "murder", because of how you claim to value each life. The ethical and legal definitions of murder don't say anything about "infinite value". Just because people disagree with your personal addendum or are skeptical that you truly believe in that addendum or think you're applying that addendum illogically, doesn't mean they "don't understand what murder is". Also, there's no such thing as "infinite value", and the abstract, hand-waving "infinity" math you've been doing to support your position is utterly ridiculous and not applicable to actual physical events, like murder. I'm referring to your statements like this: "Infinity times a million is not a greater infinity than infinity times one. It's the same. One murder equates to a million murders." I've been trying to ignore it, but you keep doubling and tripling down on your position, despite everyone poking holes in it from all sides. I guess I have myself and my fellow math educators to blame, when it comes to people casually asserting "infinity" to avoid doing actual arithmetic or logical reasoning. I'm not using the legal definition of "murder" to arrive at "infinite value". I'm using the legal definition to prove that people have conflated all forms of killing with murder in this discussion without realizing it because they don't know what murder entails and how self-defense is different from murder. From the start I've used the term "murder". People in their minds thought I was including self-defense in that. I wasn't, never was. The issue isn't with murder vs. self-defense. The issue is with your statements like "I attribute infinite value to every single individual life." That's not a thing. Nobody can attribute infinite value, because infinite value is a meaningless phrase. You asserting that you magically grant infinite value to each life, just so you can provide a post hoc rationalization that 1 arbitrary murder is as bad as 100 or 1,000,000 of them, "because anything times infinity is infinity", is just bullshit and a bastardization of math.
The issue is definitely 100% with people's misuse of "murder".
This is what Fleet said:
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/619c77e494bff3b0f804a61d077bdc57.png)
Fleet held the (incorrect) view that self-defense is murder. He believed that if someone (i.e. an aggressor) threatened his family with a gun, killing that aggressor would constitute murder. It's right there in the quote.
He's wrong. Objectively, 100%, provably, demonstrably, guaranteed, by all means, wrong.
And he's not the only one who apparently made that same mistake in this discussion.
You can keep blaming me for this, but the mistake is squarely on others. If people don't even know what words they're using and yet they're using them anyway incorrectly, the logical conclusion is that they are the ones who made a mistake. You're shifting the blame to the wrong person. You gotta look at Fleet and others who misused the term "murder" and equated it to "self-defense".
|
Norway28478 Posts
On August 28 2024 19:34 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 19:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 19:10 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 11:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity.
You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense. So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life" Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive). I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular. This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant. You still don't understand what murder is. Murder is willfully taking an innocent life. It's also an act of destroying infinite value. That's your personal addendum for "murder", because of how you claim to value each life. The ethical and legal definitions of murder don't say anything about "infinite value". Just because people disagree with your personal addendum or are skeptical that you truly believe in that addendum or think you're applying that addendum illogically, doesn't mean they "don't understand what murder is". Also, there's no such thing as "infinite value", and the abstract, hand-waving "infinity" math you've been doing to support your position is utterly ridiculous and not applicable to actual physical events, like murder. I'm referring to your statements like this: "Infinity times a million is not a greater infinity than infinity times one. It's the same. One murder equates to a million murders." I've been trying to ignore it, but you keep doubling and tripling down on your position, despite everyone poking holes in it from all sides. I guess I have myself and my fellow math educators to blame, when it comes to people casually asserting "infinity" to avoid doing actual arithmetic or logical reasoning. I'm not using the legal definition of "murder" to arrive at "infinite value". I'm using the legal definition to prove that people have conflated all forms of killing with murder in this discussion without realizing it because they don't know what murder entails and how self-defense is different from murder. From the start I've used the term "murder". People in their minds thought I was including self-defense in that. I wasn't, never was.
'Murder' vs 'self defense' is irrelevant, because you've stated that there's no difference between the murder of one and the murder of a million, because the one person already has 'infinite value'. Again, I'm fine with not having a 1:1 ratio in terms of actively taking part and being a passive bystander, so if you think allowing the trolley to run over 5 people is better than redirecting it to hit 1 person, that's your prerogative. But when you say there's no difference between 1 and 1 million and try to hand-wave away any objections people have with some airy statement about 'the life of one person has infinite value', this is just absurd. I really think you'd do yourself a favor through going 'huh, I wonder why every single person who reads my sequence of posts here thinks I'm being absurd' and trying to evaluate just why this is the case, rather than thinking 'oh, this is because I happen to be in a crowd of people who are potential murderers, and I'm not'. This isn't Kwark insulting you, it's literally everybody who chimes in thinking 'dude, the logic of this does not add up'.
|
On August 28 2024 20:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 19:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 19:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 19:10 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 11:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one.
Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense. So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life" Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive). I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular. This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant. You still don't understand what murder is. Murder is willfully taking an innocent life. It's also an act of destroying infinite value. That's your personal addendum for "murder", because of how you claim to value each life. The ethical and legal definitions of murder don't say anything about "infinite value". Just because people disagree with your personal addendum or are skeptical that you truly believe in that addendum or think you're applying that addendum illogically, doesn't mean they "don't understand what murder is". Also, there's no such thing as "infinite value", and the abstract, hand-waving "infinity" math you've been doing to support your position is utterly ridiculous and not applicable to actual physical events, like murder. I'm referring to your statements like this: "Infinity times a million is not a greater infinity than infinity times one. It's the same. One murder equates to a million murders." I've been trying to ignore it, but you keep doubling and tripling down on your position, despite everyone poking holes in it from all sides. I guess I have myself and my fellow math educators to blame, when it comes to people casually asserting "infinity" to avoid doing actual arithmetic or logical reasoning. I'm not using the legal definition of "murder" to arrive at "infinite value". I'm using the legal definition to prove that people have conflated all forms of killing with murder in this discussion without realizing it because they don't know what murder entails and how self-defense is different from murder. From the start I've used the term "murder". People in their minds thought I was including self-defense in that. I wasn't, never was. 'Murder' vs 'self defense' is irrelevant, because you've stated that there's no difference between the murder of one and the murder of a million, because the one person already has 'infinite value'. Again, I'm fine with not having a 1:1 ratio in terms of actively taking part and being a passive bystander, so if you think allowing the trolley to run over 5 people is better than redirecting it to hit 1 person, that's your prerogative. But when you say there's no difference between 1 and 1 million and try to hand-wave away any objections people have with some airy statement about 'the life of one person has infinite value', this is just absurd. I really think you'd do yourself a favor through going 'huh, I wonder why every single person who reads my sequence of posts here thinks I'm being absurd' and trying to evaluate just why this is the case, rather than thinking 'oh, this is because I happen to be in a crowd of people who are potential murderers, and I'm not'. This isn't Kwark insulting you, it's literally everybody who chimes in thinking 'dude, the logic of this does not add up'.
The value of a person is subjective. The definition of murder is objective. The person who argues a subjective point cannot possibly be more wrong than the person who says 2 + 3 = 6.
|
I mean, if you want to math this out, it's fine (mathematically) that the value of a life tends to infinity, i.e. we can still define a "badness ratio" y:
y = f(x) / g(x)
where the functions f(x) can be assigned to the "value of murdering 10^6 people" and g(x) "value of murdering 1 person". If we assert that all lives have equal value (regardless of what the value actually is) that would simplify to:
f(x) = 10^6*x
g(x) = x
plopping that back into your "badness ratio" function y:
y = 10^6 x / x
which simplifies to y = 10^6.
Mathematically, you can conclude that murdering 10^6 people is 10^6 worse than murdering one person, even if the value of one person tends to infinity.
|
There is no absolute distinction between 1 and 1 million. We're just an aggregate of self organizing molecules. The only difference is all the socially constructed values tied to these differences.
The act of pulling the lever doesn't make you 'more' a murderer if there's 1 or 1 million on the track. You're now a murderer. The degree of murdee might be different, but the genocidal murderer still falls in the category of murder. It goes from a zero to something that has a value, and that's a big difference. Potentially bigger than the difference between 1 and 1000000.
Not taking action, even while knowing you'd save lives, absolves you from becoming one, as you've had no a priori control over the situation. You taking action, however, is taking control, thus rendering you a murderer. It's exerting force, or, an act from a position of power.
|
On August 28 2024 20:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 19:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 19:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 19:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 19:10 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 11:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 10:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder? Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value" The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human. Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies. There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length. ...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant. Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life. I see the disagreement between us stems from the fact that you define murder completely differently than the law. Look up the definition. Self-defense is covered and is not considered murder. The defense of your family is considered self-defense. So your statement isn't "Human life has infinite value", it's "Human life has finite value, evaluated by how much of a threat or benefit they are to other human life" Murder, my definition of murder, and the law all have nothing to do with the statement "Human life has infinite value". Its only connection to murder is because you brought it up in the calculus justifying your equation "1 x = 1000000 x" because X can only solve as 0 or infinity (sorry mathematicians for being wrong and reductive). I'm taking the x (x = human life has infinite value) from that equation and seeing if that value holds up anywhere else. That's how you should test whether or not you're on to anything. Murder is irrelevant to trying to determine whether or not "Human life has infinite value" holds up anywhere else in life, or if it was just convenient in this singular. This is why I present the murder hypothetical of someone murdering your family and you not acting in self defense - not because I don't know how to define murder, but because in THAT calculus, 1 x is not equal to your family x. This shows that the value of human life cannot be infinite and must be finite. Murder is irrelevant. You still don't understand what murder is. Murder is willfully taking an innocent life. It's also an act of destroying infinite value. That's your personal addendum for "murder", because of how you claim to value each life. The ethical and legal definitions of murder don't say anything about "infinite value". Just because people disagree with your personal addendum or are skeptical that you truly believe in that addendum or think you're applying that addendum illogically, doesn't mean they "don't understand what murder is". Also, there's no such thing as "infinite value", and the abstract, hand-waving "infinity" math you've been doing to support your position is utterly ridiculous and not applicable to actual physical events, like murder. I'm referring to your statements like this: "Infinity times a million is not a greater infinity than infinity times one. It's the same. One murder equates to a million murders." I've been trying to ignore it, but you keep doubling and tripling down on your position, despite everyone poking holes in it from all sides. I guess I have myself and my fellow math educators to blame, when it comes to people casually asserting "infinity" to avoid doing actual arithmetic or logical reasoning. I'm not using the legal definition of "murder" to arrive at "infinite value". I'm using the legal definition to prove that people have conflated all forms of killing with murder in this discussion without realizing it because they don't know what murder entails and how self-defense is different from murder. From the start I've used the term "murder". People in their minds thought I was including self-defense in that. I wasn't, never was. The issue isn't with murder vs. self-defense. The issue is with your statements like "I attribute infinite value to every single individual life." That's not a thing. Nobody can attribute infinite value, because infinite value is a meaningless phrase. You asserting that you magically grant infinite value to each life, just so you can provide a post hoc rationalization that 1 arbitrary murder is as bad as 100 or 1,000,000 of them, "because anything times infinity is infinity", is just bullshit and a bastardization of math. The issue is definitely 100% with people's misuse of "murder". This is what Fleet said
I don't care what Fleet said. It's irrelevant. (Technically, you're still incorrect about the murder vs. self-defense part, because you said that every life has infinite value, and that assertion is independent from how a life is lost - whether it was through murder or through self-defense. If every life has infinite value, then a victim of murder has a life of infinite value and someone being killed in self-defense also has a life of infinite value. But, again, that's not the point, because infinite value isn't a thing. The premise is flawed, regardless of how the death occurs.) The point still stands that you can't just claim that something has infinite value. The reason it's not convincing to anyone is because it's a meaningless phrase that you're just using as a tool to avoid critically analyzing the frickin' trolley problem, of all things.
|
On the topic of U.S. politics, it appears that Trump's D.C. case isn't going to be automatically dismissed just because of the Supreme Court's "presidential immunity" ruling. The prosecution went through their entire case, removed the parts that would likely fall under the "presidential immunity" ruling, and realized they still had enough evidence to reindict Trump on all 4 criminal charges. Additionally, Jack Smith and the prosecution were smart enough to present this amended version to a *new* grand jury, that way Trump's defense couldn't complain that the old grand jury was going to be biased from already hearing about all the facts the first time around, including any that are now considered unusable due to presidential immunity.
Trump indicted again in election subversion case brought by Jack Smith
The 36-page indictment, secured Tuesday by the special counsel, is an attempt to recalibrate the case after the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. has reindicted Donald Trump on four felony charges related to his effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
The 36-page indictment, secured Tuesday by special counsel Jack Smith, is an attempt by prosecutors to streamline the case against Trump to address the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that concluded presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from prosecution for their official conduct.
The new indictment removes some specific allegations against Trump but contains the same four criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. It’s a signal that Smith believes the high court’s immunity decision doesn’t pose a major impediment to convicting the former president.
“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions,” Smith’s team wrote in an accompanying court filing.
The development is unlikely to alter the reality that a trial in the case before the November election looks impossible. In fact, the new indictment could drag the case out further — defense attorneys often seek delays after prosecutors revise criminal allegations.
Both sides face a Friday deadline to propose next steps to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Biden appointee who is overseeing the proceedings in the trial court. Chutkan has scheduled a Sept. 5 hearing to set a course for the case.
Trump pleaded not guilty to the initial indictment and has repeatedly decried the prosecution as a political vendetta. After the new indictment was unveiled on Tuesday, Trump called it “ridiculous” in a post on his social media site, Truth Social.
“For them to do this immediately after our Supreme Court Victory on Immunity and more, is shocking,” Trump wrote.
The new charging document seeks to revive a case that was stalled for months while the Supreme Court weighed Trump’s immunity arguments. In a largely 6-3 decision on July 1, the high court announced a robust version of presidential immunity that made clear that at least some of the special counsel’s allegations could not proceed — and left the rest of the case in jeopardy.
The new indictment seeks to rely on a distinction the Supreme Court drew between a president’s private actions (which can be the subject of criminal charges) and actions that stem from a president’s official powers (which now carry a large degree of immunity).
In an apparent bid to downplay any connection between Trump’s official duties and his bid to overturn Joe Biden’s victory, the new indictment repeatedly emphasizes the political and personal nature of many of the actions Trump took during the post-election period and on Jan. 6, 2021.
For instance, the document underscores that Mike Pence was not only vice president, but also Trump’s “running mate,” when Trump pressured Pence to block the certification of the election results. It notes that Trump’s rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, was “privately funded” and “privately organized.” And it stresses that Trump often used his Twitter account for “personal purposes.”
The new document also eliminates a long list of top government officials who had informed Trump that his claims about election fraud and anomalies were false, including top intelligence, Justice Department, homeland security officials and White House lawyers.
Smith’s original 45-page indictment, unveiled last August, included claims that Trump sought to use the Justice Department to advance what prosecutors contend was an unlawful and fraudulent effort to overturn the election. Those details, which the Supreme Court put largely beyond the reach of prosecutors, have been omitted from the new, shorter charging document.
The new indictment adds no new defendants, but deletes all references to one alleged co-conspirator mentioned in the earlier indictment without being named or charged: former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.
Clark held a Senate-confirmed post as head of DOJ’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division and was serving as the acting head of the department’s Civil Division at the end of the Trump administration when Trump considered a plan to install Clark to replace acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.
Witnesses told a House investigation that, in the weeks after the 2020 election, Rosen and other Trump appointees had refused to send letters to local election officials claiming fraud in the presidential election results, but Clark was willing to do so. Trump ultimately abandoned the plan after nearly all of the senior leaders of the Justice Department said they would resign in protest.
In addition to the election subversion case, Smith has also charged Trump in Florida with hoarding classified documents and obstructing justice. Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, dismissed that case last month — a decision that Smith is appealing.
Trump also faces criminal charges in Georgia for interfering with the 2020 election results in that state. And in May, he was convicted in New York of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/27/trump-indicted-2020-election-subversion-00176503
|
To the topic of social media:
To me the "Soap box" to climb is the world wide web. Host a website with your blog, bam, free speech.
Social Media plattforms aren't the democratic soap box, it's a stream of advertisement, individual targeting algorithms and just a way to make money. It's basicly a 24/7 "commercial break" created by other users and bots.
It would be beneficial to all, if any social media (where users create content) is considered a "job" and you get paid minium wage for creating content such as posts, video uploads.. or even curation like "likes" "upvotes" "reposts" etc..
They know how much time you spent in their apps/websites..down to the second.. so they can pay you accordingly.
The plattform becomes your employer, and is suddenly - as owner of the content - liable for all the shit you post.
I'd set some threshold to protect small forums..like 100k Ad-Revenue or something.
This would basicly eat Meta/TikTok/Twixxer/Youtube alive
|
|
|
The link you’ve provided doesn’t contain Trump saying he won California in 2020
|
On August 29 2024 03:21 BlackJack wrote:
The link you’ve provided doesn’t contain Trump saying he won California in 2020 literally the 2nd paragraph my dude
“If Jesus Christ came down and was the vote counter, I would win California, OK?” Trump said. “In other words, if we had an honest vote counter, a really honest vote counter—I do great with Hispanics, great, I mean at a level no Republican has ever done—but if we had an honest vote counter, I would win California.”
sure he could technically be talking about 2024, but then he still has time to find his honest vote counter.
And its not like he is any more likely to win California in 2024 then he was in 2020.
|
“I would win” is definitely not past tense
|
On August 29 2024 03:29 BlackJack wrote:
“I would win” is definitely not past tense Counter point. Its Trump.
grammar need not apply.
|
On August 29 2024 03:21 BlackJack wrote:
The link you’ve provided doesn’t contain Trump saying he won California in 2020
It's very clearly at the beginning of the article. He's saying he had more votes in California, and only "lost" because there was cheating/rigging, not because he actually lost the vote count:
"Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California, adding that all he needed was an “honest vote counter”—Jesus Christ, to be exact.
“If Jesus Christ came down and was the vote counter, I would win California, OK?” Trump said. “In other words, if we had an honest vote counter, a really honest vote counter—I do great with Hispanics, great, I mean at a level no Republican has ever done—but if we had an honest vote counter, I would win California.”
Dr. Phil, sounding surprised, replied: “You think so?”
“Oh I think so,” Trump said. “I see it. I go around California, they have Trumps signs all over the place...It’s a very dishonest [state], everything is mail-in. They send out 38 million ballots, I think it is,” Trump continued, forging ahead into a monologue about how California is a dishonest system.
“Any time you have a mail-in ballot, you’re going to have massive fraud,” he added."
|
On August 29 2024 03:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 03:21 BlackJack wrote:
The link you’ve provided doesn’t contain Trump saying he won California in 2020 It's very clearly at the beginning of the article. He's saying he had more votes in California: "Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California, adding that all he needed was an “honest vote counter”—Jesus Christ, to be exact. “If Jesus Christ came down and was the vote counter, I would win California, OK?” Trump said. “In other words, if we had an honest vote counter, a really honest vote counter—I do great with Hispanics, great, I mean at a level no Republican has ever done—but if we had an honest vote counter, I would win California.” Dr. Phil, sounding surprised, replied: “You think so?” “Oh I think so,” Trump said. “I see it. I go around California, they have Trumps signs all over the place...It’s a very dishonest [state], everything is mail-in. They send out 38 million ballots, I think it is,” Trump continued, forging ahead into a monologue about how California is a dishonest system. “Any time you have a mail-in ballot, you’re going to have massive fraud,” he added."
I get that the Yahoo article says that Trump said that. But you can clearly see from the quoted text that he didn’t say that.
I think the more interesting take here is why you can’t trust the mainstream media and shouldn’t believe everything they say. The other take - that Trump is so full of himself to the point of delusion is already common knowledge.
|
Guys if "would" is too hard you should at least be able to go by what "if" means, it's beneath everyone to pretend not to know how to speak English, and deny basic reality like this. Retarded incorrect paraphrases from secondary articles- written by people containing obvious tells such as:
McGraw, who fawned over Trump earlier this summer, followed up:
Trump was given the opportunity to rule out breaking the law if re-elected, but he refused to do so.
do not replace the content of primary quotes.
|
I also like how you edited your post after you realized that he doesn't actually say that in the article but then still insist in some roundabout way that you're right
|
On August 29 2024 03:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2024 03:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 29 2024 03:21 BlackJack wrote:
The link you’ve provided doesn’t contain Trump saying he won California in 2020 It's very clearly at the beginning of the article. He's saying he had more votes in California: "Donald Trump insisted in a meandering interview with television host Dr. Phil McGraw on Tuesday that he had actually won California, adding that all he needed was an “honest vote counter”—Jesus Christ, to be exact. “If Jesus Christ came down and was the vote counter, I would win California, OK?” Trump said. “In other words, if we had an honest vote counter, a really honest vote counter—I do great with Hispanics, great, I mean at a level no Republican has ever done—but if we had an honest vote counter, I would win California.” Dr. Phil, sounding surprised, replied: “You think so?” “Oh I think so,” Trump said. “I see it. I go around California, they have Trumps signs all over the place...It’s a very dishonest [state], everything is mail-in. They send out 38 million ballots, I think it is,” Trump continued, forging ahead into a monologue about how California is a dishonest system. “Any time you have a mail-in ballot, you’re going to have massive fraud,” he added." I get that the Yahoo article says that Trump said that. But you can clearly see from the quoted text that he didn’t say that. I think the more interesting take here is why you can’t trust the mainstream media and shouldn’t believe everything they say. The other take - that Trump is so full of himself to the point of delusion is already common knowledge.
Trump clearly said it. It's in the article. He said he got more votes than Biden in California - which means he said he won California - and that the reason why California was given to Biden is because there was lying/cheating in regards to the vote tallies. Please don't play dumb, or try to make this a semantics thing. It's not. Trump said that more Californians voted for him than for Biden - that all those electoral votes from California should have gone to Trump (if only the election weren't rigged against him).
I don't know why you wrote the second half of your post:
"I think the more interesting take here is why you can’t trust the mainstream media and shouldn’t believe everything they say."
I don't know what this is in reference to, but I never said the mainstream media is 100% correct about everything. That's irrelevant to this article or my post though. Trump is still claiming that he won California (whether he truly believes it, or whether he's just lying to make himself out to be a victim, I don't know for sure).
"Trump is so full of himself to the point of delusion is already common knowledge."
That doesn't mean we just stop calling him out on his delusions and lies and falsehoods. This one about California is so obviously wrong, that I would be interested in hearing a Trump supporter attempt to justify it (as opposed to a different Trump lie/falsehood that might have some shades of gray to it). Similarly, we don't stop condemning his newer racist remarks just because we've known he was a racist since the Obama birther comments, and we don't stop condemning his newer sexist remarks just because we've known he was a sexist since the "grab her by the pussy" comments. We don't just give Trump's remarks a free pass and only fact-check people who aren't known liars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
