• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Honour Among Thieves

Reminds me of that anecdote from one of the Curtis' documentaries that talked about game theory. I can't remember the details, but I think it's about a thief who steals diamonds but can't sell them, and another thief offering to buy them for a million dollars. The first doesn't trust the other (i.e., the second might shoot him and run away with the diamonds), so proposes that instead of meeting and making the exchange they each bury what they will trade in fields far from each other, then meet to give each other the exact location of what they buried. After doing so, the first thief starts to change his mind again, and considers the possibility that the other will not bury the money. So, should he bury the diamonds?

I don't remember why the anecdote was raised, but it resembles a variant of Pascal's wage. That is, the four possibilities are both thieves bury what they trade and get what they want, only the first doesn't bury what to trade and gets away with it, only the second does that, or neither buries what they're supposed to trade.

Given that, the answer is not to bury the diamonds, as one as a 50-pct chance of getting what one wants or nothing in contrast to getting a 50-pct chance of getting nothing or losing the diamonds.
 
The idea of being a handsome rapist is a contradiction in terms because you'd end up looking sexy to other evil people who mean you ill. That's why perversion isn't always serious despite it being potentially evil!
 
An absurdist example of karma is that the Holocaust as a form of envy against Jews perceived as wealthy could be interpreted as a disproof of other genocides entailing literal supremacy. For example we’re not aware of an alternative history in which white supremacists would be religiously devout over the destruction of Native America and African tribes. Such tribes could have been perceived by evil people as being psychotic and in need of collective euthanasia. Yet Hitler disproved the idea that victims are biologically or neurologically inferior by being so jealous towards them. The dilemma is that this is a remote explanation that’s usually irrelevant to victims of crime but in extreme cases could defend God as being transcendent. A hyperbolic disproof of supremacy is that a horse isn’t fully unconscious but is conveniently ignored when horses aren’t ethical creatures. Yet a horse perceived as being subconscious rather than unconscious would be so superior to humans at physicality in a way that would defend deism against arguments of an evil God. It’s because evil people aren’t serious about genetic re-engineering that we usually don’t need megalomaniacal disproofs of the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom