AtLossForWords wrote: The post can be anything, funny or serious, emotional or logical, intelligent or stupid.

 

I dont care if it was last year (i can't remember) it takes the cake....and the donuts!

 

Haha, big time.

 

 

I believe this one counts for ever type of post, especially funny.

 

Here is The Greatest Post Ever....

 

 

 

A - 176

1 to change the bulb, and post a message saying that the lightbulb has been changed

14 to share similar experiences of changing lightbulbs, and how the lightbulb could have been changed differently

7 to caution about the dangers of changing lightbulbs

4 to point out the spelling/grammatical errors in the posts about changing lightbulbs

5 to flame the spell checkers

3 to correct the spelling/grammar flames

6 to argue over whether it’s "lightbulb" or "light bulb", and another 6 to condemn those 6 as anal retentive

1 to PM the flamers reminding them of the "civility thread"

3 to post messages reminding the flamers of the "civility thread"

3 to write to the site administrators about the lightbulb discussions, and the inappropriateness to this forum

6 to point out that we all use lightbulbs, and therefore they are a valid topic for discussion

7 to ask why this thread about lightbulbs is not in the "discussions not related to music section"

3 to post huge pictures of lightbulbs

1 to post a picture of Greg Lake changing a lightbulb

1 to set up a poll asking what type of light bulb is best, plus 1 to set up a poll asking which method of changing lightbulbs is superior

5 to post URLs where one can see examples of different lightbulbs, and definitive lists af all lightbulbs ever made

3 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and do not work

2 to post to say that the URLs work for them OK

3 to post to say the URLs are now working OK

1 to point out that the FAQ’s on lightbulb.com has the definitive information on changing lightbulbs

2 to ask what "FAQ" stands for

10 to ask why several other types of light bulbs were not included in the poll

7 to point out that some of the lightbulbs listed are not in their opinion lightbulbs.

4 to point out that lightbulbs have already been discussed in another thread

5 to suggest that some of the lightbulbs in the poll are neo-lightbulbs

1 to point out that neo-lightbulbs are derivative, and do not filter the design influences of original lightbulbs well enough

2 to come up with obscure references to lightbulbs from the late 60’s, early 70’s, the "golden age" of lightbulbs

4 to point out that European light bulbs are best

4 to object to the constant bashing of American lightbulbs

2 to apologise for bashing American lightbulbs, and plead that it was not their intention

2 to say they don’t like the way the thread is going, and that they are leaving the forum forever

the same 2 people to post again 2 days later apparently not having left after all

1 to apologise for having posted while drunk, and just read what they said

6 to have a conversation of their own within the thread unrelated to the topic.

2 to claim that Frank Zappa was the first prog rocker to change a lightbulb.

8 to assert that he was not, and to name others prog rockers who did so before him

10 to argue that those others named are not prog rockers and therefore do not count.

2 to say that Peter Rideout changes lightbulbs better than anyone else

10 to post messages agreeing with previous posts by writing "me too"

1 to post a message saying "Me three" with a laughing emoticon

3 to post messages with only laughing emoticons in response

1 to quote in full 20 other previous posts in one message, and add comments to each one

2 to quote the entire previous post, and add further comments to each line detailing why they completely disagree

and finally

1 to start a new thread on Mariah Carey’s lightbulbs which has nothing to do with Mariah Carey......or lighbulbs!

Why should anyone have to choose between a free world and a safer one.  The key to society is a good system of ethics.

 

Let's look at Immanuel Kant's objective ethical system of imperatives.  Kant believes that the only good thing that is good all by itself is a good will.  Many good traits, such as marksmanship, collectedness, or computer skills are all good things, but can be used for bad intentions.  The challenge for Kant is how to get society to act with a good will. 

Kant does this with his system of imperatives or "shoulds".  One categorical and one hypothetical.  Hypothetical imperatives are simple.  If you desire A do B sort of thing.  (e.g. If you want to earn money, have a job).  Categorical imperatives are somewhat more complex.  Categorical imperatives are derived from duty.  This is the key to morally praiseworthy actions.  If you save your friend from a fatality of being hit by a car is that a morally praise worthy action?  Kant says no, the action of saving your friend is something done from inclination.  Duty is something that should be done, but without inclination.  If you were to save a total stranger from a car fatality, Kant says that is a morally praiseworthy action.  Why, because it is something done from duty without inclination.  You have saved a fellow citizen's life.  It effects you in no reasonable way whether that citizen lived or died.  The categorical imperative is how citizens fulfill their roles.  What to do when two imperatives clash is difficult.  Kant says nothing of this and leaves it to his students to decide.

 

Kant also supports his imperatives with his thesis of "always treat humanity as an ends, not as a means."  Here is an example: A philosophy teacher does an excellent job of educating his students on the wonders of philosophy, but does just to earn money.  Every student walks into the class a dollar sign and out of the class a paycheck.  This is using humanity as a means to get money.  Kant belives this is wrong.  The philosophy teacher who teaches his students all the wonders of philosophy for the sake of fulfilling his duty is using humanity as a means.  His students aren't dollar signs, but rather a goal.  He then earns a paycheck as a result of his hardwork. 

 

You may think that there is no logical difference between the to.  This is not true.  Kant's philosophy is non-consequential.  It is based entirely on the will, the motive, and the duty.  It's safe to say that Kant believes people should act in the interest of society, not in the interest of themelves. 

 

Rousseau has another ethical system.  Rousseau has one golden rule of ethics, to allow the maximum amount of freedom for yourself, while causing the least amount of harm to others.  This is quite broad.  This could be taken to the extreme and mean that a heroine user is morally right and a factory owner is morally wrong, because the heroine user harms only himself.  The factory owner pollutes and harms the enviroment and the people in it.  Rousseau's rule is excellent, within reason. 

 

Rousseau also has a fondness for duty.  He believe citizens should work to support a surplus.  The surplus is the key to keeping society happy.  With a surplus, there is enough to spare for every, and while working to support a surplus work is always necessary and never useless.  Rousseu belives citizens at times, do need to put the good of society ahead of their own good, but isn't the good of society a citizen's own good too?

 

Combining Rousseau's liberty with Kant's duty results in a selfess, altruistic, free, and safe society. 

 

Carl Sagan has yet another point of view.  Sagan ethics are of the "tit for tat" rule.  This is rewarding loyalty with loyalty and betrayal with betrayal.  Sagan uses the example of two friends being detained by the police.  Either you or your friend could get a lesser penalty by one confessing and one refusing to incriminate himself, but both of you could get off by refusing to self incriminate.  Sagan belives people should reward loyalty with loyalty and betrayal with betrayal.  This is consequential, and different from Kant's non-consequential ethics.  Sagan's theory is for more of a man eat man society.  There is a maximum amount of freedom, but a minimal amount of safety if society dictates. 

 

So who can save us?  Plato can!  In Plato's republic the best society is the one which acts in philosophicial dikaiasune for which there is no English translation.  The general meaning of the word is justice, goodness, righteousness, and honor.  Plato defines justice as the fulfillment of function.  (back to Kantian imperatives)  Plato's function is much like Kant's imperatives.  That society should act in the spirit of duty.  For example take a piano.  A piano works best when used as a musical instrument.  You could try to make a piano into a table, but I doubt it would be very pleasant to rest a glass of water on the keys.  A piano plays music better than it does anything else, therefore it should play music.  The just way to act is not doing just what you do best, but never doing what harms.  A musician cannot make someone unmusical through music! This means that the just man never harms another man.  Everyone acts in the interest of society.

 

Plato has the trump card, but combining Platonic Dikaiasune, Kantian Imperatives, and Rousseaun Democracy, the perfect society can exist acting in the interest of society with the maximum amount of freedom and the fullest potential of skills.