Zone1 The needs of the one or the needs of the many

[Foxfyre]

In the past year, as a dedicated Trekkie, one gift I much enjoyed was a collection of all the Star Trek movies. The movies, as was the television series, are not just pure entertainment but generally contain thought provoking concepts and issues that make us think. At least some of us.

The character Spock, a Vulcan, dedicated to the concept of Kohlinar which eradicates all emotion and self awareness with pure reason, logic, intellect, held to the concept of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one'. In Star Trek II, he sacrifices himself to deadly radiation poisoning to repair the warp drive on the space ship so that Captain Kirk and the rest of the crew could escape an equally deadly situation.

For Spock, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

Then, with some movie engineering, the writers managed to find a way to revive Spock which became known to the crew. Defying orders from Starfleet Command, Kirk and crew broke more than a dozen rules and regulations sufficient to destroy their respective careers when they set out on a mission to find and rescue Spock. Which they did.

For the crew of the Enterprise, the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

That dichotomy exists throughout the human condition.

In the story of Moses, a prince of Egypt and heir to the Pharoah's throne sacrificed it all to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt. The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

In the parable, the shepherd leaves his flock unprotected to go and find the sheep that is lost. The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

Fast forward to modern times.
Do the needs of the relatively few handicapped for prime parking spaces outweigh the needs for the able bodied to have one of those parking places?

Does the need of the immigrant student to learn English justify taking resources from the many to provide him with that education?

Does the need of the transgendered woman justify taking the right of privacy and safety from the many in the public restroom?

Does the need for the many to have a public facility or service justify taking property or property rights from the one?

Does the need for many Atheists and agnostics to have a religion free environment justify taking away somebody's religious relic or art work that he/she enjoys?

I'll admit a great deal of personal emotional/rational conflict in this area as to when to choose the common good over protection of the individual unalienable rights that this country was founded on.

Does anybody have a good formula to use to determine that?

 

[rampart]

In the past year, as a dedicated Trekkie, one gift I much enjoyed was a collection of all the Star Trek movies. The movies, as was the television series, are not just pure entertainment but generally contain thought provoking concepts and issues that make us think. At least some of us.

The character Spock, a Vulcan, dedicated to the concept of Kohlinar which eradicates all emotion and self awareness with pure reason, logic, intellect, held to the concept of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one'. In Star Trek II, he sacrifices himself to deadly radiation poisoning to repair the warp drive on the space ship so that Captain Kirk and the rest of the crew could escape an equally deadly situation.

For Spock, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

Then, with some movie engineering, the writers managed to find a way to revive Spock which became known to the crew. Defying orders from Starfleet Command, Kirk and crew broke more than a dozen rules and regulations sufficient to destroy their respective careers and set out on a mission to find and rescue Spock. Which they did.

For the crew of the Enterprise, the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

That dichotomy exists throughout the human condition.

In the story of Moses, a prince of Egypt and heir to the Pharoah's throne, sacrificed it all to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt. The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

In the parable, the shepherd leaves his flock unprotected to go and find the sheep that is lost. The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

Fast forward to modern times.
Do the needs of the relatively few handicapped for prime parking spaces outweigh the needs for the less handicapped or able bodied to have those parking places?

Does the need of the immigrant student to learn English justify taking resources from the many to provide him with that education?

Does the need of the transgendered woman justify taking the right of privacy and safety from the many in the public restroom?

Does the need for the many to have a public facility or service justify taking property or property rights from the one?

Does the need for many Atheists and agnostics to have a religion free environment justify taking away somebody's religious relic or art work that he/she enjoys?

I'll admit a great deal of personal emotional/rational conflict in this area as to when to choose the common good over protection of the individual unalienable rights that this country was founded on.

Does anybody have a good formula to use to determine that?

utilitarianism is one of several tests to apply in case one must enter a warp reactor. i kinda prefer throwing in the smallest guy, oh, sorry, smallest person, and dogging that hatch down shut!

 

[progressive hunter]

In the past year, as a dedicated Trekkie, one gift I much enjoyed was a collection of all the Star Trek movies. The movies, as was the television series, are not just pure entertainment but generally contain thought provoking concepts and issues that make us think. At least some of us.

The character Spock, a Vulcan, dedicated to the concept of Kohlinar which eradicates all emotion and self awareness with pure reason, logic, intellect, held to the concept of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one'. In Star Trek II, he sacrifices himself to deadly radiation poisoning to repair the warp drive on the space ship so that Captain Kirk and the rest of the crew could escape an equally deadly situation.

For Spock, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

Then, with some movie engineering, the writers managed to find a way to revive Spock which became known to the crew. Defying orders from Starfleet Command, Kirk and crew broke more than a dozen rules and regulations sufficient to destroy their respective careers when they set out on a mission to find and rescue Spock. Which they did.

For the crew of the Enterprise, the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

That dichotomy exists throughout the human condition.

In the story of Moses, a prince of Egypt and heir to the Pharoah's throne sacrificed it all to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt. The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

In the parable, the shepherd leaves his flock unprotected to go and find the sheep that is lost. The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

Fast forward to modern times.
Do the needs of the relatively few handicapped for prime parking spaces outweigh the needs for the able bodied to have one of those parking places?

Does the need of the immigrant student to learn English justify taking resources from the many to provide him with that education?

Does the need of the transgendered woman justify taking the right of privacy and safety from the many in the public restroom?

Does the need for the many to have a public facility or service justify taking property or property rights from the one?

Does the need for many Atheists and agnostics to have a religion free environment justify taking away somebody's religious relic or art work that he/she enjoys?

I'll admit a great deal of personal emotional/rational conflict in this area as to when to choose the common good over protection of the individual unalienable rights that this country was founded on.

Does anybody have a good formula to use to determine that?

if the needs for the one hurt the many or vice versa,,

if the need of the tranny puts others in danger that need shouldnt be allowed,,

 

[Vastator]

In the past year, as a dedicated Trekkie, one gift I much enjoyed was a collection of all the Star Trek movies. The movies, as was the television series, are not just pure entertainment but generally contain thought provoking concepts and issues that make us think. At least some of us.

The character Spock, a Vulcan, dedicated to the concept of Kohlinar which eradicates all emotion and self awareness with pure reason, logic, intellect, held to the concept of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one'. In Star Trek II, he sacrifices himself to deadly radiation poisoning to repair the warp drive on the space ship so that Captain Kirk and the rest of the crew could escape an equally deadly situation.

For Spock, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

Then, with some movie engineering, the writers managed to find a way to revive Spock which became known to the crew. Defying orders from Starfleet Command, Kirk and crew broke more than a dozen rules and regulations sufficient to destroy their respective careers when they set out on a mission to find and rescue Spock. Which they did.

For the crew of the Enterprise, the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

That dichotomy exists throughout the human condition.

In the story of Moses, a prince of Egypt and heir to the Pharoah's throne sacrificed it all to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt. The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

In the parable, the shepherd leaves his flock unprotected to go and find the sheep that is lost. The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

Fast forward to modern times.
Do the needs of the relatively few handicapped for prime parking spaces outweigh the needs for the able bodied to have one of those parking places?

Does the need of the immigrant student to learn English justify taking resources from the many to provide him with that education?

Does the need of the transgendered woman justify taking the right of privacy and safety from the many in the public restroom?

Does the need for the many to have a public facility or service justify taking property or property rights from the one?

Does the need for many Atheists and agnostics to have a religion free environment justify taking away somebody's religious relic or art work that he/she enjoys?

I'll admit a great deal of personal emotional/rational conflict in this area as to when to choose the common good over protection of the individual unalienable rights that this country was founded on.

Does anybody have a good formula to use to determine that?

Concentricity. Self, family, group, tribe, town, community, county, state, country.

If one option lies closer to "self" ;it trumps the needs of the outliers, regardless of numbers...

 

[Foxfyre]

if the needs for the one hurt the many or vice versa,,

if the need of the tranny puts others in danger that need shouldnt be allowed,,

That is logical and reasonable. EXCEPT the argument is that most trannys do not put women at any increased risk and women's feelings re privacy are not important enough to consider while the tranny's feelings are paramount. So to accommodate the non dangerous tranny, women will just have to be uncomfortable and at higher risk from those that are not so harmless.

That's the reasoning. But is it logical? Beneficial?

 

[progressive hunter]

That is logical and reasonable. EXCEPT the argument is that most trannys do not put women at any increased risk and women's feelings re privacy are not important enough to consider while the tranny's feelings are paramount. So to accommodate the non dangerous tranny, women will just have to be uncomfortable and at higher risk from those that are not so harmless.

That's the reasoning. But is it logical? Beneficial?

thats not logical,,

the risk and fear is more important than inconvenience,,

 

[Foxfyre]

Concentricity. Self, family, group, tribe, town, community, county, state, country.

If one option lies closer to "self" ;it trumps the needs of the outliers, regardless of numbers...

Okay I need some context or clarification for that one.

 

[Foxfyre]

thats not logical,,

the risk and fear is more important than inconvenience,,

Who gets to decide that though?

 

[progressive hunter]

Who gets to decide that though?

the people decide

 

[alang1216]

Life is a balancing act and no absolute rule will cover every circumstance. It depends on how much benefit the many get vs how much the individual stands to lose.

Do the needs of the relatively few handicapped for prime parking spaces outweigh the needs for the able bodied to have one of those parking places?

yes, small sacrifice for the able-bodied, large benefit to the handicaped

Does the need of the immigrant student to learn English justify taking resources from the many to provide him with that education?

yes, it is an investment in that immigrant that will benefit the many in the long term

Does the need of the transgendered woman justify taking the right of privacy and safety from the many in the public restroom?

yes, generally women's bathrooms have stalls for privacy

Does the need for the many to have a public facility or service justify taking property or property rights from the one?

maybe, depends on the details

Does the need for many Atheists and agnostics to have a religion free environment justify taking away somebody's religious relic or art work that he/she enjoys?

no, so long as the religious don't inflict their religion on others.

 

[Foxfyre]

the people decide

Do we? I've never had an opportunity to vote on it. Have you?

 

[Woodznutz]

if the needs for the one hurt the many or vice versa,,

if the need of the tranny puts others in danger that need shouldnt be allowed,,

Trannies 'need' to be accepted as normal by truly normal people. Thus the dustup. The fact is that there are enough of them to have their own community and society without being a pain in the ass for everyone else.

 

[progressive hunter]

Do we? I've never had an opportunity to vote on it. Have you?

how many women or young girls being raped would it take for you to stand against it??

 

[progressive hunter]

Trannies 'need' to be accepted as normal by truly normal people. Thus the dustup. The fact is that there are enough of them to have their own community and society without being a pain in the ass for everyone else.

I accept them 100%,, just not going to allow them to endanger other people especially children,,

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In the past year, as a dedicated Trekkie, one gift I much enjoyed was a collection of all the Star Trek movies. The movies, as was the television series, are not just pure entertainment but generally contain thought provoking concepts and issues that make us think. At least some of us.

The character Spock, a Vulcan, dedicated to the concept of Kohlinar which eradicates all emotion and self awareness with pure reason, logic, intellect, held to the concept of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one'. In Star Trek II, he sacrifices himself to deadly radiation poisoning to repair the warp drive on the space ship so that Captain Kirk and the rest of the crew could escape an equally deadly situation.

For Spock, the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

Then, with some movie engineering, the writers managed to find a way to revive Spock which became known to the crew. Defying orders from Starfleet Command, Kirk and crew broke more than a dozen rules and regulations sufficient to destroy their respective careers when they set out on a mission to find and rescue Spock. Which they did.

For the crew of the Enterprise, the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

That dichotomy exists throughout the human condition.

In the story of Moses, a prince of Egypt and heir to the Pharoah's throne sacrificed it all to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt. The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

In the parable, the shepherd leaves his flock unprotected to go and find the sheep that is lost. The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

Fast forward to modern times.
Do the needs of the relatively few handicapped for prime parking spaces outweigh the needs for the able bodied to have one of those parking places?

Does the need of the immigrant student to learn English justify taking resources from the many to provide him with that education?

Does the need of the transgendered woman justify taking the right of privacy and safety from the many in the public restroom?

Does the need for the many to have a public facility or service justify taking property or property rights from the one?

Does the need for many Atheists and agnostics to have a religion free environment justify taking away somebody's religious relic or art work that he/she enjoys?

I'll admit a great deal of personal emotional/rational conflict in this area as to when to choose the common good over protection of the individual unalienable rights that this country was founded on.

Does anybody have a good formula to use to determine that?

I agree that the needs of the few outway the needs of the one, but if the few dont do shit to make it better, then fuck them.


I used to feel sorry for the poor until i saw how much money went to the poor, and they are still poor. Fuck all.

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution.

1 trillion dollars a year is spent to keep people poor, stop the payments and the people will have to find a job. Then when they realize that life is better, then they wont vote Marxist/Demofascist who keep raising their taxes. Win, win for the United States...

 

[Woodznutz]

I accept them 100%,, just not going to allow them to endanger other people especially children,,

I don't think that qualifies as "100 percent".

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't think that qualifies as "100 percent".

thats your problem,, you didnt think,,,

 

[rampart]

Concentricity. Self, family, group, tribe, town, community, county, state, country.

If one option lies closer to "self" ;it trumps the needs of the outliers, regardless of numbers...

glad we don't need you in the next civil war!

Dante my old lady just told me, in great detail, what my new years resolutions are. i felt like captain kirk had sentenced me to eternity on a planet with hundreds of clones if the reason i left the entire solar system in my rear view mirror for a pack of cigarettes ...... is that the 40 year itch?

 

[Woodznutz]

I agree that the needs of the few outway the needs of the one, but if the few dont do shit to make it better, then fuck them.


I used to feel sorry for the poor until i saw how much money went to the poor, and they are still poor. Fuck all.

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure 1 trillion dollars a year is spent to keep people poor, stop the payments and the people will have to find a job. Then when they realize that life is better, then they wont vote Marxist/Demofascist who keep raising their taxes. Win, win for the United States...

View attachment 880494

"Teach a man to fish, and all he'll want to do is go fishing."

 

[Foxfyre]

Life is a balancing act and no absolute rule will cover every circumstance. It depends on how much benefit the many get vs how much the individual stands to lose.


yes, small sacrifice for the able-bodied, large benefit to the handicaped


yes, it is an investment in that immigrant that will benefit the many in the long term


yes, generally women's bathrooms have stalls for privacy


maybe, depends on the details


no, so long as the religious don't inflict their religion on others.

The able bodied guy has 5 minutes to complete a critical transaction and there are no parking places except for five empty handicapped spots.

There was once a hard core policy that immigrants would see to it that they learned the language at their own expense or else they didn't come here. What rule of ethics gives that immigrant the right to my money? And how much of my money is he/she entitled?

When my minor daughter or granddaughter is alone in a public restroom with a transgendered woman who is actually a man, private bathroom stalls don't help a whole lot.

Her family has occupied her home for five generations, and the property includes the burial sites of her loved ones. What public need overrides her right to that property?

Who gets to decide whether that art work pushes religion on another person?