User talk:Danielpi

Moral Luck[edit]

Hi there. I earned a specialist degree in philosophy (one step up from a major) and I couldn't follow your moral luck example. Neither the moral luck article nor the problems in philosophy page had a clear statement of the problem of moral luck. The problems of philosophy page needed a particularly concise statement of the problem... so then, maybe I would ask you, if you had to sum it up in two or three sentences, what do you think is the problem of moral luck (without using examples)? That is what I tried to reflect in the edit. e.g. if I were to sum up the problem of induction, I would say: There is no reason to lead us to conclude that the future will resemble the past. -Abscissa 13:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read what I wrote. I agree that it needs some major changing and a better example, but not a revert because I think your original example was unclear and did not illustrate the problem concisely. If you had to state very briefly without using an example the problem of moral luck, what would you say? We seem to be talking about two different problems. I am not fermilliar with the problem the way you introduced it. E.g. suppose you and I are at a party, and, as usual, I get egregiously drunk but decide to drive home anyway, and (as usual) I get home safely. You are my neighbour, and stay completely sober, but leave five minutes after I do and, travelling in the same direction on the same route, manage to hit and kill several children who had just setup a late-night street hockey game. Who here is morally blameworthy? Intuitively it seems you are even though I did the wrong thing, and your unfortunate accident was a matter of "luck" (or "unluck"...) .... or how about this. We are two assassins who set out to murder the president. We both have a rifle each and we both take perfect aim at his small-minded narrow little Texas faith-based head and fire at the same time, but at that exact moment a raindrop intercepts your bullet and knocks it out of the way. Am I more morally responsible than you for his death? (Or a better question, am I more deserving of the praise that will be heaped upon me for ending the reign of a fascist dictator?) - Abscissa 14:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk, a quick breeze over your user page suggests that you are bent toward the analytic school of thought... I am going to have to be clear lest my responses don't meet the standards of clairty and rigor. I would say that moral luck is about situations concerning morality which arise out of luck. I hope this definition isn't too circular. :-) If you set out to steal something, most people say you are bad, that is morally wrong, etc. etc. But what if the moral situation arises because of luck? (For whatever reason.) So any "unintended consequences" are a mere branch of the idea of luck. Suppose you were born in to a room where everything was provided for you and you never had to do anything, therefore never make any moral choices. This would be lucky in some sense... even though you don't do any actions with unintended consequences... - Abscissa 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project List[edit]

Hi, I've moved your project list from User:Danielpi Project List to User:Danielpi/Project List. By making it a subpage of your user page, it helps to keep it all organized. It's not very likely that a new person will sign up with the name "Danielpi Project List", but if someone did, that would actually be their user page. :-) Best, FreplySpang 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus[edit]

This arbitration case is close and the final decision has been posted at the link above. You are to be banned for one week for discourtesy and personal attacks.

It is recommended that Veselin Topalov be edited in accord with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Special attention is drawn to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism and Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material making removal of poorly sourced negative information from the biography of a living person an exception to the three revert rule (3RR).

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for one week in accordance with the decision above noted.--SB | T 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, while I do appreciate ArbCom's decisions regarding content- about conduct, I can only say that I have open contempt for the ArbCom's judicial skills. Feel free to ban me another week for that one, you lazy superficial jurists.:-) Danny Pi 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fellow Ignoramus... (AKA philosopher)[edit]

Let it be known that I am not an expert on Kant .. but I learned in at least three classes that the so called "naturalistic fallacy" was identified first by Kant?? (I read about 1/2 of critique)

This seems to contradict the beginning of the naturalistic fallacy article.

What were/are you taught?! There is no way in hell i am going through critique to prove that I am right. - Abscissa 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite[edit]

I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users ([1]) and incivility/personal attacks following the block ([2]). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 01:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended to an indef due to your behavior after the block. --Smashville^talk 01:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]