Coronavirus, Jihadi's and old white paedophiles

[Biltong Bob]

So this is the other thread.

 

At various times an argument has been put forward, and recently its been about Covid-19, with the analogy being made to Skittles.

 

If you knew that 3 Skittles out of 100 were poisonous, would you eat any skittles from the 100?

 

It reminded me of a similar argument during the Syrian crisis, during discussions about accepting refugees (if 1% of refugees harboured Jihadi tendencies, is it worth the risk accepting refugees etc).

 

I mentioned this in another thread and someone responded (tongue firmly in cheek) suggesting a similar analogy with old white men and paedophilia.

 

I suppose my question is when do we take this maths problem into account, and what variables come into play?

 

Its a philosophical question I think, amd possibly dependant on personal beliefs and ethics I suppose.

 

Theres no agenda here, just a thread to discuss an interesting dilemma.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Biltong Bob

[ratdog]

you might want to correct the title

[Hiphip]

 

 

 

I reckon you need to get 100 skittles and poison 3 of em. Then ask folk if they wanna go

 

 

Cheers

[Simple Jack]

The skittles are a hypothetical device. There are no variables; the information is complete - 3% of the beans are lethal. In the case of the refugees, even if you accept the accuracy of the 1% figure there are many variables. How do you quantify "jihadi tendency" in terms of outcome - what percentage of jihadis are likely to commit murder, and what steps can be taken to prevent that happening?

 

The consequence of not risking the beans is a discarded batch of jelly beans. The consequence of not admitting refugees is increased suffering for people who could really use some help.

[Guest Enochmosely18]

3 minutes ago, Simple Jack said:

The skittles are a hypothetical device. There are no variables; the information is complete - 3% of the beans are lethal. In the case of the refugees, even if you accept the accuracy of the 1% figure there are many variables. How do you quantify "jihadi tendency" in terms of outcome - what percentage of jihadis are likely to commit murder, and what steps can be taken to prevent that happening?

 

The consequence of not risking the beans is a discarded batch of jelly beans. The consequence of not admitting refugees is increased suffering for people who could really use some help.

The trick would be don’t take any chances, there’s no need to endanger your life by eating the skittles or anyone else’s by taking the refugees,

The paedos, just shoot them whatever colour they are.

[Biltong Bob]

38 minutes ago, ratdog said:

you might want to correct the title

 

[Biltong Bob]

33 minutes ago, Hiphip said:

 

 

 

I reckon you need to get 100 skittles and poison 3 of em. Then ask folk if they wanna go

 

 

Cheers

Sam Malone is amazing, how is this the first time I've heard of the Good Place?

 

 

[Degsy]

Well Simple Jack was right in the fact there is virtually no downside to not eating the skittles  , 

providing you aren't starving to death and they are the only thing you have to eat

 

[Hiphip]

4 minutes ago, Biltong Bob said:

Sam Malone is amazing, how is this the first time I've heard of the Good Place?

 

 

 

Season 4, the last one, just ended. Netflix. I liked it but some say it is tosh. The premise would make a fascinating topic

 

 

Cheers

[Biltong Bob]

22 minutes ago, Simple Jack said:

The skittles are a hypothetical device. There are no variables; the information is complete - 3% of the beans are lethal. In the case of the refugees, even if you accept the accuracy of the 1% figure there are many variables. How do you quantify "jihadi tendency" in terms of outcome - what percentage of jihadis are likely to commit murder, and what steps can be taken to prevent that happening?

 

The consequence of not risking the beans is a discarded batch of jelly beans. The consequence of not admitting refugees is increased suffering for people who could really use some help.

 

All good points.

 

I suppose it is a variation on the trolley problem in some respects.

 

In terms of variables, that could be applied to the virus too; much like the refugee example, in that if we say there's a 1% mortality rate on average, it depends on which 100 people you sample, any health issues age etc.

[Biltong Bob]

4 minutes ago, Degsy said:

Well Simple Jack was right in the fact there is virtually no downside to not eating the skittles  , 

providing you aren't starving to death and they are the only thing you have to eat

 

Lets go with that then. What if that was the case?

[Guest]

Only smarties have the answer

[Biltong Bob]

1 minute ago, TheGreenShabeenReturns said:

Only smarties have the answer

 

Remember society's problems amounted to folk racially profiling smarties for E numbers?

 

[Guest]

Them bloo's whoo weee

[Degsy]

8 minutes ago, Biltong Bob said:

Lets go with that then. What if that was the case?

 

Depends what type of poison it is , might be better than starving to death , also they taste nice