So then everythings purpose is to do everything. No matter how seldom sometime happens in connection with something, that is it’s purpose. What a useful definition.
you understand that there’s a difference between causality and coincidence right?
Chairs cause weakening of core muscles which can lead to injury, chairs are frequently found in buildings that catch fire however they are unrelated to the fires.
The whole point of the previous examples was to verify this is the logic. Why are your examples now specially not affected? Why is the purpose of the chair not to weak for muscles?
Not according to your definition. My childhood house burned down because of an electrical fire. So according to your logic, the purpose of electricity is to burn down homes. It’s absurd.
I don’t know who we is here, by the blithe arrogance I’ll assume usa.
Presumably because people decided there were too many electrocutions and fires and so modified electrification of houses to reduce that? What do you think you’re point is? It’s not that people are gleefully throwing children into fires for their TVs, it’s just that stuff does what it does.
Sweet. So the point of electrification is to power homes, with a side effect of burning some down. But we can try to improve electrification, so fewer homes burn down. And over time, as we’ve improved the system, fewer homes have burned down.
The purpose of the system is not to burn homes down. The purpose of the system is to power homes. Some homes burn down, but that doesn’t mean that by using electricity we’re okay with that. And it doesn’t mean we should abandon the idea of electricity. It means we should take the system and try to improve it.
Now we can bring that back to our current democratic capitalist social system. Democracy and capitalism are systems that sometimes produces death and misery. Death and misery is not the intent of the systems. We can still use the system without accepting that death and misery are a natural part. Instead, we try to improve the system. Not tear it down, improve it. And it has been improving. Not steadily, it jumps forward and then falls back at times, but over time there’s been a general upward trend in happiness and quality of life. People in the 2020s have a better quality of life than people in the 1920s, who had a better quality of life than those in the 1820s. We’re making things better. We don’t need to tear it down.
That’s a cool thought experiment, and can be useful in cases where people are lying about the intent of a system (ie poll tax - - > voter suppression), but it’s just a thought experiment, not a tautology. It’s a way to look at a system from a different viewpoint to gain insights. It’s not descriptive of reality.
Again, the point of electrification is not to burn down houses. If you agree with this statement, then your premise is wrong.
So then everythings purpose is to do everything. No matter how seldom sometime happens in connection with something, that is it’s purpose. What a useful definition.
you understand that there’s a difference between causality and coincidence right?
Chairs cause weakening of core muscles which can lead to injury, chairs are frequently found in buildings that catch fire however they are unrelated to the fires.
The whole point of the previous examples was to verify this is the logic. Why are your examples now specially not affected? Why is the purpose of the chair not to weak for muscles?
The chair is to enable comfort at the cost of weakness, but not house fires.
you have appalling reading comprehension.
Not according to your definition. My childhood house burned down because of an electrical fire. So according to your logic, the purpose of electricity is to burn down homes. It’s absurd.
Yes, the system of electrifying houses is to enable widespread use of electrical devices at the cost of a few electrocutions and fires.
So why do we have the National Electric Code?
I don’t know who we is here, by the blithe arrogance I’ll assume usa.
Presumably because people decided there were too many electrocutions and fires and so modified electrification of houses to reduce that? What do you think you’re point is? It’s not that people are gleefully throwing children into fires for their TVs, it’s just that stuff does what it does.
Sweet. So the point of electrification is to power homes, with a side effect of burning some down. But we can try to improve electrification, so fewer homes burn down. And over time, as we’ve improved the system, fewer homes have burned down.
The purpose of the system is not to burn homes down. The purpose of the system is to power homes. Some homes burn down, but that doesn’t mean that by using electricity we’re okay with that. And it doesn’t mean we should abandon the idea of electricity. It means we should take the system and try to improve it.
Now we can bring that back to our current democratic capitalist social system. Democracy and capitalism are systems that sometimes produces death and misery. Death and misery is not the intent of the systems. We can still use the system without accepting that death and misery are a natural part. Instead, we try to improve the system. Not tear it down, improve it. And it has been improving. Not steadily, it jumps forward and then falls back at times, but over time there’s been a general upward trend in happiness and quality of life. People in the 2020s have a better quality of life than people in the 1920s, who had a better quality of life than those in the 1820s. We’re making things better. We don’t need to tear it down.
You’re being stupid and trying to wiggle out from something so obvious as to be tautological https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does
That’s a cool thought experiment, and can be useful in cases where people are lying about the intent of a system (ie poll tax - - > voter suppression), but it’s just a thought experiment, not a tautology. It’s a way to look at a system from a different viewpoint to gain insights. It’s not descriptive of reality.
Again, the point of electrification is not to burn down houses. If you agree with this statement, then your premise is wrong.