Which, by the way, is why I would steal the bread.
Why is there a Women's World Championship?
Sort:
To me it's a question of if a person is morally accountable for inaction.
If you could give a starving man bread by don't, is that a morally neutral action?
If you could save 10 by killing one but don't is that a morally neutral action?
It seems that you'd have to answer both of these the same.
I know, but the thing is, anybody can formulate a number of reasons to not push the guy (inadequate physical strength, fear of failure & its consequences, being in contact with a gross fat man, etc), whereas hitting the switch has far less contingencies. I know, it allows for a certain abstraction of thought, but it's a much cleaner problem with regards to the ultimate responsibility for the deaths of others, I think.
I would put the entire system in a box, and rig the switch up to throw only upon the decay of a single radioactive atom. As long as we don't look, everyone can stay in an indefinite superposition of alive and dead (provided we leave enough bread in the box).
What if the four of the guys on the railroad track are stealing the fifth guy's bread?
French or German bread?
It doesn't have to be a fat guy -- we could make it a skinny guy.
Wafflemaster: I believe those two things are wrong. With that said, I don't think the guy is a murderer (a lot of people probably do!); he's merely useless.
Think of it this way: if he was a murderer, why is it that if he didn't exist, the man would still die? He didn't cause death; he simply didn't help. He's a really bad man, but it's still not murder.
Elubas wrote:
It doesn't have to be a fat guy -- we could make it a skinny guy.
Wafflemaster: no, I believe those two things are wrong. With that said, I don't think the guy is a murderer (a lot of people probably do!); he's merely useless.
Think of it this way: if he was a murderer, why is it that if he didn't exist, the man would still die? He didn't cause death; he simply didn't help. He's a really bad man, but it's still not murder.
That's right, I forgot the POV (I used to agree with you by the way, it's not a bad argument ;)
You're saying the action of murder is worse than the inaction of allowing people to die, I see.
Elubas' topic seems totally unrelated, but it's interesting because I'm starting to agree with batgirl heh. Ideal world (which isn't wrong to fight for) vs practical allowances.
Maybe women's only tournaments could have a rating cap... that way they could draw more women in with a more explicit purpose... to integrate more women in professional play.
So my new idea... Having a female world chess championship is ok. Titles are dubious (aren't the standard titles incentive enough?) And tournaments are OK to a point 
Wafflemaster: Mind you, I think there is a very, very, big difference between not helping someone when you have the power to do so (you own the food), and deciding to not steal even though stealing would save a life.
Elubas wrote:
It doesn't have to be a fat guy -- we could make it a skinny guy.
Well doesn't this allow for an out by saying you'd jump yourself? Theoreticalboy is right, the switch is cleaner.
By the way, does anyone have any data or something to show us any significant changes in women's chess since all of this women's only stuff?
I'm not implying anything with that, I'm genuinely curious. I just want to make sure the practical solution is actually doing the practical things it set out to do 
. If it disrespects men AND doesn't help get more women to play, then we definitely have a problem
Elubas wrote:
Wafflemaster: Mind you, I think there is a very, very, big difference between not helping someone when you have the power to do so (you own the food), and deciding to not steal even though stealing would save a life.
Yeah, there's where more people will disagree with you I think. Saying action of stealing is worse than inaction allowing death.
So let's try to widen the gap a bit more :p What do you think about causing pain? If someone had a fatal disease, would you give them a shot with a cure even though the shot hurts them? I.e. action of causing pain vs inaction of allowing death.
TheGrobe: I'm not saying any of these situations are cleaner than another. Anyone can come up with a silly answer, but you only get something out of it if you take on the scenario head-on. If, for whatever reason, you had to, specifically, push a person to execute your kill-one-to-save-five ideal, would you do it under that condition? The point is not if it's realistic or not; only by answering the question head on do you get a feel for what you value the most. In this case we are conflicting consequence (save five) with the specific means of doing it ("I have to push that guy?").
The shot only helps; pain is a very superficial form of hurt by comparison. I'm not sure where you are going with that, but proceed; I'm enjoying the ride!
Well, I think I would not push him.
Now, if it were a fat woman on the other hand....
batgirl wrote:
Trysts, I totally agree, it's individual. But we are faced with is the statistical reality that potential to reach the top increases significantly with the increase of the pool. While there's no doubt that any individual will have to subject himself/herself to the most grueling training, those people don't show up out of thin air and out of 1000 people with the desire, only a couple, if that many will make it. So you need 1000s upon 1000s of potential prospects with that desire. J. Polgar is an anomaly, just as Paul Morphy had been in becoming a world champion in 1860 America. Anomalies happen. The female pool is teeny tiny, though far beyond what it was years ago. The key, to me, is to increase the pool by whatever means. Women tournaments have and do increase the pool. There are reasons, whatever they might be, that women tend to participate more in separate events, but it seems true that they do. Now, there's a price paid for this. We are aware of these prices, so I won't try to enumerate. Sure there are other ways to go about things, but I don't think this was is invalid, nor do I think that the money diverted from general chess for prizes is so devastating. That a man is WC doesn't say anything for men in general anymore than J. Polgar being a whiz makes me a better player. But the reason for lower ratings/ranking of women in general does, I feel, lie in statistics and the only way to bolster the situation is to change the statistically input.
I had to think about this a bit, so sorry for the delay. I think I agree with you.
Elubas wrote:
The shot only helps; pain is a very superficial form of hurt by comparison. I'm not sure where you are going with that, but proceed; I'm enjoying the ride!
Because what most people would call negligible pain is what most people would call negligible theft... i.e. if all you steal is bread. It's nice that you're comparing the "hurt" even though one is action and the other inaction. That's how many compare stealing to prevent death... the inaction packs a lot more hurt :p
Your answer seems to put you on more the legalism side of things... i.e. something is wrong because the law says so. But surely causing pain has more moral implications than, say, theft from a wealthy person who will never notice.
I'm sure many people, when I bring up male discrimination, think I am just trying to be difficult, nitpicking the tiniest problems. But to me, it's not subtle. Guys, how often have you seen, whether in life or on TV, a guy comforting another girl when she cries, but does the polar opposite when a guy does it?
The whole concept of "be a gentleman" is something I have a problem with. The point is, you can treat a woman equally, repsect all of their rights, yet be called "not a gentleman" because you were supposed to treat them better than you would treat a male, not just equally. Sometimes, I think our society is conditioned, and, if unintentionally, taught, to be nicer, more lenient to girls than to boys.
I say that if the fat guy outweighs the five people combined, then no. I say "the greater good" should be measured in mass, not numbers.
Survival of the fattest, so to speak.