The second paragraph is essentially just trying to cover his ass.
Though, from a philosophical standpoint, there isn’t anything wrong with asking this. On the other hand, if it really was his position to frame this as a thought experiment, the question would have been posed differently the first time around.
This is really annoying because the purpose of philosophising on things is to be allowed to ask questions like this.
Some people (including Alex Jones) took that and ran with it: “Sam Harris defends cannabalising babies”, even though the entire point of his statement was to demonstrate how laymen should stay the fuck away from philosophy because they cannot understand the question is designed to establish a moral foundation.
note, the clip is satirical beyond the quote I linked, the channel is literally called “out of context”
The full interview is here for full disclosure. Though I’ll warn you. You’ll lose brain cells watching Cenk try to deliberately misinterpret Sam to make him look like a villain.
Yeah, ngl I’m entertaining myself just thinking about this concept of exchanging something (not necessarily money) between applicant and company. It creates finite number of applications able to be created which would greatly reduce the number of applications they would need to go through, but it guaranteeing an interview basically negates the time it saves for the company, however it definitely benefits the applicant.
The problem with this sort of system is that it doesn’t take into effect the people who are desperate for a job and need the most help. In a system where those people are taken care of in other ways, then it’d be a sorta good system especially if it’s not money being exchanged between applicant and company, but maybe rather a cryptographic token or something.
If I had to guess, I think a system like this would probably worsen the workforce as a whole.
This is a weird post.
The first paragraph is bonkers.
The second paragraph is essentially just trying to cover his ass.
Though, from a philosophical standpoint, there isn’t anything wrong with asking this. On the other hand, if it really was his position to frame this as a thought experiment, the question would have been posed differently the first time around.
This is really annoying because the purpose of philosophising on things is to be allowed to ask questions like this.
A polarising figure, Sam Harris once said in an interview “What’s wrong with eating babies? If we have too many babies lying around, and we want to eat them, why can’t we?”*
Some people (including Alex Jones) took that and ran with it: “Sam Harris defends cannabalising babies”, even though the entire point of his statement was to demonstrate how laymen should stay the fuck away from philosophy because they cannot understand the question is designed to establish a moral foundation.
The full interview is here for full disclosure. Though I’ll warn you. You’ll lose brain cells watching Cenk try to deliberately misinterpret Sam to make him look like a villain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Yeah, ngl I’m entertaining myself just thinking about this concept of exchanging something (not necessarily money) between applicant and company. It creates finite number of applications able to be created which would greatly reduce the number of applications they would need to go through, but it guaranteeing an interview basically negates the time it saves for the company, however it definitely benefits the applicant.
The problem with this sort of system is that it doesn’t take into effect the people who are desperate for a job and need the most help. In a system where those people are taken care of in other ways, then it’d be a sorta good system especially if it’s not money being exchanged between applicant and company, but maybe rather a cryptographic token or something.
If I had to guess, I think a system like this would probably worsen the workforce as a whole.