Q

"Your best friend is getting married in an hours time. You discover their partner has been having an affair and have concrete evidence to prove their guilt. Do you tell your friend and ruin their big day?"

Well I think that my action would depend on my friend and her/his partner. If my friend is "kind of OK" with the thought that her/his partner might be unfaithful but she/he doesn't want to know anything about it, then I wouldn't say anything about it.

I would instead go and talk to her/his partner and promise him that if he/she will ever hurt my friend then I would hunt him(or her) down.

And if my friend later finds out about the afair and that I knew about it, I would feel better not telling her then ruin her happiest day.

If I would know that she is REALLY against sexual nonmonogamy then I would tell her.

My friend would blade me for whatever I would do, either for ruining her day or for not telling her.

The Mad Bomber

"A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bmbs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fift amendment right agains self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. So you agree? If you do, would it also be morallu justifiable to torture the mas bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?"

I think that they should try to not do anything illegal because if they do something illegal then it will bring big consequenses.

First of all, when you're uder presure like torture then you are able to say anything just to get rid of your missery. So the information we get with the help of torture does not have to be reliable. This can lead to a lot of innocent people get tortured and then you're trying to fight terrorism with false information.

According to the Golden Rule, whe should treat others like we self would like to be treated. If we torture the the terrorist then the organization who is behinf him will get even more angry and that could lead to even bigger attacks and even more people would die.

If they would do something illegal, even if it would help to save a lots of lives, then they would still get a lot of bad publicity. The media doesn't care about that's right or wrong. They just want to sell more copies.

They shouldn't cross the line and torture, even if that means that innocent people would die. You have to look at it from a bigger distance and realize your action affects.

Concentration Camp

"You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?"

Ouch. Well my first tought was that I would never be able to kill my own son and I would rather see someone - innocent, but not that important to me - die.

Then I started to think about it again. What is the value of living in a concetration camp? If I would pull the chair, then I would feel ashamed and hate myself. But if I woudn't then I would feel even worse beacuse I took a life from an innocent person.

To overcome my sorrow I would try to think about that I saved a innocent life and that my son doesn't have to live and suffer in a concentration camp anymore.

So my answer is: I would do it, I would pull the chair. I would feel terrible, but less terrible then if i woudn't do it.

Does non-muslims deserve to be punished?

My thoughs after reading a report from Islam Watch.

If non-muslims are never innocent because of denying Allah and his prophet and they can get punished (even killed or raped), then why are there so many muslims that keeps telling me - including my muslim host mother from Pakistan - that Ismal is a loving culture and that the Koran says that muslims have to respect all the other religions?

This is a contradiction, like many other things with religion.

Emotional IQ Test

http://queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=1121

1. No i don't agree with my score. To be honest, I think I'm the opposit. Most of the time i'm able to control my moods and I have easy to make friends. I'm good at hiding my feelings, but i don't have trouble with them. And I don't have problems with leting others to get close to me.

I totally disagree with my result.

2. The weakesses are:

- To many questions, you don't pay that much attention.

- A lot of unnecessary questions

- How the questions are written.

3. Well it depends on what you want to achive in life. If you want to be a boss or chief then it's good to have a low emotional IQ, because you're more focused on the success of your company then your staff. If you want to be caring and filled with love then it's better to have a high emotional IQ result.

Freedom of Speech

Article and picture from here.

Does the freedom of speech mean that we can say exactly everything we want? Were is the border between the freedom of seech and personal attack?

For me freedom of speech mostly is:
- When you can say what you think without being punished – you can have your own oppinion.
- When the media can post the true information without beeing censoured.

Freedom of speech is the opposit of censorship – on hidding and reducing the truth.

I think it was unethical and unpolite of these seven muslim men to shout what they did. If they would get any punishemnt for this, the people would call it censorship.

If seven muslim men can say that the all british soldiers are 'murderers', 'terrorists' and 'rapists'; does that mean that the seven british soldiers can say that all the muslims are 'murderers', 'terrorists' and 'rapists'?

To be continued...

TOK – Christmas homework

Finally i get acces to internet nad my computer is “kind of working” so I can post my homework.

This reminds me of a prision in Thailand - admit drung dealing beg for forgivnes and get 50 years in prision or don’t admint and then get a lifetime in prison... tricky choise if you are innocent.

Clearly there is nothing about justice in this event, it’s just about to get the lowest punishemnt.

Well i think there are two ways of doing this. From the text it look like the head teacher doesn’t have any evidence that it was Karla and Ignacia who broke in to the shop, so they can both say that they are innocent and then “the they need fear nothing” like Ms McTharg said. But both of them would have claim that their innocent or say not say that the other girl did it as well. Just say that she doesn’t have any evidence and therefor can’t expell them would be the best way. I don’t know if this would work in the UK, but in Sweden it certainly would.

If there would be any evidence that they did it, then the best action would be that atleast one of them would admit to the crime. She would get suspended for the rest of the term but atleast she would the able to countinue later.

The final question

Well it’s obvious that Vitoria came to think of that there is no-one that would be able to cut her hair and therefore her head would be cut of instead. Vitoria rather live poor then die rich. Maybe they wouldn’t even give her the money before they would kill her, I wouldn’t. So what would be the point of staying? Our brain is “programmed” to fight for survival and that’s what Vitoria did by running of to London and hide.

The German Pastor

No, Nico is not guilty of murder or spreading a disease. He only gave tomato juice and that doesn’t make any harm to a human body (unless you’re allergic). On the other hand he is guilty of mislead people and scare them. I think that it would be fair if he would be punished, but not by hanging. But it would be difficult to punish him, unless Gordon Brow makes it illegal to lie and then put him to prison or let him hang.

Nikita's Problem

I’m wondering about how Lau can be certain that if he wins then Nikita will lose the right to enforce the contract. Since it’s not mention in the text I’m not sure about it. However I think that Nikita made the mistake.

The mistake that I found in this complex situation is that if Nikita sues Lau, then Lau doesn’t have to defend himself. So if Nikita lose then he doesn’t get any money because Lau didn’t win his first court. Lau’s lawyer won the case, not Lau.

If Nikita would win then you maybe think that he should get his money from Lau. The original agreement says that he only have to pay until and unless he wins his first court. Then he doesn’t have to pay because he lost the case. So as long as Lau doesn't win any court himself, he doesn't have to pay acording to the agreement.

Nikita took a risk when he gave a offer like that and now he doesn’t get paid.

An Unexpected Exam

Is it possible to have an unexpected exam? (related to the text that Chris gave us 24.11.09)


Of course it’s possible to have an unexpected exam. You just have to keep quiet and make sure that no-one knows it. Don’t mention to the student’s that they will have an unexpected exam because then it’s expected. But if you mention it anyway, then you still can give the exam but it will not be a surprise anymore, because a surprise is something that you can’t se coming. If the students will complain that it’s not a surprise and therefore you cannot give them the test, then they’re right. It’s not a surprise anymore, but as a teacher you shouldn’t care about that and give them the exam anyway and explain that they should be glad that they were warned so they could at least prepare.

Escaping the death and judge Stella

Escaping Death

Now Judge Stella had been doing the job for 20 years. In that time she had had many disagreeable, violent people in front of her. However Stella was made of stern stuff. She had never hesitated in sending people to the gallows. “Der Teufel steckt im Detail. “ she used to say – as she sent a prisoner to his death…


The prisoner she saw today was the worst, though. This prisoner was called ‘Rob-the-Philosopher’.
Stella didn’t know much about philosophy – and the title of this prisoner annoyed her.
Stella said: 'I intend to teach you the value of honesty, prisoner. You have been found guilty of being a crook and a swindler and of repeatedly and systematically lying to the court to try to save your wretched skin. Well, justice has caught up with you now, my friend. The sentence of this court is . . .' (here Stella pauses for effect and dons a pair of black gloves and a little black hat) ' . . that you be taken from here to a place of execution and hanged by the neck until you are dead.

. . . BUT, as I am a magnanimous Judge, I shall give you one more opportunity to learn the value of truth. If, on the day of your execution, you sign a statement making one true declaration, the sentence will be commuted to ten years imprisonment. If, on the other hand, your statement is, in the view of the Chief Executioner, false, the sentence will be carried out immediately. And I warn you,' Stella adds, seeing his words having no effect on the crook, 'the Chief is a member of the Logical Positivist Executioners' Club and will dismiss any metaphysical nonsense as false, so don't try any of your tricks on her! There, now you have one day in which to make your choice!'

At this the jury of Eric and Richard, Veronika, Nico, Abraham, Karla, Lau, Celina (now recovered), Vitoria, Andres, Ignacia, and Lau applauded at the severity of the sentence and everyone in the courtroom looks at the defendant, pleased to see such a villain get a heavy sentence, coupled with the humiliating public true declaration. But, strangely, the Philosopher just smirks back as he is led away to Death Row.
The day of the execution arrives and the crook, beaming, signs a declaration which is handed to the Chief Executioner who reads it with growing bewilderment. Then, snarling, she crumples it up and orders the Philosopher be released, with no penalty whatsoever to be ~imposed.

What could the prisoner have said in the statement to have saved himself?
(Copywrite Chris)



Something that ”Rob-the-Philosopher” knew for certain was that he was trying to think of something that’s true. It’s a little bit like “I’m thinking, therefore I know that I exist”

Also you know things that you have experienced or seen with your own eyes. You can’t doubt everything; you have to trust yourself and what you see. The apple will fall down to the ground, and that’s true.

If you’re standing on the earth and you drop an apple, you know it’s going to fall down because you’ve seen it and you’ve been thought so in school. What we learn in school is a different kind of knowledge because the things that we learn have been changed over the time when we get new evidence and proof that we decide we believe more in.

What I think that the prisoner wrote something like “It’s true that I’m trying to think of something that’s true”.

Theory Of Knowledge

This is a post for Theory Of Knowledge (TOK). I have to rearange my blog so i don't have to make a new one for every subject that i will have with Chris.

Well I’m just going to write my answers to the questions without writing any introduction or the question it self.

My answer for question number one is that we have to believe what we see and experience clearly with our own eyes and mind. We can’t doubt everything; it would make us go crazy. I understand it from the text that he doesn’t see the cow very clearly, it says that he only recognised her from the distance. I would say that that he doesn’t really know, because it could be a case of mixed identity

But was he right to way that he knew she was?
No because he fought someone/something else was his cow. How knew that the subject that he fought was his cow was in the field, but he didn’t knew if it is his dear cow Doris or not.