Bad Poetry

Hot Lips Grandma
White paint peels from the door,
rusty hinges let loose a loud creek.
A small gray mouse scurries across the floor,
as cockroaches wander around the house.

I dread the encounter,
puckering, grandma opens her arms.
Her musty smell fills my nostrils,
there is no escape...
grandma's livery lips strike again.

Chat gpt's version

"Peeling White Door"

Beneath the chipping white paint of the door,

Rusted hinges groan, echoing through the hall.

A nimble gray mouse darts across the creaking floor,

While shadows of cockroaches dance on the wall.

With trepidation, I step into the embrace,

As Grandma opens her arms, her eyes aglow.

A scent of old books and lavender fills the space,

Inescapable, yet strangely comforting though.

Her lips, a vivid red, draw near with a tale,

Of years gone by and love that never fails.

In this moment, Grandma's affection prevails,

A kiss from the past, where warmth never pales.


Unnamed
I don't want to die,
let alone grow old.
So mind don't show me,
body grow cold.

I cannot face
the fate of man

I am still waiting for life to bagan
I am still waiting for a friend who is true
I am still waiting for a little respect
I am still waiting for life to make sense...

And the ultra-sound
shows a new little life
My current concerns will now take a past tense.

Chat gpt's version

"Unspoken Fears"

Fearing the final breath, the end of days,

Resisting the march of time, its unyielding hold.

Wishing my mind to veil the inevitable ways,

As my body surrenders, grows weary and cold.

Confronting destiny, mankind's shared plight,

Seems more than my heart can stand.

Yet here I linger, in life's uncertain light,

Awaiting a genuine friend to take my hand.

Longing for just a whisper of esteem,

Hoping for clarity in life's chaotic dream.

Then, in the hush of a moment, pure and serene,

An ultrasound reveals a new life, unseen.

With this promise, my present fears lose their sheen,

As the future unfolds, a journey unforeseen.

About Us

Who We Are

What to Purchase would like to become a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity that has no government affiliations of any kind. Our purpose is to help educate and inform consumers.

Our mission statement is:

"Organize reasons to agree and disagree with specific purchasing decisions to help consumers use their hard earned money for things that will improve their life. We want to help cut through all the misinformation constantly thrown at consumers from biased TV commercials. Our goal is not to sell magazine, or access to product reviews, by making the reader read multiple articles, and put up with authors who wish they were writing novels: we want to present decision making information quickly and efficiently."

We accomplish our mission by researching pros and cons behind specific purchasing decisions, inviting anyone who thinks we have left out a good reason to contribute, and incorporating new information as it comes in.

History and List of other places that I advocate reasons to agree and disagree:

1. Feb 23, 2001 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gooddebate/
2. May 31, 2004 http://groups.google.com/group/idea-stock-exchange/
3. Nov 26, 2004 http://www.globalideasbank.org/
4. Mar 6th, 2005 http://www.halfbakery.com/
5. Sept 9th, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/good-idea-promoting-algorithm/
6. Apr 16, 2006 http://illinoisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/
7. May 19th, 2006 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Online-Dispute-Resolution/
8. Oct, 2010 http://ldsdebate.blogspot.com/

Board of Directors
A. Mike Laub, PE
Phone: (630) 621-9591

B. You!

Management and Staff
The biography of What to Purchase researcher, IT Manager, Managing Editor (presented below in alphabetical order by last name)

A. John Doe, Managing Editor
B. Joseph Smith, Researcher Automobiles
C. Jane Doe, Researcher Electronics
D. John Doe II, IT Manager/Webmaster

Interns and Volunteers
Please Join! None to date

Funding
Please give me money!

The Google chrome book is a good buy +5

Reasons to agree: +7

1. It is light
2. It starts instantly
3. It has a good keyboard
4. Most all hotels have free wi-fi
5. There is now annoying fan with moving parts that makes noise and breaks.
6. There is now annoying hard drive with moving parts that makes noise and breaks.
7. Google has apps to edit documents including spreadsheets, and presentations

Reasons to disagree: -2

1. It takes getting used to use apps, and keeping your files on Google Drive
2. It takes getting used to, to use only the backspace, and never use the delete button.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +7

# of reasons to disagree: -2

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Kids are fun +1

Best reasons to agree: +4

1. Kids remind you what it was like when you were a kid.
2. Kids connect you to the future.
3. Kids get to know what you are really like
4. Kids give you excuses to do stupid stuff. If you didn't have kids, it might be hard to:
1. go sledding. 
2. go swimming. Its hard to play Marco Polo as an adult.

Best reasons to disagree: -4

1.  Throw up, crying, and whining are not fun
2. When you go to the museums with kids, you can't take your time, because they have short attention spans. 
3. It is hard to go back-packing in Europe with kids.
4. It is hard to try new food with kids. All they eat is McDonald's. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +4

# of reasons to disagree: -4

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +2

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +4-4+2/2=1

Videos that agree:

Beliefs that support this post:

1. You should back-up family videos to YouTube. 

Yoiu should keep track of smart things people said in the past There is lots of good advice you can give your kids

Reasons to agree:

1.  

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way

Reasons to agree

1. All happy families have respect and kindness to each other. 
2. Unhappy families can 

Reasons to 

Bolingbrook has pretty good parks. -2

Reasons to agree: + 1

1. There are a lot of Bolingbrook parks.
2. Kids don't need anything special, but each neighborhood should have open places for kids to play soccer, baseball, or swing on a swing-set. Bolingbrook has that.

Reasons to disagree: -2

1. Often Bolingbrook parks are occupied by thuggish territorial teenagers (reason to disagree: this happens everywhere, perhaps).
2. Often Bolingbrook parks have small vandalization. 
3. Bolingbrook doesn't have parking for hardly any of their parks... its mostly just street parking.
4. Very few of Bolingbrook parks are connected with bike paths

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +2

# of reasons to disagree: -4

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: -2

Century Park Bolingbrook, Illinois
View Larger Map

• Parking: On the street
• Safety:
• Parking is an issue, as it gets very congested, and cars are trying to get through the area.
• Facilities
• Slides
• Swings
• Small Soccer Field

The kids playing at the park, while J was at Soccer Practice.
Serious
Great Expression. Poor lighting

Videos that agree:

Hidden Lakes

Hidden Lakes

Popular Park, Bolingbrook, IL

• Parking: On the street
• Safety?
• My kid got his finger stuck in the slidey thing. 
• Facilities
• 2 slides
• 2 Swings, 2 child swings
• Voice tubes
• Volleyball court (bring your own net)
• Lots of toads / frogs in the evening

Jonamac apple farm is the perfict farm-tourism destination outside Chicago +4.5

Background, Context, and Assumptions

Jonamac apple farm is a farm-tourism destination outside Chicago. It is located at 19412 Shabbona Rd Malta, IL 60150. Their phone number is (815) 825-2158.

Best reasons to agree: +3

1. Its good for kids to see farms. Kids should learn the science of producing food. It is good for all of us to try to produce food.
2. Joanamac is is a good farm. 
1. They have a: 
1. petting zoo with mules, sheep, chickens, and a Lama
2. apple picking, with a lot of different apple types
3. pumpkin canon, 
4. a big thing like a trampoline. 
5. old-timy-machines
6. slides
7. Kids like to play in the corn silo. 
8. they have an easy corn maze that kids can handle. They have a harder corn maze for adults.
9. they have a place where you can buy food
10. they have live music playing
11. they often have farm equipment on display
3. Joanamac is close to Chicago. It is 70 miles from Downtown Chicago, and less than that from the suburbs
1. Link

Best reasons to disagree: -

1. Jonamac should copy some of the educational stuff from the Lincoln Park Zoo farm display. Jonamac could team up with Illinois Universities to do farm-research or education. They could have signs for stuff. For instance they could say how much corn was a barrel (or bushel?) that day. They could tell you that the corn you let your kids play in won't be wasted because it will be fed to animals, or it was wasted. 
2. Jonamac could have a place for kite flying. Chicago is almost always windy. They have a lot of open space, and there is usually a crowd. Seems like a good place for kite flying.
3. Jonamac could be closer to the City. You pass an awful lot of farms on the way to Jonamac. You would think that any of these places could copy them, but get more traffic.
4. Jonamac could team up with Amish type country knick-knack stuff, to give the whole farm experience. 
5. They could have a real farmer's market at Jonamac. In the fall it gets enough traffic that they could probably sell more stuff than just apples, and fudge. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +3

# of reasons to disagree: -5

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +11/2 = 6.5

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +4.5

Best webpages that agree: +

1. http://www.jonamacorchard.com/   Bias grade: poor

Best webpages that agree: -

Trampolines are not too dangerous and are good for kids +2

Reasons to agree: +7

1. Their is little risk of falling off a trampoline if you have netting.
2. Trampolines are no more dangerous than football.
3. Trampolines are perhaps no more dangerous than swimming pools, but they are much less expensive, and take less maintenance. 
4. Trampolines with netting on the side are not too dangerous. 
5. Kids jump on beds. You can't stop kids from jumping on stuff.
6. Cars are dangerous, and we aren't going to stop driving cars are we? Obviously its not that simple. For instance, cars are more important than trampolines. But it is not required that you drive to unimportant places. Therefore, you can compare the danger and importance of driving to a park to jumping on the trampoline: both are recreational activities with some risk. The question is how much risk? How important is the activity? Obviously, a trampoline derives its importance as a form of recreation, and so you can't answer the question without first asking yourself how important recreation is. Recreation is important, because life needs to be enjoyable or else at some point suicide, depression, and associated dangers becomes a risk. Life without exercise is also a risk. To some degree, with our obesity problems, video games, cable, and TV may be more dangerous than trampolines. Some historic background might also be useful. For instance how would the danger of jumping on a trampoline compare to the danger associated with recreation "in the olden days" (like going to the local swimming hole).  
7. Although cars are more dangerous, but we aren't going to stop driving. 

Reasons to disagree: -5

1. The Mayo Clinic says they are too dangerous (logical fallacy: appeal to authority). 
2. Falling off a trampoline or using a trampoline incorrectly can result in strains, sprains, fractures and other injuries — including potentially serious head and neck injuries.
3. According to Jay L. Hoecker, MD, as writing on the May Clinic's website, "the risk of injury is so high that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that trampolines should never be used at home or in outdoor playgrounds". However the link to this claim on the AAP's website is not provided, and there is no direct quote, indicating that it is a summary. Summaries always result in some degree of misrepresentation.  
4. My brother broke his fiance's leg on a trampoline (but it didn't have a net, and anecdotal evidence does not prove specific probabilities
5. My brother broke my other brother's leg on the trampoline (but it didn't have a net, and anecdotal evidence does not prove specific probabilities. For instance my brother also broke his arm riding a bike, and few people think bikes are too dangerous). 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +7

# of reasons to disagree: -5

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +2

<Images that agree>

1. 
2. 
3. 
1. Me on a trampoline on Jessie Lane, Nampa Id. What an awesome back yard...
4.  
1. On Trampoline on Southpowerline, before prom. I was able to do backflips without ever hurting my kneck. 
5.  

• On trampoline, dressed for Halloween. <Images that agree>

Videos that agree:

Videos that disagree:

Webpages that agree:

1. 
   

Webpages that disagree:

1. Mayo Clinic

I would like to make this page using XML and an XLST... If you could help me with the code I would appreciate it!. 

Visual Root

http://www.visualroot.com/

Is a cool website...

I think it is very important that we map out how one idea is related to another...

It is very important that when we strengthen or weaken an assumption, that it automatically strengthen or weaken conclusions based on those assumptions...

I am trying to get an open source project going here:

http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/

that outlines the reasons to agree or disagree with each conclusion, and lets you use one conclusion as a reason to agree or disagree with another conclusion... 

Obviously a conclusion could be a good one, but still not support another conclusion... for instance "the grass is green" is a good conclusion but could not be used very well as a belief to "increase funding for the poor". So I would like to count the number of reasons to agree or disagree with each belief, and then count the number of reasons to agree or disagree with each linkage... 

I like counting reasons better than just up or down voting, because is forces you to back up your conclusion... and if you give a bad reason, it should have more reasons to disagree with it...

So my goal is to have the ratio of reasons to agree or disagree for each belief, and linkage... Also, if you are going to give scores to conclusions based on the ratio of reasons to agree vs disagree for their arguments and the ratio of reasons to agree or disagree for linkages between an argument and a conclusion, you would need one more factor... you would need a "unique" factor, so you could identify arguments that are essential saying the same thing, so you don't count those points twice...

It sounds complex, but it only has 3 numbers for each belief: ratio of reasons to agree vs disagree, ratio of reasons to agree or disagree this belief is a valid reason to support another belief... and the ratio of reasons to agree or disagree that this belief is a unique reasons (on the forum) to support another conclusion... If you multiply all these ratios, you should get a pretty good score for each belief, that can then be used to support other belief... As more people join the forum the numbers will change, but the numbers are not the important thing, the structure that we build that links one belief to another, and how these all interact, is what will allow artificial intelligence to understand how the human mind works...

We should give more points to conclusions that have higher perceived ethicality of their methods and results

Integrating ethical considerations into the evaluation of conclusions can significantly enhance the validity and acceptability of those conclusions. By allowing individuals to score the ethicality of various methods and results, we can create a framework where ethical considerations are systematically factored into the final assessment of each conclusion. This approach encourages consistency in reasoning and helps identify any logical fallacies or biases in judgment.

Using computational tools in this process enables a more objective and quantifiable assessment of ethicality. By assigning scores to philosophical questions or ethical considerations, a computer algorithm can process these inputs to determine the overall validity of conclusions based on both logical and ethical grounds. This methodological rigor ensures that ethicality is not merely a subjective or secondary consideration but a central criterion in the evaluation process.

This approach aligns with the broader objective of making decision-making more transparent, consistent, and ethically grounded. It reinforces that ethical considerations are not just abstract or philosophical concerns but integral to the practical assessment of ideas and policies.

Labels: Ethical Evaluation in Decision-Making, Consistency in Ethical Reasoning, Computational Ethics Assessment, Integration of Ethicality in Conclusions, Objective Ethical Scoring, Logical and Ethical Conclusion Assessment, Ethical Consensus in Argumentation, Ethical Considerations in Computational Analysis.

This equation could be more formally represented with the following equation and definitions for people who are good at math.

User Scores

PES=(EMA×10∑(EM) ×C1​)+(EEA×10∑(EA)​)

Means Definitions

• Perceived Ethics Score (PES): This score could be added directly to the conclusion score or used as a multiplier. The PES reflects the ethical assessment of a proposal's methods and results.
• Ethical Means (EM): This is the score, ranging from 1 to 10, assigned by an individual to assess how ethical the means or methods of a proposal are.
• Ethical Means Asked (EMA): This represents the count of individuals who have rated the ethicality of a proposal's means or methods.
• Normalization Factor (e.g., 10):  Used to normalize scores to a scale of 0 to 1, where, for example, an average score of 8 translates to 0.8 or 80% validity. This aids in making the evaluation process more intuitive.
• Constant 1 (C1): A score to alter the equation based on the performance of arguments that the Means are more important than the ends. 

Ends Definitions

• Ethical Ends (EE): The individual ethicality score assigned to the ends or results of a proposal on a scale of 1 to 10.
• Ethical Ends Asked (EEA):  The number of respondents rated the ethicality of a proposal's ends or results.

User Justification

Of course, the primary method of ranking ethics is with the ReasonRank algorithm (a modified version of Google's PageRank Algorithm that counts reasons instead of links but gives reason scores based on their supporting and opposing sub-arguments).

To do this, we will simply sum the scores of arguments that agree that a belief or action is ethical and subtract the scores of arguments that are not ethical. Of course, we must group similar ways of saying the same thing to prevent double-counting arguments said slightly differently. And, like everything else promoted by the Idea Stock Exchange, we must use linkage scores between the argument and the ethic (in this case) to measure the degree to which it should be said that if the argument were true, it would necessarily strengthen the ethic, or in other words, a percentage score to multiply to the argument, indicating the degree to which it is accurately linked to strengthen or weaken the ethic. This way, the same argument can have different linkage scores to beliefs and ethics. This way, if we weaken the argument or evidence, it can automatically weaken all the conclusions built on that evidence or argument.

Implementing ReasonRank for Ethical Evaluations

The Idea Stock Exchange advocates for using the ReasonRank algorithm to evaluate the ethicality of beliefs and actions. This approach, inspired by Google's PageRank Algorithm, prioritizes the quality and relevance of arguments in determining ethical scores. The process involves:

1. Summation of Argument Scores:

   • Calculate the ethicality score by summing the scores of arguments that support the ethical nature of a belief or action and subtracting the scores of arguments against its ethicality.

2. Grouping Similar Arguments:

   • To avoid redundancy and ensure accuracy, group arguments that express similar ideas, preventing the double counting of slightly varied arguments.

3. Using Linkage Scores:

   • Apply linkage scores between arguments and the ethical aspect in question. These scores quantify how strongly an argument, if true, would support or challenge the ethical nature of the belief or action.

4. Differentiating Linkage Scores:

   • Recognize that the same argument can have varying linkage scores when related to different beliefs or ethical considerations. This distinction allows for a nuanced understanding of how arguments contribute to different aspects of an issue.

5. Dynamic Adjustment of Scores:

   • Ensure that any changes in the strength or validity of an argument or piece of evidence lead to automatic adjustments in all conclusions or ethical evaluations that rely on them.

This structured approach enables a more systematic and transparent assessment of ethics, aligning closely with the Idea Stock Exchange's goal of fostering well-founded and logical discourse. By carefully evaluating arguments and their relevance to ethical considerations, this method ensures that ethical evaluations are grounded in rational analysis and robust evidence.

 

The process of evaluating ethical considerations in proposals, particularly those involving explicit actions, can benefit from a more nuanced approach. Let's refine the existing system to better handle the complexities of ethical arguments related to both methods and results. We will focus on integrating the concept of 'Linkage Score' and the use of 'n' to signify the distance of sub-arguments from the primary conclusion:

1. Definition of Variables:

   • n: Represents the number of 'steps' or levels removed a sub-argument is from the primary conclusion.
   • AAEM(n,i)/n: Arguments that Agree with the proposal's Ethical Methods. 'i' denotes individual reasons to agree. For instance, AAEM(1,1) to AAEM(1,5) represent five distinct reasons at the first level. The division by 'n' scales the contribution of these reasons according to their distance from the main conclusion.
   • ADEM(n,j)/n: Arguments that Disagree with the proposal's Ethical Methods. 'j' is similar to 'i' but for reasons to disagree. The effect of these reasons is subtracted from the total score, and the division by 'n' again scales their impact.

2. Normalization and Scoring:

   • The total score is normalized by the sum of reasons to agree and disagree, ensuring the Conclusion Score (CS) reflects a percentage of agreement. The CS can range between -100% and +100% (or -1 and +1).

3. Application Example:

   • Consider a policy proposal like Barack Obama's suggestion to raise taxes for families earning over $250,000. This proposal not only has explicit actions but also implicit results, each subject to ethical scrutiny. Ethical debates might encompass broader questions about national income tax ethics, progressive tax systems, or specifics like cost-of-living adjustments and family size considerations.

4. Ethical Argument Tagging:

   • To add depth to our analysis, we categorize arguments as specifically addressing either the ethics of methods or results. This tagging helps in systematically organizing and weighing arguments based on their ethical implications.

5. Complexity Acknowledgement:

   • This refined approach recognizes the inherent complexity in policy proposals, especially those with unstated results. It enables a comprehensive ethical evaluation, accounting for the multi-faceted