Pharyngula: I don't think I should get this product

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

(Complete listing)

The world becomes full of organisms that have what it takes to become ancestors. That, in a sentence, is Darwinism.

Each generation is a filter, a sieve; good genes tend to fall through the sieve into the next generation; bad genes tend to end up in bodies that die young or without reproducing.

Richard Dawkins

A Taste of Pharyngula

(Complete listing)

How do octopus suckers work?

An updated book list for evolutionists

Bicoid evolution

Mosquito love songs

Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution

Fluorescing dogfish

Rhabdomeric and ciliary eyes

How to evolve a vulva

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« Weird creatures lurk in the depths | Main | Neil Shubin at Case Western Reserve »

I don't think I should get this product

Category: Humor
Posted on: November 25, 2008 7:46 AM, by PZ Myers

I think the Morality Master would melt down if I touched it.

Comments

Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 7:57 AM

I wonder how it would cope with the concept of provisional ethics? Maybe it would open a wormhole to another dimension.

Posted by: Lana | November 25, 2008 8:12 AM

I am so going to work "nosedive of doom" into a conversation sometime today. It shouldn't be too hard. I'm a bankruptcy lawyer.

Posted by: Knitterman | November 25, 2008 8:17 AM

That was great! I'm just as "immoral" as the rest of y'all. Glad to be in such good company.

Posted by: Zeno | November 25, 2008 8:30 AM

Negative morality scaling factors to the rescue! I just knew that negative numbers would prove useful in the long run. (If I use imaginary numbers instead, could I please be orthogonal to all of this?)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 25, 2008 8:31 AM

Note to self: Don't bother to pack winter coat for afterlife.

Posted by: Eric | November 25, 2008 8:36 AM

Woo! I got the questions right! (not that I would do any of those things, just that I knew the right answer)

Posted by: Capital Dan | November 25, 2008 8:40 AM

Eric | November 25, 2008 8:36 AM
Woo! I got the questions right! (not that I would do any of those things, just that I knew the right answer)

Well... la-ti-dah, Mister Fancypants. What's the matter? Can't walk the walk?

Posted by: Thadd | November 25, 2008 8:50 AM

I think this is pretty funny, but in some cases, I wonder how much it will reinforce these behaviors. There are some people I can picture out there screaming "I picked yes! It must be broken."

Posted by: DLC | November 25, 2008 8:56 AM

Uh, right.
"I especially liked the old testamant, with all it's ultra-violence and gutti-works."

#10

Posted by: |@|vsy | November 25, 2008 8:59 AM

um.

your hair is longer now huh?

what happened to PIRATES ON THE INTERNET?

5018285379319857692234519

no disenumeration woo hoo!

#11

Posted by: JakeS | November 25, 2008 9:17 AM

Would have been funnier if they hadn't skipped the middle six questions, but they probably were trying not to make it too long.

#12

Posted by: eddie | November 25, 2008 9:22 AM

Satan is an anagram of santa. He must feel ashamed to be associated with these nasty xians and their horrible sky fairy.

Also, re #4 "...could I please be orthogonal to all of this?"

That would give you the choice of lawful-neutral or chaotic-neutral.

#13

Posted by: spence-bob | November 25, 2008 9:24 AM

What a surprise - Jeebocrats stealing Bill Watterson's work.

But I guess theft is okay when it's in the service of one's favorite set of superstitious fairy tales. Funny how that works.

#14

Posted by: spence-bob | November 25, 2008 9:26 AM

Re: #13: I should really watch the whole thing before commenting ...

#15

Posted by: mayhempix | November 25, 2008 9:33 AM

Version 2.1

Fixes the meltdown bug and
turns you and your family into pillars of salt if you fail.

#16

Posted by: Tualha | November 25, 2008 9:36 AM

Hmm, wonder why they think it's moral to rip off Bill Watterson.

#17

Posted by: Badjuggler | November 25, 2008 10:42 AM

OK, you made me Google the name Bill Watterson. It's only a frackin' comic strip, people!

#18

Posted by: calladus | November 25, 2008 10:48 AM

It's built incorrectly. It has a series of lights that indicate a smooth gradient between Satan & God.

Real Christians (TM) know that a *real* Moral Master would have just one light. And it would glow either black or white.

Obviously this is a fraud.

#19

Posted by: Milton | November 25, 2008 11:28 AM

"OK, you made me Google the name Bill Watterson. It's only a frackin' comic strip, people!"

No. It's the best comic strip ever.
=)

#20

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2008 11:31 AM

Real Christians (TM) know that a *real* Moral Master would have just one light. And it would glow either black or white.

Just curious. How does a light glow black?

#21

Posted by: chgo_liz | November 25, 2008 11:36 AM

Some days it is particularly clear why I make a point of visiting this blog, despite my non-formal-training in the sciences past a rudimentary level. Thank you.

#22

Posted by: Ubi Dubium | November 25, 2008 11:38 AM

Just curious. How does a light glow black?

You just have to belieeeeve that it does, and then you'll see it.

#23

Posted by: Calladus | November 25, 2008 11:41 AM

Just curious. How does a light glow black?

Well, that's just what the Marketing Specs say.

It's up to Engineering to work out the minor details.

#24

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2008 11:48 AM

Well, that's just what the Marketing Specs say.
It's up to Engineering to work out the minor details.

Ah, now I understand. I routinely get marketing specs that I am supposed to implement that say, in essence, "I want all my groceries in one bag and I don't want the bag to be heavy."

#25

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2008 11:52 AM

You know, this gives me an idea. I'm going to market a "faith meter" that consists of a box with a light bulb in it that isn't connected to anything. If your faith is strong enough, the light will light. I'd really like to see how many people see the light (pun intended).

It will retail for $249.95.

If I only didn't have a conscience....

#26

Posted by: Calladus | November 25, 2008 11:58 AM

tsg,

I work in the video security industry. We suffer from overinflated expectations due to popular entertainment.

Marketing doesn't understand why you can't just keep blowing up an image until you can see the bad guy reflected in the victim's eyes.

"But I saw it on CSI last night! Why can't you do that?"

#27

Posted by: GuyIncognito | November 25, 2008 12:07 PM

I've yet to see it, so I'll just preempt it:

"If God does it or commands it to be done, it is good. Morality is only for us mere mortals."

Just wanted to get it out of the way.

#28

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 25, 2008 12:25 PM

For some reason, I kept thinking of a Voight-Kampff test: "You're walking through a desert when you see a tortoise in the sand. . . ." It looks like I'm a Satanic replicant.

#29

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 25, 2008 12:26 PM

Tualha @16

Hmm, wonder why they think it's moral to rip off Bill Watterson.

Well, duh. The Bible does not mention copyright, does it?

#30

Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 25, 2008 1:11 PM

Just curious. How does a light glow black?

If you had perfect faith you wouldn't ask such morally depraved questions. However, for the sake of your immortal soul I would refer you to the 60's.

#31

Posted by: Ohmi02 | November 25, 2008 1:37 PM

Calladus @ #25

Oh god, I remember that episode. I couldn't even shout at the screen, I was so overwhelmed with the wrongness of it.

#32

Posted by: boognish | November 25, 2008 2:15 PM

"OK, you made me Google the name Bill Watterson. It's only a frackin' comic strip, people!"

BLASPHEMY!

#33

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2008 2:17 PM

Marketing doesn't understand why you can't just keep blowing up an image until you can see the bad guy reflected in the victim's eyes.
"But I saw it on CSI last night! Why can't you do that?"

"Because that's fiction?"

Oh god, I remember that episode. I couldn't even shout at the screen, I was so overwhelmed with the wrongness of it.

I didn't see it, but it sounds like they stole it from Blade Runner.

Although I think the worst had to be in Enemy of the State where the bad guys, using super duper software, rotated an image around 180 degrees to see what was in Wil Smith's shopping bag that was hidden from the camera by Wil Smith. All I could think was, if they had software that could see what the camera wasn't aimed at, why do they need the camera?

#34

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2008 2:20 PM

If you had perfect faith you wouldn't ask such morally depraved questions.

That would explain it.

However, for the sake of your immortal soul I would refer you to the 60's.

Oh, no you don't. I am not getting sucked into flashbacks of "highlighter parties" again. Crap. Here they come.

Damn you.

#35

Posted by: Diagoras | November 25, 2008 3:40 PM

What's the phone number again?

#36

Posted by: Brian | November 25, 2008 4:33 PM

Nothing beats one old episode of C.H.I.P.S. The baddies have this cool laser that they use to blind the victims. The baddies aim the laser at Ponch, who sees the beam coming, and DUCKS.

#37

Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 25, 2008 5:36 PM

Oh, no you don't. I am not getting sucked into flashbacks of "highlighter parties" again. Crap. Here they come.

Damn you.

My work is done. Bwahahahahahahh! [brandishes pitchfork menacingly]

#38

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 25, 2008 9:52 PM