Leaderboard

No. To be honest, I find that quite disgusting. Treating the hypothetical nuke in London as really happening, and you are in charge of finding it, you would rather let five million people vaporise, than try torture on the perpetrator. I think that's not principled or high minded, it's mental cowardice, or a lack of caring for others, or both.

I agree pro rata is one metric. I think representation at senior levels is also a valid metric, in as far as it might indicate preferential treatment up the career ladder. Whether that is actually the case is worth investigating. That UK nursing review concluded with "The drivers for this are complex and further work is required..."

Does the military only attack if they know they will win? Do you only apply for a job if you know you will be selected? Nothing is 100% in this world. Quit trying to set impossible goals. I remember that time my son slipped on the river bank into the water, and I had to decide whether or not jumping in to save him would, without a doubt, be successful. After all, I didn't want to waste my time...

Would be helpful if the post comes with some explanation about what it is doing in the thread, so others don't need to check the link if they're not interested. I think, it is also a rule here. Anyway, is there anything about lionfish or invasive species in the video? What?

The hypothetical graviton cannot be the Higgs boson because (a) the former should be massless while the latter is massive, (b) the former should be spin-2 particle while the latter is spin-0.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Enough sardines!

Again, even in a gun toting society that probability is pretty low. Any guess work so far is in your hands. And of course as you have been told many times, all possible information and efforts, ( speaking of the kdnapper and preferably the mad bomber) have been made. Quick Peterkin, there are thousands of lives at stake, while you pontificate. I'm pretty sure if what I did lead to the rescue of a child, or saved thousands of lives from a mad bomber, I would sleep very well, and also that those actions would be condoned and forgiven by a normalised society. I say a normal society will do what is and condone what is best . On that I rest my case. And qualities such as morality and pragmatism, extend far further then what otherwise absolute strangers can claim on any forum. Or it just may work. But really, who has so far denied that it may not work? In the meantime you plaster your own contrived imaginary scenarios, without recognising the outcome most would hope for. Why? Not if it works! 😉 But hey, wait a minute! Didn't you yourself say you might be prepared to undertake that lesser wrong? The lesser wrong in this case being extracting info from a mad bomber or kidnapper by whatever means, rather then risking the life of a child or that of thousands, maybe millions of people. +1 Yes, plenty of scenarios have been given, all extraordinary and all with the proviso of positive guilt in the contrived situations. Outside those scenarios, all agree torture should be against the law. Torture is wrong, as is slavery. I'm sure you would, if all other avenues had been exhausted, and thousands of lives (or that of a little child) rested on your actions.

Frankly, I'm appalled at the suggestion that a father torture a kidnapper for information about the location of his child. I might be interested in discussing the effects of torture on the torturer (especially in the case of the father pressing the kidnapper on the whereabouts of his child). The assumption is that there's nothing worse than losing your child, coupled with the assumption that recovering the child should be done at any cost. But you've reduced my interest in your OP by insisting on the parameters you have. The way you're approaching this, anyone who answers "no" has to argue against an unlimited amount of scenarios you can dream up. It feels cherry-picked and designed to appeal to emotion.

Peterson is saying whatever creates the most outrage so that he can remain relevant and line is pockets.

That sums up this whole thread. Ethics is an applied art - ignore the real world and all we have are empty words. What seems obvious is irrelevant. We should look at the evidence.

It might be easier to understand how it works by considering it in the vehicle's reference frame at the moment when it moves with the wind at the wind's speed. At this moment, in the vehicle's RF, there is no wind, the air stands still, and the ground moves under the vehicle backward. This movement of the ground rotates vehicle's wheels. The rotating wheels rotate the propeller. Propeller pushes the air backward and the vehicle forward. This accelerates the vehicle and it starts moving relative to air. In the ground RF, it starts moving faster than wind.

Is it?