Leaderboard

Aye. A lot of people against the jabs are looking at things in a vacuum, just like a lot of people who post their ideas here construct them in a vacuum.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but you can’t send your kid to school with chicken pox, or go barefoot in a restaurant, or take a dump on public sidewalks either. Your entire life has been a trade-off between public health and individual freedom and the precedent you seem to fear so much was actually set long ago and has been repeatedly upheld over the decades when challenged in courts.

No, all of the following statement from beecee are true whether removal of freedoms and liberties is a step forward or not. You are arguing against facts with buzzwords like "freedom" and "liberty". No wonder you are not getting anywhere.

! Moderator Note Advertising a product answers that question. Neither one! This brought to you by SpammR-Be-Gone®

I think this is to the point: an ethical guidepost toward the future might well be a help. I actually think it is some help, though not one with any great force behind it. Vegans may elicit a great deal of hostility, but even in that very hostility, the kernel of an intellectual reflection persists; a tiny spark of doubt - a question begins to form. I can never see something that engenders thought as a hindrance. Mankind has already disrupted every ecological balance that ever existed. We control the world and have the power of life and death over everything else. Nature no longer has a decisive role to play: the future, if there is to be a future, is in our hands.

Out of the 130,000+ troops Russia has amassed along the Ukraine border, Russia has CLAIMED they're going to pull back about 10K of them. They have not yet done so, so you (or at least Maria Z, the Director of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation... obviously not an objective 3rd party commenter) seem to be putting proverbial carts before obvious war horses. Meanwhile, the US is relocating its Ukraine embassy Kyiv to the western city of Lviv, a city not stuck in the middle of the country and located roughly 50 miles from Ukraine's western border with Poland, "out of concern for the safety of the staff." We also know through hundreds of crowdsourced videos being shared across platforms that there are literally TONS of Russian military equipment and units still moving TOWARD the Ukrainian border. Things like Russian citizens sharing videos of tanks rolling through their local roads and highways. More Americans are also right now being deployed to Europe in response.

The important differential fact with respect to our case at hand is that most of us here are not sociopaths. Now, I don't know about papers corroborating this, but at least according to neuroendocrinologist Robert Sapolsky, sociopaths have a significantly higher pain threshold than socially typical individuals. I picked this from his Stanford lectures on Human Behavioural Biology. I'm searching for the references to papers that ascertain this point. Your suggestion of playing with the terrorists' mind I find much more acceptable, for many reasons. Truth serum, flooding his pituitary with oxytocin, or whatever other chemical that facilitates collaboration. Combination of use of chemicals with psychological manipulation. Have these possibilities been tried to the point that we know there is no other possibility but torture? Both Zapatos and you seem to be anchoring the bulk of your reasoning to this 'last resort' argument. I'm not sure it is to be applied here, and I would need a lot more convincing. These are not matters to be improvised in the face of a compelling case --however hypothetical it may be. A protocol should be established on the basis of maximum likelihood of producing results in a reasonable time to deploy an efficient rescue operation in the case you propose. If there were hard scientific proof that torture would lead to the desired results for the profile that we're talking about (sociopaths), that would be another matter. But I don't think that's the case. This is the most difficult aspect, I think. As to right or wrong, I don't think any of us can provide a philosophical reasoning establishing beyond any doubt whether a course of action is or isn't wrong --either irrespective of circumstances or otherwise. At some point we must adopt some kind of axiom, so to speak. I remember a conversation with a German person many years ago on reasons why bullfighting* should be banned --we both agreed that it should. Silly me, I said that torturing an animal is simply wrong. She said that she didn't think that was a reason. That the reason is that the animal doesn't have a choice in the matter. Well, I can think of thousands of ways to twist that philosophically, but I won't dwell into that. Sometimes we need principles, something that's to be considered as completely off the table. There's a reason why we call those "principles." * I'm not comparing the example with the matter at hand. The fact that both my example, and our topic here, have to do with torture is just coincidental. One is for the sake of a lesser evil; the other is for the sake of entertainment. I, of course, understand that.

The most believable of gods are the ancient pre-monotheistic/polytheistic ones. Gods like Zeus, Ra, Odin, Krishna, were never projected as being all-good and that made them relatively more plausible given how things were/are in the world (evils of all and sundry kinds). We could always explain worldly ills like famines/wars/natural disasters as the anger of or quarrels between gods. With the birth of monotheism, God became this omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being (the OOO God) and ever since then theists have had a hard time reconciling these attributes with the real evil that exists in our world (the problem of evil). In short, the Abrahamic Yahweh seems more improbable than the Greek Zeus or the Hindu Shiva.

I may be being a bit thick, but I don't understand these diagrams. Space-filling models are fairly useless at showing bonding and they don't seem to relate to the stick models beneath. Leaving them aside, what is meant by the red and yellow dots in the centres of the hexagons? And how can one tell which atoms are nitrogen?

A 75-year-old man walked into a crowded waiting room and approached the desk. The Receptionist said, ‘Yes sir, what are you seeing the Doctor for today?’ ‘There’s something wrong with my dick’, he replied. The receptionist became irritated and said, ‘You shouldn’t come into a crowded waiting room and say things like that.’ ‘Why not, you asked me what was wrong and I told you,’ he said. The Receptionist replied; ‘Now you’ve caused some embarrassment in this room full of people. You should have said there is something wrong with your ear or something, and discussed the problem further with the Doctor in private.’ The man replied, ‘You shouldn’t ask people questions in a roomful of strangers if the answer could embarrass anyone. The man then decided to walk out, waited several minutes, and then re-entered. The Receptionist smiled smugly and asked, ‘Yes??’ ‘There’s something wrong with my ear,’ he stated. The Receptionist nodded approvingly and smiled, knowing he had taken her advice. ‘And what is wrong with your ear, Sir?’ ‘I can’t piss out of it,’ he replied. The waiting room erupted in laughter. Mess with seniors and you’re going to lose!

Some general notes how I may approach these kind of problems. Disclaimer: This is a quick outline of my personal approach, your mileage may vary. - My first language is not English; check if I understand what is written. Otherwise clarify first. - Is there an "obvious" solution? If so, keep that solution for verification/falsification later. - Are the statements constructed to "trick" the reader? (Example: "All apples are blue" is false in reality but an ok premise in an example. "isn't killed by" is probably not a common way to define food (?) ) - Is there a resolution that "should" be true. (Example "Apple is a fruit" is likely true in a well constructed problem. "Apples are not fruits" is less likely. (Double) check solutions that does not make sense in real life) - Is there extra information not needed? Then move on to translate the sentences into logic statements and apply rules. Side note: in the example given I would add that although John likes peanuts we can not say for sure that he will survive without proper treatment; we can't decide whether he is allergic or not. In real life (in my day job for instance) spotting these kind of things may be just as important as the question stated.

The normal meaning of elastic is to a material that returns to its shape when a distorting force is removed. So that would not apply to a liquid, surely? What spatial derivative do you mean?

I note you are so busy correcting others that you still haven't bothered to correct your own false statement. Vaccination is not mandatory in the UK NHS service.

As someone with a bit of Classics education back there, I feel it's worth mentioning that arete is a Greek term for excellence and the aspiration to fulfill one's highest potential as a person. It is NEVER "safe to assume..." Also, lest your assumptions go ranging wildly again, please know that I am not actually a vat, or a brain in a vat. I do tap into vats, now and then.

Morality doesn't require any document. Now if you want to talk about law, try this.

I understand after crossing swords with you in other threads, that your posts reflect sympathies and care towards the criminal, the terrorist, the pedaphiles, Hitler etc. I have also explained many times, that such a warped life philosophy is unworkable. I also understand that rarely do any of your posts answer questions directly. Still, let me ask again.....(1) In the kidnapper case, after all avenues have been exhausted, and (2) with the captured terrorist and the potential for saving thousands of lives, would you undertake what is seen normally, as morally wrong, to at least attempt to save their lives? Or would you maintain your pretentious moral high ground under all circumstances? As a result of your "maintaing of your so called values", would you face the parents of the dead child, or the relatives of the thousands that were killed by the terrorist? (not to mention of course, the condemation of society in general) The bottom line is that you as usual refuse to answer directly. ?? You mean like the real life example I gave of the low life human caught raping a little girl, and then stabbing one of her rescuers in that other thread? Ignorant of the evil of callous murder and blowing up thousands of people? Were you not earleir in this thread, waffling about the kidnappers and the terrorists scenarios being unreal? or unlkely? or words to that effect? You understand the meaning of hypocrisy? The so called distress of the pedaphile, the criminal, the terrorist, would be of no concern to me, in the situations as described. I'm not acting as an apologist for murderers, terrorists, religious fanatics, criminals and pedaphile scum. In summing up, you are adept at playing word games. All agree torture is wrong. But sometimes, in certain circumstances, doing wrong and abandoning the immorality of torture, is justified on those pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, that ignore the standards of morality in a society. They, the pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, have set their bar of immorality.

Again this idea that there is some way we get to live the easy good Retired life somewhere - whether we call it Nirvana or Heaven - is only possible right here on earth A Tree has little or no brain - it feels no pain - some trees live for thousands of years longer than even the Pyramids were built - free food falls from the sky - Heaven! The lesser the brain, the less pain & suffering & vice versa We have a bigger brain - ideas come rushing in - my health, my job, my country, my loved ones, their well-being, my dreams, my hopes - all of this comes with Pain & suffering All people who hope for an easy life in Heaven or Nirvana are doing is ending up as lower life forms and then they will get the peace and quiet that they want Not really - there is no magic Accountant in the sky rewarding/punishing us for our acts. If we insist on driving fast on wet slick roads, and ending up in a crash, it's not some magic man doing this, punishing us - we did this to ourselves. Same thing - if a student does not study, spends his days partying, well he gets bad grades - nothing is coming around - it's just what he chose to do, he chose his bad grades Same way - ending up as a Dog is a choice of those who chase after Heaven - they want the easy lazy life - sit about doing nothing while shamelessly sponging off someone else I find it amazing how even the best of educated do not ask questions - "What do we DO in Heaven?", "How do we make a living?", "how much does it pay?", "Is it like living in a Communist state? Where everyone is the same, lives the same in the same cookie-cutter homes, everyone gets a home allotted to them?" "how do we spend a day much less eternity?" Amazingly no one even asks such questions! It is their choice to remain brainwashed by religion & ending up as Dogs As for Charity: Someone just letting you live like a child, catering to all your comforts while you just sit about is not charity - charity is about helping people in need, people who have been hit hard by unfortunate events - like the covid19 we have now - millions have lost jobs because of it thru no fault of their own That is completely different from Heaven - where able-bodied men and women think they can just sit about sponging off someone else - that is what Prostitutes and leeches do - they find rich Sugar Daddies, flatter them sky-high and hope the rich guy will reward them with the easy good life To me it is amazing that we continue to remain utterly brainwashed by these primitive ideas of heaven and hell Hell is not Justice, it is vengeance. Hollywood loves Vengeance - the hero/heroine gets hurt in the beginning of the movie - the Kill Bill movies - then it is a blood-fest the rest of the movie - the audience goes home happy their blood-lust satisfied But few ask - did the hero/heroine get justice? Did they get what they lost? Their loved ones back? In the Kill Bill movie, the heroine kills another woman, a mother whose daughter sees what is going on - guess what that little girl will do once she grows up? It is an eye for an eye and it makes the whole world blind Whether Hitler or Madoff or any evil person is suffering in hell or not does nothing for their victims. The victims get no justice either with these criminals being nicely forgiven (and here again the silence of the educated as religion speaks with both tongues - happily telling the criminals that nice God will forgive, all you have to do is repent, then turning around and telling the victims that God will deliver Vengeance in hell) So no justice from God! Makes sense - these are ideas of God from primitive people - living under Kings/Dictators in a violent world - this the best they could come up with The amazing stupidity is to see brilliant, highly intelligent people of today blindly following these primitive ideas - just amazing!

No, if Arete says he's male then he's male obvs, I wasn't disputing it - I was just explaining why I referred to him as a her, as anyone else would, being as though Arete is a female name. But hey, let's focus on names, because that's more important than acknowledging the attempt of Arete to mislead others by drawing a false conclusion - a classic deflection tactic. To anyone with half a brain reading this, the 'group think' echo chamber you operate within is clear. Should be focus on the use of misleading data and call Arete out for it...or should we focus on a nonsensical gender issue to deflect away from Arete's misleading interpretation of the data.... your agenda is clear. Again, a petty nonsensical response. The attributes assigned to a name bear no relation to the competence of the person with that name...this is like having a conversation with a child. I think it's time to find a real science forum