Leaderboard

I'd say it does matter, because by and large it's one party is repeating Kremlin talking points and subverting democracy, while the other isn't. That there isn't a clear distinction on some aspects of government, that doesn't extend to all aspects of government. These are the acute effects, but I worry about the long-term. I think we will be seeing the effect of TFG for some time, as things bubble through the courts. Roe v Wade is likely to be gone soon, and that won't be the end of it. All because of justices he appointed.

Another unpopular opinion: Trump would be better than many of the others. He and his cronies are mostly evil, but they're thankfully also mostly incompetent. Keystone cops comes to mind. Anyone with a bit more political skill, but with those same autocratic tendencies following the Trump model is likely to be far worse in terms of outcomes. Completely agree. Trump worries me far less than the millions upon millions upon millions of people who think he's the best representation of them, even after having 5 years to learn what the man truly represents (i.e. they aren't just being fooled and hoodwinked into thinking he's a great businessman).

Unpopular opinion: It doesn't matter. The same lobbyists and corporate interests own both major parties. The health insurance industry isn't going away, the banks aren't being meaningfully regulated, the military isn't being defunded, the oil industry isn't getting curtailed... While the January 6 riots were eye opening, does anyone really think it could have changed the election outcome - like if the crowd successfully held the capitol and prevented the certification of the election would it have had any long term effect? Personally I have trouble imagining a successful coup without the full support and cooperation of the military, which Trump certainly didn't have. There is trillions of dollars a year dependent on the political status quo of the US and I don't think that Trump had any realistic possibility of disrupting that. One of the "benefits" of Trump is that he's largely bluster and chest thumping, without the political clout or intelligence to effect meaningful change. His political ideology and agenda is incoherent, and has no ability to actually staff and effectively manage a government. So, while he is a disturbing symptom of a broader, problematic worldview that is prevalent in the US - which CharonY described in detail, he has very little ability or even motivation it would seem to do much more than performative symbolism. Hillary isn't in jail, there's no border wall, the affordable care act is still law, etc. So rather than a malignant growth, Trump is ultimately more like pustulent discharge - unpleasant and concerning, but a symptom rather than the cause of the infection.

I'm also struggling to recall if Spock ever once engaged in or condoned torture specifically. Pretty sure it's against starfleet regs though. The only thing I have personally to say on the subject; is that besides torture just being completely unreliable for gaining credible Intel, it's the last resort of fools that are too lazy to be creative with diplomacy or trickery. Trickery is useful in the hostage/bomb scenario, there was an episode of criminal minds where the terrorist was just straight up tricked by making him lose track of time and making him believe the attack had already happened, so gives away the location hours before it is due because he was brought a prayer mat at the wrong times everyday and he couldn't see the sun from his cell. That was a pretty good episode. Highly recommend. Now, nomatter what methods are used, you'll never be 100% certain if someone is lying or not until later, but lying to them is fair game and is easily less morally contentious than torture. That being said, I can think of scenarios where I personally would torture someone. If a pedo put my kids somewhere and I get a hold of him before the police do, I honestly don't know what I'd do in that situation. But it could be torture. I hope to never be in such an emotional state or a situation like that where I'd have to find that out. However if it was a stranger I didn't know and had done nothing to harm me personally, I'd never be able to do it. Interrogate, maybe. Torture, never. In what way is being against torture some controversial philosophy? Speaking of which, all philosophies are controversial depending on the audience of the philosopher. Are you suggesting all law enforcement bodies ought to be allowed to torture people when they feel it is justified and that somehow the majority of people all believe the same as you? Even if that were true, which I doubt, appealing to the majority means little and does nothing to give your arguments any credibility. If the majority of people believed the earth was flat, they would just be wrong. I'm just trying to understand what your position is exactly, as a lot of what you have said sounds far more controversial than anything Peterkin has said. Clearly you are in favour of torture in some situations. Can you give us some examples? Condescending posts aren't against the rules, especially when someone is being childish by threatening insults. Pretty sure insults are against the rules however. I doubt I'd be that offended by insults from you to be honest. The insults rule however is simply about no ad hom. It just makes your arguments look weaker.

So, your notion of right and wrong is localized, as well as situational. I'm inclined to consider my personal ethics as they relate to the entire world. I was forced to repeat that a bum-numbing number of times. It was true then; it's true now; I see no controversy. I would consider taking an action I know is wrong if I truly believed I could thereby prevent something even worse. I don't know whether I would have the fortitude to carry it out, but i would consider it. And it would still be wrong. That's not tracks; that's never been concealed; that's never changed. What I don't understand is why you are so reluctant to accept that simple answer. Yes. Raging against the machinery of evil is part of doing something practical about it. Demanding and supporting legislation that curbs the power of bullies in law enforcement and civil service is doing something practical about it. Bringing abusers to book is doing something practical about it. Attempting to convince those who have not yet entrenched on the side of evil is doing something practical about it. Okay. I didn't realize my 'rant' ("Lucky man!") rose to the insult level you've been dishing, but if I've underestimated your sensitivity, I'm sorry. It won't happen again. ) Why are abusive cops 'bad eggs', while abusive civilians are 'scum'? What, precisely, is the difference between how they should be treated? How should the law treat a 'bad egg' who has exempted himself from moral obligation; who has been been using the uniform, the weapons and the authority vested in him by the people he swore to serve and protect - using it, instead, to terrify, humiliate and physically maltreat citizens, guilty or innocent, in order to obtain false or true confessions, in order to subject those citizens to further just or unjust punishment - and who intends to continue in this mode of operation for decades more, abusing who knows how many more of the trusting citizenry? Does he deserve better or worse treatment than the suspected criminal? Because I do not want that home invasion and violent assault to be committed by the agents whose salary I pay. https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs

The operators were not slap-happy, they were inexperienced. The blue light may have been Cherenkov radiation reflecting from the reactor in to the air through the blown off top of the reactor housing. https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2019/08/19/6360617742329267503/1024x576_MP4_6360617742329267503.mp4

The likelyhood varies with where you live and what colour or class you are. No, it's never varied. I didn't agree with you the first time, the second time, the third time, the twenty-seventh time.... and still don't. I have not commented on your personality, tried to second-guess your motivations or reasoning or derided you philosophy. I simply disagree with your position on this subject. I have attempted to explain why. You think so? Lucky man! True, and unfortunate. I would prefer them to be a necessary good. To some degree, limiting their power mitigates the evil and holding them to an ethical standard enhances the good.

Even the first of what we would arbitrarily deem a chicken egg came before the chicken. It may have even been eaten by a predator and never turned into a chicken...assuming it was even fertilized in the first place. And, later, the first chicken had to come from a chicken egg. Your thinking is a little scrambled.

This is a general observation and, perhaps for some, a reminder. In the UK there is no such thing as Right of Way. No road user ever has right of way in any situation. What they may have is priority. In that case other road users should respect that priority by giving way. The responsibility remains with the user with priority to ensure it is safe to proceed, not to confidently advance on the basis they have "right of way". Anecdotaly, most people seem unware of this.

I know you and @beecee, think I'm some sort of snowflake and not man enough to take a stand or make hard decisions; I just hope I'm the same sort of snowflake as my gramps, enlisted aged 14 for the 1st world war, fought for 2 year's and then became a conscientious objector in the full knowledge of the consequences. It's easy to follow the crowd, when someone shouts witch. Now please explain, how you know when "all else has failed"? That may sound philosophically smart to you, but it sounds down right practically dumb to me, and your usual obtuseness path in avoiding the answers when those answers conflict with your pretentious life philsophy. Sound's like a question to me, the question marks are a clue; hope that's not too cryptic for you... 😉

This topic is a compelling case for just making an omelette.

Not where I come from....Getting arrested wrongfully is rare. Yes you did. You said you would consider it. And now you are attempting to cover your tracks by being philsophically controversial. 🥱 The evidence is here over many pages. If you live in a society where evil is more prevalent then good, you need to do something practical about it, instead of rhetorical rants. But in reality I don't believe you do. And please, if you don't like insults and are offended and put off by them, then cease your childish condescending posts. No limitations of power necessary, simply jail the bad guys. They (the police) of couse do have ethical standards to uphold, which the majority do, but like everything, there will always be exceptions and bad eggs, just as we have moral exceptions for considering torture. Why make it harder for that which you would cry out to for protection tomorrow, if you had a violent home invasion or an assault on your person. If everyone was law abiding, we would not need them. Again I certainly question your unworkable philsophy.