mistermack

I can honestly state that Swansont is always meeting MY expectations. 😊

Whatever I decide. The rapist who had his balls cut off would probably disagree.

Apart from anything else, if you deny people of justice, some of them will administer their own. If I had been raped by a stranger as a child, and the case was solved 25 years later, only to be outside of the statute of limitations, there would be a very real possibility of me taking my own revenge on the culprit, especially if the crime had severely affected me. And the same would go for the rape of a son or daughter. More so in fact.

People use landfill like it's a dirty word, but for the right substances, I don't think there's a lot wrong with it. Near where I live, it's used to reduce flood problems, and when finished and landscaped, it makes attractive hillsides with sheep grazing. A piece of plastic buried in landfill is not going to cause environmental problems, it's more the plastic that escapes landfill that makes trouble. The average plastic takes 1,000 years to degrade in landfill. A glass bottle a million years. Plastic bottle 450 years. It's not a hazardous practice, to bury the right stuff. I prefer incineration, if the energy can be used, and the gases and ash are safely dealt with. There is some CO2 emitted, but you are getting usable energy from it, so it's no worse than burning natural gas in that regard. A combination of land fill and incineration, sending the right trash to the right place, is ok by me.

No, she'd get an equerry to ask him. And he would tell his butler to get it. What made me think about statutes of limitation, was the case of the Golden State Killer. The numbers are absolutely horrific. 120 plus burglaries, 50 plus rapes, and at least 13 murders dating back to 1974 - 86. They were really sadistic crimes too, with the rapist targeting couples, and forcing the husband to balance crockery on their backs, under threat of death, while he raped the wives. He can't be prosecuted for the rapes, they weren't serious enough, so they came under the statute of limitations. They now have a suspect, and good dna evidence, and he will probably die or stay in jail for ever, for the murders, but it does illustrate the point. If he had never killed anyone, they wouldn't be able to do a thing about the rapes and violent burglaries that he committed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_State_Killer

As far as the OP question goes, that is where we are heading already. People live indoors with no seasons and no significant temperature differences. Indoor lighting is getting more like real daylight all the time. Yes we go outdoors, but usually when the outdoor temperatures are similar to the ideal indoor temps. In the future, people will live in giant spinning space stations, with the climate of their choice, and always artificially lit. Outdoors will be a thing of the past for nearly everybody.

Horsed for courses. It's not all orange rabbits.

Me neither, I'm just replying hypothetically to the OP. The main drivers for me are cost and convenience. It's just a coincidence that my consumption doesn't generate much carbon or waste. I'm too mean to throw food away, unless it's dangerous. And the cheapest source for me is also planet friendly. I find that every time you try to think through a low impact food, it has drawbacks. People bang on about meat being worse for the planet, but when you actually take a look, it has pluses as well as minuses. Beef farms in the UK generally have more wildlife living them than crop farms. The fields are smaller, there is less ploughing, and the hedges and ponds are great for birds and amphibians etc. But grain grows more food on less land, reducing pressure on marginal land. It's hard to pick a winner.

Me too. Or, the way I would put it, is that the new is at least as fictitious as the old. Professional historians don't regard the New Testament as a historical account. It's a collection of stories that were written up by interested parties years after the alleged events. And the battle to exclude rival versions didn't start at Nicea. St. Paul won out in a battle of wills, on what should be accepted doctrine. He never met Jesus, and only met his alleged brothers and followers once, (I think). But he was responsible for the version of events that we see today. The other faction, led by James, the alleged brother of Jesus, didn't even think Jesus was the Son of God. That was put in by Paul and his side, and the James version faded into obscurity. I'm not at all convinced that there was a man called Jesus at the root of it. There was certainly a Jesus movement, but I think it started out as a heavenly son-of-god story, and gradually got written up and embroidered as a real life man. (Not my own idea, there are proper historians who push that version)

Don't judge other people like yourself. I'm sure Charlie doesn't go into his mum's handbag looking for her pension.

I entirely agree about the danger of miscarriages of justice, but it should be possible for the proof bar to be raised when the case uses old evidence. I would put in another layer of protection, before the trial goes to a jury. The prosecution would have to persuade a judge that the trial should go ahead, if the offence is older than a certain figure. The judge would also have to rule on admissibility of some of the evidence, due to it's age. You couldn't have the judge rule that the case was weak or strong, as that would prejudice the trial. On the reliance on dna, that is for the judge, lawyers and jury to work out. It is gone into in great detail in a trial, and the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt, so it's no different to any other evidence. It's hard to challenge the scientific result, but the defence gets every opportunity to challenge what the dna actually establishes, just like every other bit of evidence.

I don't really see the ethical reason for having a statute of limitations. Especially now that people are living longer lives. To some extent, it could make sense in some cases to prevent miscarriages of justice, when memories of witnesses get more unreliable over time. But today, with modern forensics, it's possible to solve a lot of serious cases without relying on the weakness of human memory. DNA is a prime example, but fibre evidence, ballistics and even photographic evidence have the potential to be reliable evidence way into the future. Plus stuff that hasn't been thought of yet. It's not beyond the wit of a decent judge, to direct a jury so that unreliable factors like memory are treated with the appropriate caution given extended time having passed. So I think it's right and desirable to scrap statutes of limitations that allow the guilty to go free, just because they got away with it for a long time. Obviously I'm talking about serious crimes, not civil or trivial cases. I don't think you get any less guilty, with each passing year.

That's how I see you.

I don't think there is such a diet. You can minimise your impact by where you source your food though. If you buy local, you minimise transport costs. If you buy fresh, your food hasn't used energy while frozen. If you don't buy packaged food, you reduce a whole load of industrial packaging activity. I buy my fruit and veg from a stall at a car boot sale. I'm pretty sure it's ex-supermarket stuff, which has been marked for removal from the shelves because the odd item has gone soft, or dry, etc. It's about a quarter to half of the normal price, so I'm happy, and it would otherwise have probably gone to land fill. If you can stop waste in some way, it makes a difference. I hardly ever throw food away.

I wouldn't care if the answer was philosophical, religious, spiritual or scientific, if it was the true answer. If the answer was religious, and there was good evidence for it, then that would be the scientific answer as well. That's essentially the difference currently. If it's got good evidence, it's scientific. It's also scientific to acknowledge that you don't know, if there is no evidence. So the scientific answer to the question, at the moment, is that we don't know.

Well, I've certainly never called anyone a jerk on the internet. Not even indirectly.

I think you're flogging a dead horse. My first post made it clear that when I said "there is no spirituality" I mean't that what people are calling spirituality is a delusion. The meaning was perfectly clear, and it's only semantic wriggling on your part to try to portray it as otherwise. I don't believe for a second that you didn't get what was being expressed.

I've been given warnings for that kind of thread derailment. If you want to debate climate change, start a thread. That's what the moderators always say. (when it's not them)

I didn't say that, I said that they are deluded.

We're in agreement again. I didn't say it.

Now you're making sense !

Having a word for something doesn't make it real. I would also say that there is no magic. Others would disagree. There is no god. Same again. I can argue that there is no god, in the face of billions who argue that there is. It's clearly stated as an opinion, I can't prove any of it.

I did refer to wiki, and it says word for word : " There is no single, widely agreed upon definition of spirituality. " as I pasted into my post. So take it up with the author.