Neuron

So basically he is the first attacker now. The fact that he went armed makes him the one who started the fight, right? What if he didn't manage to protect himself? Would the activists be the murderers, or were the activists the ones practicing self-defense because their threat was him armed? You find his actions wrong and me too. The difference is that you are trying to misinterpret the law to make him guilty of murdering Thanks for posting statistical data. I have no intentions to deny racism. But I keep my idea about comparisons between cases. It makes no sense to compare. There are too many variables. Also what about cherry picking in doing that and choosing what to compare?

You made me reconsider my position. Maybe it's better to say Italian racism shows up in different ways. Also it's probably a less perceived problem (for the italians) since the smaller size of the discriminated communities who difficultly can raise awareness as in other countries I just wanted to share my perception that the members of this forum are not equally distributed across political areas

For example what about witnesses? Also I already pointed out a difference in a previous post but you missed apparently So a picture describes everything that happened that evening. If 5 minute before getting attacked I don't have fear it is not self-defense then? It's not about tossing bananas it's about giving my opinion as an Italian and trying to get your opinions, specifically from those who live there. Or maybe I should leave this thread letting you guys keep exchanging your already approved ideas

Ok, how? I read that part. What I was saying is that making comparisons between different cases is not so easy as "he is white and has been found not guilty, she is black and has been found guilty, so it must be the race that have made the different". There are many differences. Also I would like to point out that I already condemned what rittenhouse did and now I will also say that yes Kizer has done the right thing to protect herself. But court processes must be based on law and you can't say the two cases are equal under law. I just don't get why people need to put racism everywhere. I live in a country (Italy) where racism is not a big thing as it is in the U.S. so maybe it's just this

Thanks for the explanation Why should we note this?

Nor I was saying you did. But since you decided to do nitpicking I must apply my don't-deal-with-internet-trolls policy. For me everything is thinkable, but every think is also dislikable

The only difference you noted is that she is black? I don't know how the concept of self-defense is in your country but here, if you are not responding to an immediate threat, you can't call it self-defense. Please let me know if things work different where you live Probably my english is not good enough but I didn't get what you wrote. I don't like that this site hides who gives a reaction to a post. Thus for the sake of transparency I let you know it was me who put a dislike because you actually called me a persecutor just because I'm not persecuted.

In which way is Chrystul Kizer case related to that of rittenhouse? Seriously asking because I don't know much about the former Don't know why I should but yeah I don't feel persecuted And now you are making this bold accusation that require at least an explanation It may also "Doesn’t quite matter" but I supposed you were old enough to play hide and seek like children

I take my responsibility in this. I was misleaded by your previous post about the AR In my country it's illegal to carry a knife in public if you don't have a valid reason. I think if rittenhouse used a knife it will also have fallen under gun control policy. Anyway guns aside, I don't think there is much more in this story...

That's not OK. But again, he has been found not guilty because apparently he is not guilty according to law. It's stupid to wanting a person convicted just because he has done what the second amendment allowed him to do. U.S. people should instead work on changing the law if that law is not OK for them

I think it's the right verdict. Not guilty

Not sure if you opened the link. They were civils and they were brought to Bolzaneto without a judge sentence. Don't know which crime are you talking about. Many of them were simply journalists documenting the protests at G8.

Not sure what is your point. I support police violence when it is needed. But the beatings I talked about happened the day after the riot was sedated and policemen acted in group against single prisoners, beating them one after one. It was literally a punitive expedition and I don't support that. Here too, if there are strong evidence. There are surely other anecdotical evidence in our history. If you are interested may I suggest reading this wikipedia article, in particular the section about "Treatment of prisoners at Bolzaneto". If you want statistics instead I must search them.

I proposed one but apparently for you is not enough. Do you realize whatever definition we take there will always be a certain degree of ambiguity? So why were you questioning such strange and unrealistic situations? Have you ever seen police quell a riot slapping prisoners hands? Why don't you prefer talking about more realistic example such as the beatings up of prisoners that happen more regularly? We still don't have your opinion after all

We are talking about the same episode. The video I posted is an edited mix of various footages recorded by the prison security cams (doing so knowing of being recorded also helps understand how untouchable policemen thought to be) If I have time I will search the link but I remember the topic about using educational violence on children has already been discussed. And, from my interpretation, the conclusions were along the line of "violence is bad but children don't have the understanding of a grown-up so sometimes slapping them is the only way to go". You asked about a specific case (teaching a child to not put a fork in the electric outlet) and in that case the law allows that (based on my knowledge). It's unlawful if you slap your child too often without need, slap a prisoner once, or slap a prisoner every day. Whether it's torture or not I don't know.

Since you want an explicit definition of torture I will use the definition of art. 613 bis of our penal code. Putting it simple: slapping a child hand is not torture, beating up prisoners because you are frustrated and your life sucks and you are sadistic is torture. Don't worry, you missed nothing. Just one of the many beating up of prisoners that rarely (according to police) or often (according to every other evidence) happen.

Are you seriously comparing torture to slapping a child hand in order to teach him a lesson? I don't have a formal definition of torture but certainly that was not what I was thinking about. That's how italian police treats prisoners. It's what came to my mind when the OP asked whether we should use torture for criminals or not. A system like this creates even more criminals and probably contribute to the anti-social behaviours of detainees. Does a criminal feel in peace with society once he get out of prison, the same society that convicted him to that destiny? How can cruel violence contribute to re-education? There aren't many situations in life where answers are simple but for me this is one of them.

You can't know beforehand who is re-educatable vs who is not, so everyone should be given the opportunity to re-education. For people who keeps reiterating crimes the problem is different and surely complicated. But anyway I am still against torture even in those cases because I doubt it works on a practical level. There is a concept, typically propagandized by italian right-parties, that if you want to keep people from committing crimes you should raise the punishment. I think it's a blind way to see things because it doesn't take into account why people do certain things and the entire context of people lives. It's not a simple positive vs negative benefits of committing crime that cross criminals' mind. I agree. Many treatments may be considered torture, in fact the concept is somewhat ambiguous. But the OP was talking about physical torture and I was still (implicity) talking about that. I think there aren't many doubt about what physical torture is.

Art. 27 c. 3 of Italian Constitution says: Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted. I can't agree more with our constitution. We shouldn't even discuss torture as a punishment in a civil world. Edit: Spelling error

What do you mean by "linear thinking"?

I was more interested in what happened after the big bang rather than before (if there was a "before") Why is not homogeneous anymore? How did the expansion perturbate that state? MigL hypothesis looks plausible but I understand a better theory is needed before being sure. I think a unified theory will provide an answer.

That's interesting, thank you Wow, I never thought about this. Is this mathematical demonstrated/demonstrable?

Hi everyone, Reading other threads in this forum, like https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120772-please-tell-me-we-have-free-will/, it seems to be well-accepted that our universe is almost completely (except for quantum uncertainty) deterministic. My question is, what determined the inital state of the universe? I mean, where did all the initial information come from? Thank you for reading.