Intoscience

I'm not sure this is true (my bold) any selection criteria ignored in favour of skin colour, gender, race, religion... could be considered negative discrimination.

Yes, she is a very attractive lady. I wonder if she has more freckles than she appears to but hides them well with make up? I know some redheads have many freckles while others have few. I also notice that there seems to be a correlation with the "gingerness" of the hair and the number of freckles. Those that appear very ginger tend to have more freckles where those that are closer to blonde have fewer?

Do you mind, I was just taking a sip off coffee whilst reading this and spat it out in laughter! My first love was a fiery red head, she had freckles everywhere, I found them rather attractive myself. To be fair though, I'm not sure about other cultures but certainly in mine a red headed male would not feature very high on a list of physical "attractiveness" from any general survey conducted. It's generally the usual cliché of - tall, dark and handsome as top contenders. A short, "ugly" redheaded male doesn't stand much of a chance and would generally have to recruit his charm, wit and comedy skills to gain attention. I know this from experience because a good friend of mine fits this description and he is under no illusion when it comes to attracting potential partners. He has honed his personality and social skills to some success. On the other hand I have known and even dated some very attractive redheaded women. There is a redheaded lady that attends the gym where I currently work out, she is very attractive and gains much attention.

+1 Well if you're happy then I'm happy... Ok I'll bite and have a go. Yes, its rational to be an atheist and believe in religion. I'm an atheist and also consider myself a rationalist, who also believes in the concepts and some ideas of most religions.

Maybe, I don't claim to be correct, its just my opinion I shared on this forum. I have my own views on the joke, again I'm sure many would disagree with. Personally my opinion is, the joke was lame, but quite tame. Will's reaction was understandable but his actions wrong and unjust.

I don't know, maybe some folk that support Will might think so. It just "seemed" to me that's all. Will has obviously got personal issues and the out burst could well be (likely) part of his frustration. All I was saying is that the joke (in my opinion) did not justify Will's reaction. Where others may feel the slap was deserving, or at least understandable due to Chris's "insulting" remarks. But the matter is, Chris was just doing his job and Will was out of order. Lets face it, would people even be questioning the joke if Will hadn't reacted the way he did? I think not. +1, Will appeared to be laughing quite calmly at Chris's jokes including the one aimed at Jada until he saw her reaction. This then sparked his reaction, maybe this was an attempt by Will to prove something to Jada?

Personally... I couldn't give a shit, I don't want anything. I was just saying, as it seems to me some people are focusing on the joke as if to justify Will's actions. It was a crap joke and a bit insensitive, but not so bad it deserved a slap.

I'll take that anytime as a compliment, since I'd like to think I'm in this group. Nice post by the way +1

I share your sentiment, Either way life started somewhere, and that somewhere had to have specific conditions and chemistry and probably a whole other factors for that life to begin (life as we know it). Earth seems to be ideal, so why invoke panspermia? Even if life originated elsewhere, and was miraculously transported to Earth, the conditions on Earth still had to be so that the life could thrive and evolve. Unless of course we discover that there has to be something specially adapt for abiogenesis that Earth did not originally long ago have, but it did have the capability to support life, rather than create life. But to me this seems rather unlikely.

We have all had those moments, I've had plenty of sudden outbursts and regretted them afterwards. Doesn't make them right, that's all I was saying.

In hindsight the joke was probably in bad taste, I don't believe it was intended as a dig at Jada's condition or to purposefully demean her in anyway. Will's reaction however was totally wrong, so I believe there is a difference. Nice PR stunt though.

Yes, and based on our current technological development, especially AI, I can easily see a logical evolution towards an electro-mechanical dominant intelligence. This currently seems to be a route that might take a natural course, since this type of "life" (assuming we define it that way) face much less challenges than our feeble biological bodies can endure and can go on to evolve at a far greater rate than we ever could. It will far easier for this intelligence to spread out across the galaxy and maybe further still into galaxies throughout the universe. It would be a major breakthrough in our understanding of how life comes to being, or at least our definition of what we consider life.

I agree, the slap looked either staged or pulled. The resulting force which would have happened from the way Will drew his arm back would have been much harder and louder than what was received and Chris would have reacted much more and with more pain. Also it appeared Will found the joke quite funny until he saw the reaction of his wife, whereby he then changed his attitude. In my opinion the joke good or bad was rather tame and I'm not sure if Chris was aware of Jada's medical condition or not. If he was then the joke was in poor taste, but if not I can see why he would consider it ok. Jada is (rightly so) going to be very sensitive whilst dealing with her condition, so her reaction was understandable. However Will's action was completely out of order and was a mistake. I doubt very much Chris's life was ever in danger, the blow was very weak, so unless he was unlucky enough to fall or have a medical condition of his own that would be vulnerable to such a weak blow then I think this episode has been (as expected for show biss) blown out of all proportion.

Ok, fair enough. I was just stating that my opinion could be wrong and that I would happily change my opinion should I be convinced to do so. I could have worded it better, I didn't expect it to be interpreted as the way you did so.

Yep, it was just an observation from me not an argument. Exactly and this is why calculating the odds can be very ambiguous especially since they are strongly based on assumptions and the one and only example we have. I didn't do the calculation myself, the figure I mentioned was just from memory and was from a documentary I watched. The reason it stuck with me is because of the comparison to the number of observable stars. Oh and this figure was for the likelihood of humans or similar developing not just simple life as we know it. I'll try and find a link to the documentary should anyone be interested.

I don't consider this thread (or any for that matter) a competition so I'm not sure where you got that idea. But I see it as a moral choice, yes it could be one that I may have voluntary chosen to make, or one that was forced on me as part of my job and responsibility. Yes, and like I said, I see it as a moral duty to try and save lives and if the situation becomes so unfortunate that I have to inflict pain on another to do that then I see this as a necessary evil for the greater good.

True, though I was talking specifically about humans since we are the only known example of technological capable life. Humans became technological starting with using basic tools and then developing from there. Of course this is life as we know it and based on the only sample which we currently have. But what else can we do? until we / if we discover life elsewhere in any other form or similar we only have one example to compare to. So if we want to speculate using at least some evidence then we currently have no choice but to try and understand how life may have begun here and then develop into us.

Yeah, I believe that's the crux of it. The resulting low odds are are calculated from a vast number of assumptions rather than facts which could be convincing should the assumptions become facts. It all starts with the odds of a planet similar to earth being born, along with the formation of the moon and the protection from the gas giants and the size and age and sustainability of the sun... all the way through up to the chances of a species developing tools etc... When you look at the sequence of events that happened for us to be here its quite mind numbing and based on this premise you can easily see how the odds of us ever existing is quite remarkable. As I said the vast majority is based on assumptions rather than facts, but it gets you thinking!

Fair enough, I don't agree though, I did state "all available methods within the time frame" which I appreciate can be open to interpretation and a bit ambiguous. When I consider this approach I'm imaging a situation where things are a little desperate and this creates a rather chaotic environment. Obviously a calm and calculated approach should be adopted as much as possible. Math is not my strong suit either, though I wasn't counting, it was more of a flippant comment from me because quickly reading it I felt the list was biased towards all the "maybe" negatives. Which in my very humble opinion are out weighed by the one possible positive of saving innocent lives. Maybe my approach to all this is just wrong and you folk are trying desperately to educate me in my error. I don't know and never claim to do so, but my opinion is that the act of torture is a far lesser wrong that the act of taking innocent lives. I cant get over this (my under lined).

I stay hopeful and positive. I don't worry about what the religious folk think or believe. Chances are if we do find life, if its less intelligent than us then they will just proclaim that we are still God's "chosen" ones. It will be more difficult however if intelligent life is discovered, especially so if its more advanced, older and intelligent than us. The reality is that at the moment we could well be all there is in the entire universe. This seems absurd when you consider the vastness and age of the universe. Where there are trillions of star systems, many far older than our own. But abiogenesis could be extremely rare especially that which results in technologically capable living entities. In fact it could be so rare that it has only occurred just the one time in the current history of the universe! There are some interesting ideas around this and when we consider the odds (though not factually determined as yet) of life ever appearing in the way it is believed and then evolving into us today. You can easily come up with odds so low that they far outweigh the number of stars in the universe. IIRCC I watched a documentary on this and there where some figures hovering around odds of 1: 1030 + chances. My personal belief is that life in some form or another is abundant across the universe but intelligent life, especially technologically capable life is extremely rare maybe even non existence, other than us.

I'm glad, at least my posts come in useful for something. I think the idea of mental only interrogation is a good one and should be tried prior to any torture. I appreciate that you feel torture is probably a reckless approach, it may well be the case. But again my focus is on - when all else fails - So when the clock is ticking and the situation is desperate, innocent lives on the line, their death imminent, all known methods and resources available within the time frame window of opportunity have been exhausted and there is an option to gain information that might save the victims then I feel that option should be considered and used. This premise is based on my belief that the moral justification for the act of torture outweighs the moral justification of letting innocent people suffer and die without exhausting all possibilities to save them. There are plenty of if's and but's in that list, much like if torture is used it may or may not work. However, you can't get away from the fact that "if" you don't try you don't know. Personally when the chips are down I'd take my chance with your extensive list if it meant there's a chance of saving many innocent lives, especially so if it was one of my nearest and dearest. If you can guarantee/prove that torture would never ever work in any and every possible circumstance then I'd be happy to change my answer to no.

Hmmm... not always. Is an idiot always born? Ok, so it should have read survive or preserve, I'm not here to argue the diametric. "Are the Russians and Ukrainians really engaged in preserving the life of their lineage/species?"- Peterkin Maybe from each of their perspectives, again though its not relevant to the OP and/or the thread. So you agree then that- "Any and all acts of torture are as equally as atrocious as the pain/suffering resulting in the death of innocent live/s." ?

Fair enough. Ditto

Well one could argue the innocence of a person, which is why a child was put forward as an example of a victim. One would assume that the child is innocent especially if of a young age. It was also raised in this thread about killing, instincts and survival. We are instinctively programmed to survive/preserve life not only our own but also our linage/species... The saving of a child/our children is the ultimate goal in this preservation.

So, is that particular value system and set of assumptions either realistic, employed anywhere, plausible or reasonable? Because if so, then you have answered the OP.