zapatos

If you have no free will then you cannot decide how you want to feel or try to do what you think is good, or decide not to become a monster.

Sorry, forgot to add the link... https://apnews.com/article/dark-energy-desi-cosmology-astronomy-7856ae96fab5cb42e6b4a6fd7c3555ec

Dig in your heels. I'll move on.

The OP did not specify if the missiles are nuclear or non-nuclear. Why is your assumption correct and mine is wrong? I'm not sure why you don't feel the OP needs some clarification. Surely it has confused more than one person here.

Just because you don't think you should feel guilty doesn't mean you won't feel guilty. Emotions are not something humans invented that can be turned on or off just by deciding to do so. Push your mother down the stairs then tell me if you are able to suppress your feelings of guilt.

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'm unsure though why you are reminding me. I don't think you can assume this is about the 1962 crisis without further clarification from the OP. @swansont seems to be saying this only refers to 1962, in which case your (and my) answer may not be correct.

I remember but thanks for the reminder. (I suspect just about everyone in the world remembers.) The US has also NOT used them in all subsequent conflicts over the following 80 years. I stand by my comment.

Presumably none. You don't respond to non-nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons. There would be no need.

I like the approach of Garrison Keillor, albeit one he proposed in 2016. America has a lot of inertia and it is difficult to move it in a completely new direction. We've survived plenty over the years, and while there are some scary MAGA proponents, I don't really believe that most voted for Trump due to brainwashing. Like has been happening since our inception, some people just need to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming, but each generation is better than the past. Just since my time on this site we've already dragged forward enough people to accept gay marriage that I don't ever see us 'making America great again' to the point where anyone makes a serious attempt to outlaw it. We'll be fine, IMHO.

Wow! That was terrific!! These fingers are going to burst into flames...

I may be mistaken but I don't think the House hearings were of a 'legal' nature. Had they found criminal acts they would have had to turn it over to the proper authorities who would have decided whether or not a crime was committed. I don't think 'grounds' are the issue. They can release the report or not at their discretion.

No, you fixed it for yourself so that you would not be shown to be wrong.

You have. However you provided no evidence of people being inept/lazy, only evidence of some level of being uninformed. Uninformed does not equal inept/lazy.

You being surprised is not evidence those people are lazy/inept.

While that article goes a long way toward showing how well voters are informed of politics news it doesn't provide a lot of information regarding why they are not better informed. We know old, rich white guys know more than poor black women but surely that could be due to who is more likely to have a subscription to the New York Times and the time to spend reading articles at night. One thing they did find was that: That sounds to me like generally people are reasonably good at sorting through the clutter. It doesn't feel to me like we yet have evidence that any voter set is generally lazy/inept.

How does one make a generalization about a population without having facts or examples from which to generalize? If you don't have any facts then the statement is simply bias. Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that you did. But Trump voters were at least a subset of the voters you were referring to.

I acknowledge that lazy/inept people exist. I do not accept that we can generalize Trump voters as lazy/inept, which is where this line of discussion originated.

I don't know. In 1900 very few people attended high school. Does that mean there is pretty much a statistical certainty those people were lazy/inept? https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/celebrating-150-years-of-education-data#:~:text=In 1900%2C relatively few students,were enrolled in postsecondary education.

A generalization is an inference based on the facts about a subset of the group. Do we actually have facts showing that part of the electorate is lazy/inept, thus rendering them unable to distinguish fact from fiction?

Is that fact or wishful thinking?

If ALL people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction then I would agree. Since not everyone is lazy/inept, facts do matter. It is not possible to target only that subset of people.

Of course facts matter, regardless of how a subset of the population views them. I can't believe anyone on this site would suggest otherwise.

You were told to quit lying or go away. You stated that you'll choose the option to go away rather than the option to quit lying. It's not rocket science.