MigL

I am sorry to hear about your brother-in-law, Zap. I'm sure his passing wasn't easy for your wife or sister, their family, you and your extended family. As I said , It is not something that I'd ever consider, but, I've never been in a situation where I've had to consider it. I don't think anyone should feel that suicide is their only remaining option.

For your first example, Zap, I would think if you put people in an immoral situation, you can't expect the results to be moral. I would ask you why you think war and torture are moral. For your second and third examples, you should keep in mind that immoral acts don't affect you; they affect others. The perceived 'crime' of suicide doesn't affect you ( you simply die ) but it causes unmeasurable grief to family, friends, and all who care about you. These are merely opinions. And as I've previously said, this is what I think now, being of sound mind ( ? ) and body. I don't know what I'd do if I was in a situation that made me 'consider' suicide, so I don't judge others who may do otherwise, but I feel for their families. ( had a friend who took his life, due to a work situation, by cutting his throat with a box-cutter; his wife and kids found him in the garage in a pool of blood )

A rather confusing explanation for an equation that plays with numbers. For example , what does "an entity existing in Space-Time flows through Time, then in Space" mean ? Any event in space-time will 'move' along the time axis, whether it is in motion in space, or not. What is this so-called theory meant to explain ? What does it predict ? How does it differ from current accepted theories ? What observations lead you to believe this is in any way relevant? Does this reduce to SR, which has been tested, and found accurate, many times ?

No, I don't think it can be morally justified. Then again, neither can stealing. But if I was put in a situation where I had to, I might.

Don't agree much with the Princess, but suicide is just as wrong as murder is. It is actually doubly wrong because the murderer gets immediate capital punishment, without a trial. edit Am I joking ?

With this pandemic, and all the lockdowns, people have too much free time on their hands ???

That's only if you are comatose, INow. I think I'm still fairly conscious ... sometimes.

Spoke too soon ... Canada has approved the Pfizer/BNT vaccine for use. Health Canada approves Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine (msn.com) I see light at the end of the tunnel.

You seem to have human foibles. Like the rest of us. I don't know what difficulties you may have in your personal life. But this is just a voluntary internet discussion forum; try to keep it in perspective. ( and believe it or not, some of us are sad to see you go )

Sorry, human life. Don't like goose … too 'greasy'.

The question you're asking is "When is it OK to take a life ?" And the qualifier you're using is 'when it's your own ? ' Should the answer not be that it is never OK to take a life ?

In the news today... Even though Canada hasn't approved the Pfizer vaccine yet, an initial shipment of a quarter million doses is on its way and should be ready for distribution within a week or two.

I don't follow this, md; maybe you can elaborate; Mach's principle states that the global distribution of mass in the universe, determines the local properties of inertia. So, I'm not sure what the connection is. Further, prior to the last symmetry break where fermions and some leptons bosons acquired mass ( see Swansont's post above ), the Strong ( color ), Electroweak, and most importantly, Gravity, were distinct interactions. And a distinct Gravity implies space-time. IOW, mass is not required for space-time.

There are many factors to consider... Should an Oncologist withhold cancer news from a patient because of the emotional 'hurt' it will cause ? On the other hand, if your wife asks " Do these jeans make me look fat ?", run out of the room. There is no possible answer that will save you from a long scolding. ( no, I'm not married; but this generalization applies to girlfriends also )

Well, now that MSC is taking a vacation, and the Princess went back to Venus, maybe I can get some attention again ... Learned something interesting while reading up on Affirmative Action in various States. It seems California is without an AA program, and they've been trying to pass one into law for some time. Apparently, the Affirmative Action proposition that recently failed in California involved having to remove anti discrimination provisions in the state constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender identity or sexual orientation. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-california-rejected-affirmative-action-again/617049/ If affirmative action is intended to help these groups, why do you have to eliminate anti discrimination language to implement it? I would guess because it is discriminatory. So which is more beneficial to society, anti discrimination laws or Affirmative Action ?

That's a trap we all fall into. These issues can be emotional for many people. Nobody makes a good argument from anger.

Other than the fact we are discussing barriers to equal opportunity in education, and not barriers to equal results in education, I really don't see a reason for the neg rep given to Studiot. All society can do is provide equal opportunity. Equal outcome is vastly more dependent on the individual. Let's not confuse the two.

Except f you read back two posts you'll notice Strange said energy is a source of space-time curvature. IOW, energy gravitates.

I don't know, CharonY. I thought that is what we were discussing. I have stated that, in my opinion, the mechanism is flawed. and I gave historical evidence of where the mechanism was used for " bad' purposes with resulting disastrous effects ( American slavery ), and even where the mechanism was used for " good' intentions, with negative effects also ( Canadian Residential Schools ). If you can give me an example of 'racial' discrimination where 'good' intentions resulted in 'good' outcomes, I can be convinced otherwise.

It is no stretch that genetic markers that are responsible for differing traits of certain groups are also related to inheritable diseases. The amount of melanin ( skin pigmentation ) of some Italians is greater than some people who identify as Black. I myself. get my moles checked out whenever I visit my doctor. I have previously stated that the Emancipation Proclamation did not identify Blacks, but slaves. While the Underground Railroad had many participants who were not Black, and, sought an end to oppression and slavery. So while those programs/laws/ efforts identified a station in life ( for lack of a better term ), or a genetic marker that leads to a certain trait, they are not explicitly 'racial'. It is only when we generalize, and attribute that station in life ( slavery ), and those traits ( high concentration of melanin ), to a separate 'race', that the trouble begins. I can see the immediate benefits of putting 'racial discrimination' to 'good' use. But remain of the opinion that a mechanism for sorting according to 'race', is inherently flawed, whether used for 'good' or 'bad'. Just over 100 years ago the Residential School system in Canada was thought to be a 'good' way to assimilate Native Canadians into Canadian society, and instead of living on Reservations, be productive members of society. It is now considered a huge flop, which abused/damaged a lot of lives, and far from being 'good', is now considered criminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system . What is 'good' or 'bad' today, may not be so tomorrow.

No apology necessary; I'm fairly thick-skinned. I just found it galling that you would complain about something which you also do. Do you mean like this ... Just what exactly do you think 'discriminate' means ? dis·crim·i·nate /dəˈskriməˌnāt/ verb 1. recognize a distinction; differentiate. Discrimination is simply the act of sorting according to some criterion. I think that we can all agree that discriminating, or sorting, according to the criterion of 'race' is wrong as it has led to oppression, slavery and genocide. Even worse, there are no actual 'races', but the one; it is essentially sorting according to distinguishing features, that has caused all these problems. Yet you guys feel it is still OK, because you're using it for 'good'. edit I miss the Physics forum where words are strictly defined, and meanings are not colored by the subjective life experiences of the user

Seriously Zap ??? You guys pick and choose snippets of my posts to attack, without taking them in context of the rest of the post, and MSC has the balls to accuse me of doing that ? What is wrong with the sentence above ? That when all is equal ( the goal ), the only consideration should be grades and attitude ? Go ahead and call me racist; you've already accused me of using Trump's playbook. If the mechanism ( sorting according to race ) used to combat racism is the exact same mechanism ( again sorting according to race ) that created it in the first place, you are going to have problems. I am suggesting that mechanism is flawed; not suggesting racism does not exist. I am also suggesting you are further polarizing race relations, but I would expect nothing less of Americans. That's out of Trump's playbook too, isn't it Zap ? I'm out.

You are falling into the same trap here. What do age, gender and clinical ability have to do with education ? I don't think you want to introduce gender, age and disability discrimination into the equation too. The goal is that even financial situation should not matter, and the only criteria should be academic standing ( grades ) and attitude. That is my point exactly. If we continue to measure race ( ? ), gender, age or even clinical ability, human nature being what it is, the result will be discrimination/sorting according to all those extra criteria which should have no bearing on whether you get an education or not . edit Sorry, I previously said that would be my last post on the topic. I lied.

Sorry Zap, I hadn't seen the Emancipation Proclamation, or the Underground Railroad in your original list, or I would have separated them, like I did with the testing for medical conditions in black folks, for the reasons given above. I am exploring an argument here, not advocating for one way or another, of doing things. But I don't seem able to effectively communicate that argument, and perhaps, that is confusing you. I will try one last time ... Say your car pulls to the right as you're driving down the road. The advocated solution seems to be steering to the left, so as to keep going straight. ( thank Phi for all for the 'steering the ship in the opposite direction' analogy ) I'm suggesting that is just as bad, and will lead to even more problems with your tires/bearings/steering linkage. The best solution is to take care of the problem by getting an alignment done. Not trying to counteract the problem.

IIRC, A Lincoln's words identified slaves, not black people, to be freed, while there were many whites who participated in the underground railroad to bring slaves to freedom. The act of targeting a group was wrong when slavery was established, and can be argued to be wrong when those same methods are used to correct the original wrong. Do we murder murderers ? Do we take possessions away from thieves ? When is 'an eye for an eye' ever a good policy ?