beecee

Well said, and pretty close to the truth I suggest.

No its not only called by me, wrong again. Go back and check out the links I gave. The opinion of never ever ever using torture, irrespective of the time/scenario is a pretentious and morally degrading absolute. There are without doubt, very special rare occurences where it is the morally correct option, after all else has failed. No its a moral fact, a fcat that would be I suggest, supported by the vast majority in any democratic westernised society, and funnily enough, something even you would consider. Don't like that quote? Doesn't fit your life philosophy? Try this one for size... Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956. Do you really need to drag quotes and such from the worlds greatest book of myth and lies in every thread? No amount of philsophical jargon and disguised pretense of shock and horror, will change the morally correct stance that sympathies, and any decent moral code lay with the victims of crime or terrorism, rather then the perpetrators of those crimes and terrorism activities, who have set their own moral code bar at sewer level. That is the correct moral stance in the examples given, is to exhaust all means and avenues possible to save those innocent lives, whether 100% certain of guilt (as per the thought experiments) or guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

Your position is quite clear...maintaining your so called pretentious absolutes re torture with criminals, paedophies and terrorists, instead of the more desired moral correctness to save the innocents with every means at our disposal. Am I? 🥱 No I am not part of the problem and am not mistaken. The problem is this blanket absolute you want to maintain re torture, under any and all circumstances. You know that will never work, and never be allowed to work. Is that what's troubling you? Or the fact that you are unable to support your absolute statement, absolutely. Np wonder so many reputable scientists today, are inferring philsophy has had its day. Sorry you won't be reading my posts anymore though. It was fun while it lasted! 🤭 There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it. Cicero, Marcus Tullius

Let's consider this situation, as unreal as it is. (of course there is no way anyone can know what any child will grow up to be) Firstly as far as a paedophile is concerned, kindness doesn't enter into the equation...punishment and containment does. Mostly after serving appropriately lengthy jail sentences, they once released into society, are forced to wear ankle bracelets to track their every movements. The death penalty is non applicable in Australia. The "Hitler" child is a different kettle of fish. Unless we know with 100% certainty that his future is set in stone and cannot be changed, then some attempts to alter the path of history is desirable...better education, different environment, moved to another country etc. If it is known that his future is set in stone, then the westernised world would demand he be eliminated. Still the situation is unreal as already mentioned and is a silly impossible philsophical nonsense. Adding to that, in some circumstances it may, in other circumstances, it may do the opposite. Most decent muslims also condemn the fanatical terrorist ratbags amongst them.

No I'm saying that torturing a terrorist or criminal to get information that may save some innocent person's life, does not necessarilly create other terrorists or criminals. I don't condemn all muslims because of a handful of fanatical terrorists. So? We are still morally obliged to attempt all avenues that may save an innocent life, even the torture of criminals, terrorists and pedaphiles. Not at all.... I was raised and brought up during the cold war period. So? Who said he defended police brutality? Do you have a reputable reference? Not all police/suspects interactions are the police's fault either. Just had a recent case (will give details and links if you like) where a Policeman killed an indigenous suspect after he (the policeman) was stabbed by this suspect. He was charged and aquitted and rightly so. 😁😵 You may chose to dance around the issue, and create red herrings, but the facts of the matter are far more simple. They are as follows...It is far more morally acceptable and morally required, to use all means possible to extract information to save innocent lives, even torture, if and when all other avenues have been exhausted.

Generating new terrorists? Does it? Conclusively and absolutely? I don't think so. And judge Richard Posner, I would suggest, aint no fool. The only morality is consideration for the victims. The criminals, terrorists, pedaphiles, have lost all consideration for any morality. And that is the judgement I believe would be taken by society in general. That is your only absolute. My hypothetical opinion to save the lives of innocent victims, is morally correct, and is no more hypothetical, then some philsophical rhetoric about generating more terrorists. In fact, it may even reduce such numbers when they observe the futility of their fanaticism. And I find it particularly difficult to stomach, the pretentious moral concerns about the perpetrators and criminals and pedaphiles, rather then the actual victims. Judge Prosner..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner Posner is a leading figure in the field of law and economics, and was identified by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century.[2] He is widely considered to be one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States. Posner has generally been identified as being politically conservative;[citation needed] however, in recent years he has distanced himself from the positions of the Republican party,[8] authoring more liberal rulings involving same-sex marriage and abortion.[9][10] In A Failure of Capitalism, he has written that the 2008 financial crisis has caused him to question the rational-choice, laissez-faire economic model that lies at the heart of his law and economics theory. Posner is a pragmatist in philosophy and an economist in legal methodology. He has written many articles and books on a wide range of topics including law and economics, law and literature, the federal judiciary, moral theory, intellectual property, antitrust law, public intellectuals, and legal history.[16] He is also well known for writing on a wide variety of current events including the 2000 presidential election recount controversy, Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky[15] and his resulting impeachment procedure,[17] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[18] His analysis of the Lewinsky scandal cut across most party and ideological divisions. Posner's greatest influence is through his writings on law and economics; The New York Times called him "one of the most important antitrust scholars of the past half-century." In December 2004, Posner started a joint blog with Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker, titled simply "The Becker-Posner Blog".[19] Both men contributed to the blog until shortly before Becker's death in May 2014, after which Posner announced that the blog was being discontinued.[20] He also had a blog at The Atlantic, where he discussed the then-current Great Recession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.

My thoughts go back to the pre anaesthetic era, and the obvious excrutiating pain, sufferrings, and mental torture of both the poor patient (if he survived) and the surgeon, if he ever operated again. It goes without saying that the advent and discovery of anaesthetic, had the most profound effects on medicine in general, that probably any newly discovered medical procedure ever has. In the beginnings of those discoveries, the introduction of ether and chloroform was not simply a technical development, it reshaped the whole social, political and emotional relations of the operating theatre, the surgeons and the patients.

And of course there is a third category that has come to mind...Quackery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory The miasma theory (also called the miasmatic theory) is an obsolete medical theory that held that diseases—such as cholera, chlamydia, or the Black Death—were caused by a miasma (μίασμα, Ancient Greek for 'pollution'), a noxious form of "bad air", also known as night air. The theory held that epidemics were caused by miasma, emanating from rotting organic matter.[1] Though miasma theory is typically associated with the spread of contagious diseases, some academics in the early nineteenth century suggested that the theory extended to other conditions as well, e.g. one could become obese by inhaling the odor of food.[2] The miasma theory was advanced by Hippocrates in the fourth century B.C.[3] and accepted from ancient times in Europe and China. The theory was eventually abandoned by scientists and physicians after 1880, replaced by the germ theory of disease: specific germs, not miasma, caused specific diseases. However, cultural beliefs about getting rid of odor made the clean-up of waste a high priority for cities.

☺️If you chose to fool yourself into believing that, that's your prerogative. Just to be clear though, you have not had any reasonable argument, either here or in the justice/punishment thread, only preaching your unworkable life philsophy. And as usual your rather wierd interpretations and hypocrisy, of me being credulious, is fabricated not around facts but around that same unworkable life philsophy. Facts that we can know with 100% certainty a person's guilt...facts that what matters anyway, is being guilty beyond reasonable doubt...facts that all other efforts to extract the required information, must always be attempted first, before any thoughts of torture...facts that innocent lives outweigh ten fold, the lives of criminals, pedaphiles and terrorists...facts that normal everyday citizens of any democratic westernised society, would certainly support the use of...facts that torture should certainly be still officially banned and discouraged (which it is) in most of those same societies...facts that irresoective of those anti torture laws and edicts, that reasonability, common sense and moral judgement (on rare instances as being discussed) will still always prevail, in spite of those laws and edicts. No, nothing incredulious about my position, but plenty of hypocrisiy regarding your own position. Those positions supporting my stance are worth repeating, particularly when you misconstrue or ignore them. That's done with total recognition of their validity, and certainly not in anger, as you are trying to convey. 😉 Here's a winky emoji to support that. 🤣 Thanks for validating ay least part of what I said above. I read intoscience's post but no I did not nor have I referred to it at all. Yes I agree with what he basically has said, but not with your twisted defining of what he has said, but hey, he can speak for himself. I call things the way I see it, and am not immediatly concerned with whether it is left or right of the political spectrum, and that may invoke some emotionalism, and while I'm an avid lay supporter of science, I do see emotion as part and parcel of who and what we are as humans. I don't particulary care about whether you agree with my position or otherwise, more concerned with answering to the best of my capabilities those concerns you keep fabricating. The so called distress of the pedaphile, the criminal, the terrorist, would be of no concern to me, in the situations as described. I'm not acting as an apologist for murderers, terrorists, religious fanatics, criminals and pedaphile scum. In summing up, you are adept at playing word games. All agree torture is wrong. But sometimes, in certain circumstances, doing wrong and abandoning the immorality of torture, is justified on those pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, that ignore the normal standards of morality in a society. They, the pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, have set their bar of immorality at sewer level, and do not deserve the benefit of the higher moral values (the prohibition of torture) of society in general.

At least I had an argument in both threads...a realistic argument based on facts and reality, and real life examples, not some unworkable philsophical jargon, you like to attempt to shove down people's throats. I'm also not declaring any victory, and to even raise that shows the depths you need to sink to. Or are you now attempting to play the victim card? All I'm declaring is that your life philsophy was unworkable in the justice/punishment thread, and your absolute opinion re torture in this thread, (based on that same unworkable philsophy) is certainly not absolute in certain undesirable scenarios, as far as any reasonable democratic westernised society would hold.

My persistance is a result of the replies and answers given that have ignored the logic and reasonability in any democratic western society, that does not see a "absolute" denial of all reasons for torture. And I have given a number of those links that detail those same reasons, certainly more eloquently, and just as certainly more convincingly. On my retirement from the thread, you are probably right on that score, as so far any argument against is mostly based on some unworkable personal philsophy, that was shown to be wanting in the justice/punishment thread, and is just as wanting in this thread, imvho of course. But then again, I'm a stubborn old bastard, and will always need any argument about any shift of my views, based on actual and real events, and logic and sensibility. I don't find any philsophical stance, (particularly an unworkable one, as exhibited by a couple here) by itself, doing that. Just to reiterate, My sympathies, and moral code lay with the victims of crime or terrorism, rather then the perpetrators of those crimes and terrorism activities, who have set their own moral code bar at sewer level, and see the correct moral stance in the examples given, to exhaust all means and avenues possible to save those innocent lives, whether 100% certain of guilt (as per the thought experiments) or guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

I prefer the definitions of "non conventional medicine" like homeopathy, acupuncture, moxibustion, cupping, etc etc, which are often formulated around philosophical, religious and ideological concepts, and lack any scientific validation. They also can run counter to modern rationally "empirical evidenced medicine". eg: https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/homeopathy extracts: Is homeopathy effective? There is currently no evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathy to prevent or treat any disease. Is homeopathy an alternative to childhood immunisation? Conventional vaccines undergo rigorous testing to prove both safety and effectiveness, whereas homeopathic preparations do not. There is no evidence that homeopathic preparations provide protection against childhood infectious diseases. Is homeopathic treatment safe? In general, it is hard to know whether or not homeopathic preparations are safe. They don’t go through the rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness that other medicines are required to undergo through the Australian Government’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). They might be safe if used as well as conventional medicine. They are not safe if used instead of conventional medicines. Is homeopathy an alternative to medical treatment? The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which is Australia’s main medical advisory body, has concluded that homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic or serious, or could become serious. Agreed. I prefer as I defined above, "non conventional scientifically unvalidated medicine" and "empirical based evidenced medicine"

Let me say from the word go that I always have and always will follow the path of modern medicines and the science behind them. In saying that, and having been crowned the "Tui ni Vatu lailai" 😉in Fiji, that the traditional root yaqona, commonly known as kava, has been found to have soporific and relaxant properties. So much so that it can now be purchased at chemists throughout Australia in tablet form.

Says who? The following again from the encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford. 4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture "We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_torture Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote: "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility. The crossword is simple my friend. My first moral thoughts and sympathies (and with most sensible people in any democratic westernised society) are with the victims of crime, terrorism and such. Your's appear to be with the perpetrators of such evil, by invoking some "nice sounding" but unworkable pretentious philsophy. You tried to justify that in the justice/punishment thread, now you are trying to justify it here. I see that as immoral. That's why you can never give a straight answer.

Just some shots of an animal that is amazing to say the least. http://twistedsifter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/elephant-orphanage-at-pinnawala-sri-lanka.jpg http://twistedsifter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/elephant-cooling-itself.jpg

The bible is not a book of science. End of story. Thinking along the same lines, but have always had difficulty spelling diarrhea correctly. 😉

2000 years from now, there may still be recordings of one sort or another of Elvis, along with reputable accounts of his existence and talents. On the other hand the bible is a collection of short stories and fairy tales, written in an obscure manner, from an obscure age, by equally obscure men. Sadly we have no reputable account of those times, other then archaeological finds.

Of course I don't. 🙄 (see how easy that was?) But that's not the bone of contention is it? You made the absolute claim that he never personally killed anyone, and now you are trying to dig your way from under the mess you have created. You can make it stop easily, my not being so cryptic as others have noted, and by stopping making such absolute silly claims.

Truck with two Russian saboteurs in Ukrainian uniforms stopped... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2623659/Vidoe-Truck-Russian-saboteurs-stopped-Ukranian-troops.html https://www.ibtimes.sg/ukraine-war-video-captures-moment-2-russian-saboteurs-are-gunned-down-after-stealing-ukrainian-63014

The age of mythical obscurity.

Yes, emphatically. Me three.

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-deforestation-brazilian-amazon-february.html Record deforestation in Brazilian Amazon in February: Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon set a new record for the month of February, according to official data released Friday, the latest sign of a surge in destruction under President Jair Bolsonaro. Satellite images show 199 square kilometers (77 square miles) of forest cover—an area more than half the size of the US capital Washington—were lost in Brazil's Amazon region last month, according to Brazilian space agency INPE's Deter monitoring program. That was the highest figure for February since the program began in August 2015, and a 62 percent increase from February last year. Environmentalists said the figure was all the more worrying given that February is the rainy season in the Amazon, typically a low period for deforestation. more at link.....................

https://www.sciencealert.com/confidence-grows-in-mit-spin-off-aiming-to-make-the-deepest-hole-for-limitless-energy Hmmm, sounds a bit airy fairy to me.

So what evidence do you need to show that human induced global warming is a valid concept and real? What would convince you? What external sites do you trust? I was of the opinion that NASA was up there with the best. Do you have any evidence to show whay that isn't true? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Tha's not the statement in contention. You actually said....... now stop pretending, stop being dishonest and trying to make excuses, and admit you were wrong. you do not know emphatically if he did or did not kill anyone, afterall, he was a participant in WW1. In essence, stop trying to get out from under.