beecee

My apologies, I seem to have forgotten to comment on the above.....You seem to be of the attitude, that all governments, police forces etc are bad. You seem to be saying that the police forces around the democratic westernised world, go around arresting as many innocent people as possible. You always seem to focus your sympathy on the evils of society. Why is that? Sure there are bad eggs in any and all sections of society, even the Vatican, but there are far more reasonable, decent people out there who simply want what's best for all. My advice is you could do more then just uttering philsophical rantings on a science forum, to help what is sometimes wrong with society in general. I could say more but I wont. 🤕 Yes to all three of course. Prevent further crime, gain necessary info, and extracting a confession that may save innocent lives. Do you have any problem with that? And yet here you are....still arguing for the sake of argument, a point that you yourself have admitted you would undertake.

Certainly more reliable then the same old, same old, same old fence sitting, philosophy practising, that you and dimmy are contributing. 🥱 And yet here you are....still arguing for the sake of argument, a point that you yourself have admitted you would undertake.

Nonsense! An innocent person wouldn't be seen as 100% guilty, not withstanding your usual antics and obtuseness. 😄 Not sure where you dragged that philosophical silly notion and figure from, but could have a good guess. Not at all, particularly if he choses to play the arrogant evil low life. And in the circumstances, my sympathies lie with the possible rescue of the child, not with some kidnapper and possible rapist/pedaphile, who has set his or her morality bar at trash can level. Yes, I know what you meant...you said you would try all avenues to extract the information but stop at torture...here. If that isn't what you really meant, then you need comprehensive English lessons. I'll let that rant go through to the keeper. So is QANON. I always forgive my brother's misgivings and deeds, all without any philosophical nonsense or membership of any club, after he has served his necessary punishment in jail....you know those things you want to see ripped down. 🥱 Exactly, the decision is made fast as possible. No wrong again, certainly not exclusively. 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". And yet here you are....still arguing for the sake of argument, a point that you yourself have admitted you would undertake.

As long as they get the job done. We still find the 300 year old Newtonian mechanics as sufficiently accurate enough for most all space endeavours and of course we near exclusively use it on Earth.

Things seem to have eased somewhat in Sydney and the South coast, but the BoM are warning that this system isn't finished with us yet. Whether it ends up worse then 2011, or not, we have had two record one in a 100 year flood events, in 11 years, and in between the disasterous bushfires 18 months ago. Besides climate change, the other big ticket aspect is the Insurance premiums that are way out of the abilities of most to pay. I'm speaking of 10's of thousands yearly premiums for businesses, and a $9000 yearly premium for a pensioner couple. There has to be a way to cushion such effects. I Need to give "TheVat's" idea some thought also.

Yes, read that this morning and was going to post the article. I like saying that science is a discipline in eternal progress and refinement.

For every logical, morally correct scenario, there will always be some smart arse philosopher with some less then logical, and less then morally incorrect argument against. I call it arguement for argument's sake...or opposition for opposition's sake. "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it". Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

Good, coming to your senses I see. As I said previously, we certainly can know with 100% certainty the guilt of a person. The criminal low life may have confessed,,,,the kidnapper may have the child's DNA in his car, in his hair, or under his finger nails. The same of course applies to the low life terrorist. He may have dared us in openly confessing to hving the bomb, he may have the terrorists plans in his pocket of how they managed to get a nuclear device. Now to address a couple of your usual innane "what ifs" or "buts" in your vane attempt to avoid admitting you are wrong. Irrespective, I also said that guilty beyond any reasonable doubt would be morally enough to consider even torture, in the scenarios under discussion. I certainly would find it easier to live with myself in the infinitesimal small chance he was innocent (the terrorist/criminal) rather then have the death of a child or thousands of innocents on my conscience because I had not tried all avenues open to me. 🙄 Because we have already tried all other avenues, even your sweet act of a sandwich and a cup of tea, and they have failed. Did you mention you object being labeled obtuse? 🙄 No, I don't need to crunch the numbers, that's simply your ploy to somehow paint me into a corner, when in actual fact all you are doing is revealing the futility and immoral aspects of your own pretentious decision in not attempting all avenues open including torture. Then you havn't tried all attempts at extracting information, and you pretentiously maintaining your passive stance have cost the lives of a little child and/or thousands of other innocents. In short, I totally reject your actions in not attempting every means possible to save the lives of innocents, in favour of condoning respect for some low life criminal. But hey! we have sorted all that out in another thread! You have 19 pages of examples of that in this thread, with your's and one other's answers and also avoidance of answers to questions. "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it". Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione Not sure really if you have answered in good faith. I suppose the way you wear your passive philosophical stance like a badge of honour, and with such religious fervour, may indicate a form of fanaticism, or delusion? What does your heart tell you about the kidnapped child or the thousands of innocents about to be vapourised, or more importantly, the real life case I raised in the other thread of the deranged low life raping the little girl in the toilet block and then when caught in the act, stabbing one of the rescuers. My heart lies exclusively with those victims, rather then attempting to shore up supports for some unworkable flagging philosophical stance. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 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".

The problem is infinity itself. Our laws of physics and GR break down at the quantum/Planck level, so theoretically in a BH for example, GR tells us that once the schwarzchild radius is reached, then further collapse of any matter is compulsory. But GR also breaks down at the quantum/Planck level, which may mean that the collapsed matter lays at or just below that quantum/planck level, in an unknown state.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure its the Astronaut that is younger then the stay at home twin. And each twin sees time passing as per 1 second per second within his own frame. It is only when the astronaut returns to Earth that any age difference is noticed.

Physicists and scientists today, mostly reject any singularity as defined by infinite densities and spacetime curvature. But a singularity is also defined more simply as where our laws of physics and GR break down or are not applicable.

Can you answer the following dimreeper that I asked you back at pages 9 and 10 and repeated a couple of times, as you didn't answer?

Your point is actually spot on. My intentions in starting this thread was to highlight extreme weather events happening far more often, and the climate change connection.. Yes, there is/was a difference. Plus the overall effect of this system, going beyond Brisbane makes it probably the worst. This system has moved down the coast, into NSW and flooded towns like Lismore and Grafton, and at this moment is battering Sydney and the south coast. 4 dead so far but it is expected to go higher.

Gee, you're really posting some nonsensical stuff.

Hmmm, some interesting aspects to this thread...mega twat, dick like, leave me the fuck alone 🤭 Seriously though, I'm not that into the details of the history exactly, but really, Putin lost it with me, when he threatened nuclear might. The history is full of criminal nuts, Hitler, Idi Amin, Ghaddafi etc. IMO this potential scenario to WW3, can only be decided by continuing the world wide sanctions, and the Russian people, who are already protesting to increase those protests. Someone in government may then wake up before anyone presses any nuclear button and possibly disable this Putin nut.

🤣 Is that the best you can do? No I havn't contradicted myself, and my views have remained absolute and stable throughout your poor attempts to confuse the issue you already admit you would do yourself. Anyway ignoring further your non sequitur, and the rest of the rhetoric from our pretend philosophical experts, in essence again, we all rightly regard torture as morally degrading, and torturers, in general, as the most morally degraded of human beings; but in some certain rare cases, where guilt is certain and/or beyond any reasonable doubt, the moral justification of torture is a no brainer. To repeat, morality is decided by the consquences of one's action/s. The lesser evil of saving thousands of innocent lives, outweighs by many degrees, the so called wrong of torturing the criminal/terrorist. In addition to the above set of moral considerations, the following points also need be considered...The terrorist is culpable and responsible on two aspects...Firstly, the terrorist is instigating two immoral problems, (1)forcing the police to choose between undertaking torture to get a result, and (2) threatening thousands of lives. In other words he alone is the architect of his own demise, when he refuses to spill the beans, and after all means have been tried, the powers that be, only have torture left. And as I have already previously linked to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ entitled Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy there are some interesting comments......... 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. Of course much of the above will be ignored as that is our pretend philosopher's right to do, ( commonly referred to as a copout)

What do you think? Obviously so? What does your old book on philosophy tell you to say about that? I'll wait while you check. Again despite the obvious pretentious ignorance, Either way, success or failure, there is only morally one course of action. That is when all avenues to extract information that will potentially save thousands of human lives, then it is morally acceptable to use torture in such extraordinary events. You know, that which you admit doing yourself.

It's not certainty in what I believe old friend, its certainty in certain events. Your question has been answered, and really your rhetoric to avoid appearing hypocritical, is not really working. Again your question has been answered, and there's no way I will be forced at your coercion to answer it again. The shoe's on the other foot now dimmy. Wrong old mate, again. Either way, success or failure, there is only morally one course of action, as I have explained and linked to various summaries many times. That is when all avenues to extract information that will potentially save thousands of human lives, then it is morally acceptable to use torture in such extraordinary events.

In 2011, we had catastrophic floods that were seen as one in a hundred year event: 11 years later we have these floods that are even worse according to the peak river levels. Some redefining needed with the influence of climate change methinks. The rainfall totals for this current event have been staggering to say the least. From 9am Thursday to 9am Monday three stations recorded over a metre of rain: - 1637mm at Mount Glorious, QLD - 1180mm at Pomona, QLD- 1094mm at Bracken Ridge Brisbane has absolutely smashed its three-day rainfall record with 677mm, by recording over 200mm each day for three days in a row Before this week it had never even had two consecutive days over 200mm and had only ever recorded eight in total. The mean annual rainfall for Brisbane is 1011.5mm and it recorded 741mm in just the four days from 9am Thursday and 9am Monday. Speaking of records, Weatherzone is reporting Dunoon in NSW recorded the second-highest daily rainfall total in NSW when 775mm fell in just the 24 hours to 9am Monday. If you are not sick of stats yet, Doon Doon in NSW picked up a whopping 1040mm of rain in just the 48 hours to 9am Tuesday. That is over a metre of rain in just two days. https://www.farmonlineweather.com.au/news/how-unusual-is-all-this-rain-were-having-the-answer-very/536372 And as this weather event has moved south, today is Sydney's turn, not that El Nino has not already given us our wettest summer ever!

It seems like only yesterday that the East coast of Australia, faced one of the worst bushfire seasons in living memory, with hundreds of homes destroyed, whole towns wiped out,lives lost and billions of our native animals perishing. Now we have the same east coast having our worst floods in living memory, with month's worth of rain falling in a single day...Roads interstate impassable, and whole towns flooded, by what are being called a once in a thousand year flood! https://phys.org/news/2022-03-australia-tens-thousands.html The couples' home floated fully intact for about a kilometre While I am aware of extreme weather events around the world, when they hit close to home, one starts to wonder. We have 4 moths to go before our next general election, I hope that peopel are aware and concerned enough to vote out our present incompetent climate change denying governemnt, for our Labor party who promises to do much more in that regard.

I may not be a GR giant, nor a physics giant, but I really find that hard to accept and believe in these days of giant particle accelerators etc. On your overall claims re universe or rulers shrinking, GR did originally tell us that the universe was dynamic, that is expanding or contraction. Nothing about atoms, planets, solar systems, galactic groups shrinking, just that the universe was expanding or contracting. Hubble not long after solved that for Albert with cosmological redshift and expansion. While expansion is only over large scales, and gravity decouples that expansion over galactic group scales, the other three forces also do a job in maintaining a planet stay solid, a body stays in one piece as is, and atoms molecules etc also hold their positions, that is the EMF, strong and weak nuclei forces.

Morality is decided by the consquences of one's action/s. The lesser evil of saving thousands of innocent lives, outweighs by many degrees, the so called wrong of torturing the criminal/terrorist. In addition to the above set of moral considerations, the following points also need be considered...The terrorist is culpable and responsible on two aspects...Firstly, the terrorist is instigating two immoral problems, (1)forcing the police to choose between undertaking torture to get a result, and (2) threatening thousands of lives. In other words he alone is the architect of his own demise, when he refuses to spill the beans, and after all means have been tried, the powers that be, only have torture left. The philoosphical utterers amongst us are reluctant to concede that the worthwhile moral scenario, in the situations being discussed, is that we need to save the lives of the innocents, and that is where the morals of this now debacle of a debate lie. The philosophicaly dishonest, sometimes confusing, and even trolling behaviour, is preferred by a couple rather then admit that this is the situation that the democratic western societies most of us live under, would chose and demand. In fact if the situations under discussions were to eventuate, and our philosphical gurus chose to let those thousands of innocents die, then they themselves are by choice utterly immoral human beings, at least in my opinion, in chosing their unworkable philosophy, over moral correctness..

Who is? Why? deleted much of this post, as all it will do is promote more off topic, irrelevant nonsense, simply to shore up flagging philosophies and equally flagging egos, as per the following example/s...... Admirable examples of modern westernized democracies! Some people, in various times and places, have sometimes been convicted of crimes (in we don't know what kinds of legal proceedings); therefore, a nameless, nationaless, unaccused casual example of death by firing squad must be guilty by association. Due process be shot full of holes!

As most reasonable thinking beings would agree. That was your failed example. All I said was more then likley he is guilty and deserved of such punsihment, although I don't agree with the death penalty. Ummm no not at all. You have the bull by the wrong end...Try again. That's because its the most moral outcome.