beecee

Ditto.

No problem at all, because I tell you when and why I don't accept your answers. I don't accept that you answer everything anyway, as you have already admitted.... And yet you still refuse to acknowledge the other party other then this doozy, "The victims on one side are no more guilty or innocent than the victims on the other side". I still disagree and see 9/11 as the start of the war on terror, despite your rhetoric to the contrary, as melodramatic which is laughable considering... No not at all. I have only ever assigned guilt when there is no reasonable doubt. All you are doing is practising your philosophical semantics. There are times when any reasonable person, without some unworkable philosophical agenda, can automatically be 100% certain of guilt. This isn't an American style black and white problem. We are talking about certainty of guilt, be that black or white or brindle. Did you? That makes your assumptions doubly wrong than. We won't say anything about another Peterkin strawman though. I won't even try to analyse that political philosophical jargon, except to say again, the vast majority of a democratic westernised society in the circumstances being discussed, would I believe, support its use...both left or right of the political spectrum. This appears to be no more then a cock waving contest. Have fun!

https://nypost.com/2022/02/28/specially-trained-russian-mercenaries-sent-to-kill-zelensky-report/ Is/was he at the meeting?

Your philosophy obviously is far from hypothetical, but you are correct, we all probably have an agenda. Mine I hope is science and the science methodology, at least that's what I aim for. And yes, I was wrong in claiming part of your agenda was at the cost of innocent lives...afterall you have already said you would consider doing it in the right circumstances. Of course but I do chose to answer all questions, double barreled or not. Even those dimmy claims I havn't answered. (I hope he wakes up in time as to why I am not repeating those answers)ps: You need not commnet on that. Yes, it is/was off topic, but still you chose to enlighten us on how the west has trampled muslim countries in the past, without any reference to how muslim countries have forced themselves on their neighbours. I saw that as a bias. Perhaps being deserved of such? I'm not real sure how common it is, but I won't dwell on that point, it doesn't really matter. What matters of course would be the rounding up of random citizens/innocents just to make an example of. While that has happened, mostly though it happens in the course of war. Great! I really don't care, nor am I too interested in the details of who designates what and how. All I am concerned with is that all possible venues for extracting that information required to possibly save innocent lives, is implemented. Not at all, and as I have gone into in detail, and linked to. (1) In any democratic western society, torture is banned and is a criminal offence. (2) Still there can be circumstances as being discussed, where we must do what is morally right to save innocent lives and step outside that UN charter. (3) Two things may result...(a) the person/s authorising the torture, whether a successful outcome or not, is seen as a hero and congratulated for ignoring an absolute and following a morally correct solution, or (b) the person/s responsible is charged, but the extenuating circumstances are taken into consideration and he is pardoned/let off/lightly reprimanded. I see that as happening irrespective of a successful outcome or otherwise of the torture. And of course in the course of time, the public will know the circumstances and will likely support it by a vast majority. I have throughout this debate, always stipulated a democratic westernised society. You didn't understand that this is what I am referring to? And really, your attempted ploy of sensationalism is poor at best. But yes, just to reaffirm, the vast majority of a democratic westernised society in the circumstances being discussed, would I believe, support its use...both left or right of the political spectrum.

I've answered already the only way I know how, honestly, and its rather obvious that your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I suggest you answer the questions I have asked you in the past, and stop claiming you have already answered them, then I may repeat myself and bow to your demands. We can know with (1) certainty, and (2) beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of a person. Both would suffice to undertake all that is necessary to save innocent human lives. There are two real fundamental issue that supports my stance, and they are (1)that it is morally correct, and (2) it would be certainly supported by the vast majority of society. Not withstanding your as usual, unworkable philosophical blatherings and objections. Typical copout. Your philosophy of life and supporting it at any cost, (even innocent lives is your agenda....the same agenda that dimmy likes to wear as a badge of honour. 🤮 I interprete that as, I'll answer when I see fit, and when it suits my agenda. There have been many questions answered by both of us that are off topic. Hapless?? Why is the guy hapless? He could be a mass murderer or a child kidnapper and rapist? Could this simple uneccessary word point again to your agenda? Yep, and my ethics holds that I should do everything humanly possible to help save the lives of the innocents in the examples being discussed. And those same ethics would more than likley be held by the same committee, and society in general. Sometimes you reveal some humanity in your posts. Of course you would do it! The only part I disagree with you on is that doing what is morally correct, (or a lesser of two wrongs) makes that wrong right, and more importantly a right that would be supported by the majority of society. That is an important aspect.

The expansion of spacetime is based on the cosmological redshift of light. This expansion is observed over large scales, while over smaller local scales, gravity decouples us from that expansion. Seems OK to me and not sure how one can fit shrinking rullers into the fact that gravity decouples the expansion over local scales. How can you say the 3000K is an assumption? We know enough physics to be able to ascertain when electrons can couple with atomic nuclei. The Planck scale puts a limit on contraction, sure, and then you go and promote your own speculation? The expansion has no such worry. You then go on and make many other assumptions. It's 2.73K actually and the only way to go as expansion continues and accelerates, is down in actual fact. We have a cosmological model with each part fitting snugly into the other parts, and even if Russel Ryerson is correct in describing the two views as one being the simple mathematical inverse of the other, one certainly (expansion) appears far more likely and makes infinitely more sense.

It is the moral stance the vast majority would take or would want to be taken, in any western democracy.

The redshift of light (lengthening) is said to be caused by the expansion of spacetime. If we use the shrinking rule perspective, how does that fit in then with the gradual diminishing of the CMBR? The temperature was around 3000K when the first element formed. Plus there is obviously a limit to how much anything can shrink.

It seems along with his nuclear war threats that there is also an unconfirmed rumours that Putin has put out a 400 man hit squad to take Zelenskyy out. Perhaps some Russian citizen/s may see some promise in ending all this macho grandstanding by taking Putin out.

So you excuse 9/11 because of past events? How far back in history did you have in mind? As far as it takes to suit your agenda? Do you also excuse muslim Indonesia for invading East Timor? And those elaborating on them when it suits your agenda/philosophical ideology and bias adds what? bias? I often wonder why you are so obviously shy from answering some questions, as compared to others. Same reason?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_War I havn't researched too much more. Wonder what I will find? Oh, OK, just correct me with some waffling and a bias? As I wish, as the innocent victims would wish, as the authorities in any western democracy would wish, and as society in general would wish. The lives of innocents in any criminal/terrorist act, is the number one priority without question, and all avenues need to be exhausted to bring about, or attempt to bring about a just conclusion. One closer to home, the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor.

yes, from what I have seen and heard so far, very much so. I wish we had a PM with as much intestinal fortitude......

I asked if muslims had ever invaded other countries. You answered as above. Now you want to admonish me for suggesting you answer with a yes or no, when all you have done is just that essentially as above. You know like this....Tell that to the victims of Muslim invasions and of fanatical Islam and down trodden woman who are forbidden an education. You know, stop showing a bias. And yes it is off topic, but I certainly hope that unbridgeable rift, the real one, that exists between you, me and dimmy, stays as unbridgeable as possible. The real rift being I will never shift from the moral stance that all needs to be done to save innocents in the examples in question after all else has been tried. And *giggle* funnily enough you openly admit you would consider it. (Really sorry I need to keep reminding that at heart you are probably a reasonable human being and would do the right/wrong thing 😉) I remember a bloke in the late thirties waving a bit of paper in the air, proclaiming, "Peace in our time!!!", after some so called productive talks with a bloke called Hitler. I have a reasonable memory of the past my friend, and what was wrong, right and indifferent about it, and when serious enough, am goaded into action at times.eg: Taking active parts in two Sydney based anti Vietnam war moratorium marches. Thankfully while being an old bastard, I have never been unfortunate enough to be a part of a war.

I didn't want a long drawn out account, simple yes or no would have sufficed. And not really interested in who won or who didn't win, just trying to balance your preoccupation.

As are your opinions. Just quickly though, on the highlighted section, "A Bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush" Peterkin in an earlier post reminded my of the injustices by western societies on lands in the middle east. I asked him have muslims ever invaded other lands. I have yet to get an answer. Was Japan justified in bombing Pearl Harbor? I have heard arguments claiming they were. It's funny, ( funny peculiar, not funny haha) how that whatever argument any person has put up, there appears always an alternative argument/view. eg: Trump, you know, that bloke that Americans voted in as President.

I once had someone pushing a similar hypothetical. He called it his "shrinking rule" model. My point to that was we see light redshifted, (lengthened) which I saw as invalidating such thoughts.

Yes it has. I don't have any difficulty answering the question, and perhaps you need to cast your own mind back to when I was asking you questions, and you likewise replied that they have been answered. In my case it is valid. In essence stop being so hypocrticial. Nonsense to the first statement, as I have shown and explained to you already. The second statement is another grand dimmy strawman. We are not talking about any judicial system. We are speaking about a kidnapper who we know with absolute certainty, and beyond all reasonable doubt was compliant in kidnapping a child, and/or the capture of a terrorist that has hidden an explosive device somewhere. I don;t really know. Depending on time, those immediately responsible must act, and I suggest that action successful or otherwise would have the support of society in general. On your first point, I was not specifically pointing at you. I believe it is pretty obvious what philosophical ideology I have a low opinion of. That was illustrated in the justice/punishment thread. Your second point, what can I say? I disagree. I don't see how you can say with certainty, is does lead to more victims in the future. Why do we lose the moral high ground? I suggest if it did get the desired result, (saving the lives of innocents) then it would have the backing of your society. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself fully, I'm trying to see things from a practical point of view, rather the philosophical point of view. Am I emotional? Sure I am, who isn't. It's an emotional type of situation. The second point, No. I support fully the UN edict regarding banning of torture along with my own country's laws against such actions. That doesn't mean (imo anyway) that in rare circumstances, as detailed, that it must not be considered. If a relevant police authority authorised it and was successful in obtaining the desired result, he would likley still be charged...that charge would take into account the extenuating circumstances, and more then likley it will be dismissed. We had a case a few years ago of an old bloke living alone who heard an intruder in the dead of night. He got up, encountered the intruder and after a struggle, stabbed him to death. He was charged, and rightly and morally had those charges finally dismissed. I don't see it as tacit support. Your third point, why would it? And even if it did, does that mean we treat terrorists with a slap on the wrist? Most muslims are decent people, who like you and me, also reject the fanaticism of terrorism. We have some equally fanatical ratbags in Australian society. We also have a new law, where extreme crimes by new Australians, whether naturalised or not, will have them immediatley deported to their original birth place. That law was established by our current conservative government who I normally condemn and would never vote for under their present political ideologies. On this though, (as long as it is only for extreme crimes and terorist activities) I support them.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10556601/Australian-ISIS-terrorist-jail-immigration-detention-no-country-wants-him.html He was stripped of his Australian citizenship and had his passport cancelled on December 21, 2018. Prakash was known to inspire and encourage terrorist plots in Australia. He also appeared in IS propaganda videos promoting attacks in Australia and has also been linked by the FBI to a failed plot to attack the Statue of Liberty in New York. Again, even if what you say was valid, what do you suggest we do with them? I'm not a philosophical animal, (whatever that means) I try and see things as practically as I can and if having considerations for the victims "in the first instant" is taking too narrow of a view, then I really am at a loss to understand. Also I have no doubt that even those disgreeing with my point of view, would act just as emotionally with regards to employing all means at their disposal to try and save the lives of those victims.

It's simple really...no complicated, fabricated, passive philoosphies are needed. Generally speaking, we have on one side, the terrorists, the kidnappers, and the hardened criminals. They are called the perpetrators. Then we have those that are kidnapped, the raped child, the person in hospital close to death after being shot or stabbed, those that have been violated in other ways, robbed etc. They are the victims. Already comprehensively addressed, despite your pretentious objections. Of course we can be sure. I suggest you go back to the justice/punsihment thread, plus some reasons here. While Hollywood certainly is not a philosophy, your life philosophy, should be in Hollywood! 🥱But I suggest in reality, you already know that. As we all have agreed, despite your inferred nonsense, if the sandwich and cup of tea will do it, then go ahead. You try everything possible, understand? And that includes possible torture, if all else has failed. Then of course, whether successful or otherwise, the kidnapper, terrorist, criminal, will still face punishment. Of course taking into account, if his confession leads to the rescue of the child or defusing of the bomb, then leniency to the appropriate extent may be applied. eg: This works in reverse also. The victim's impact statements that are read out and considered in Australian courts, before appropriate sentencing is given may increase that senetnce and/or repatriation.😉 Do you? One concerns the evils of wars and the many injustices involved in those conflicts. The other is concerned with peace time scenarios where evil is committed by some, and punished as per the severity. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ The Moral Justification for One-off Acts of Torture in Emergencies: Yes. Generally speaking, we have on one side, the terrorists, the kidnappers, and the hardened criminals. They are called the perpetrators or villains. Then we have those that are kidnapped, the raped child, the person in hospital close to death after being shot or stabbed, those that have been violated in other ways, robbed etc. They are the victims or innocents. How justice is metered out, is another aspect that was discussed in the justice/punishment thread. Yes. eg: Read the example in the justice/punishment thread as a starter, plus more examples given here. Plus My moral compass tells me that every possible means must be exploited to free the kidnapped child, or save thousands of other innocent victims. Any considerations of morality towards the perpetrators of such crimes, is secondary and depends on the perpetrators themselves. Sorry, I missed this. The greater common good imo, is that which is determined by a significant majority of a society, to benefit that society. WIKI says this......."certain general conditions that are... equally to everyone's advantage". And this..."policies, decisions, and actions that are beneficial for most or all members of a given community or society". Those definitions imo, support my moral stance in considering primarliy the victims of crimes and injustices, rather then the perpetrators of crimes and injustices, who literally have set their own bar of morality, at floor level.

A delicious English blonde singer from the sixities..........Kathy Kirby

Meh! My attentions and hope at this time is for those victims under duress, like the poor Ukranians. The same kind of duress the poor child and the thousands about to be blown up, are under in the examples, from similar like minded bullies, criminals, terrorists and low life. That is far better then clinging to the high ground with regards to torture where appropriate, and morally indefensible in not doing all that is available including that torture on those rare occasions that demand it.

That's nice.....Here's a more comprehensive version...No I have not read it all..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Middle_Eastern_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/can-torture-ever-be-moral/ Can Torture Ever Be Moral? BY GARY GUTTING AND JEFF MCMAHAN: The recent Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of torture has been the focus of a national debate about whether torture is ever permissible. This interview, the second in a series on political topics, discusses philosophical ideas that underlie this debate. My interviewee is Jeff McMahan, White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford. He is the author of “The Ethics of Killing.” — Gary Gutting Gary Gutting: What’s your overall view on the morality of torture? Jeff McMahan: I think that torture is almost always morally wrong and that, for moral reasons, it ought to be prohibited absolutely in law...more G.G.: But you do agree that torture can, in extreme cases, be moral. Why do you reject the absolute view that any instance of torture is immoral? J.M.: Torture can be morally justifiable, and even obligatory, when it is wholly defensive – more..... G.G.: Do you worry that even saying that torture can be moral will provide an excuse for immoral torture? J.M.: Yes, very much. The philosopher Henry Shue has a story of being thanked for his influential 1978 article [“Torture,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 7, no. 2 (1978): 124-43] by a pair of American agents who had tortured people. The article had argued vigorously against torture but conceded at the end that the moral prohibition of torture is not absolute. more..... G.G.: Should we treat cases of justified torture the way some say we should treat cases of justified civil disobedience: more.... J.M.: I think so. To effectively deter wrongful torture, the law should make anyone contemplating torture feel that if he does so he will be sacrificing himself for the sake of morality. more..... G.G.: We’ve been using the term “torture” without defining it. Is it enough to work with clear cases of what is and of what is not torture (locking a prisoner in a cell versus beating him) or do moralists have to get into fine points about exactly what constitutes torture? J.M.: Both moralists and legal theorists must go into the fine details. There are many reasons why paradigm instances of torture are objectionable: more................extract:It has to concede that the infliction of that degree of harm can be permissible, even to prevent harms far less bad than the murder of a billion people. The idea that there is such a threshold is wholly implausible. more..... G.G.: Absolutists might object that you’re just assuming that actions should be judged by their consequences, whereas they think at least some actions are immoral in themselves, apart from their consequences. Is this just a case of conflicting basic moral intuitions, with no way of resolving the issue? J.M.: I don’t think so. extract: I have said that it might be permissible to torture a terrorist to force him to reveal the location of a bomb or a hostage, but that would be quite different from torturing the terrorist’s child as a means of extracting the same information. more............... extract: Absolutists about torture, who say that it can never be justified, make the same mistake. As I indicated earlier, because most of them believe that it can be permissible to kill a person to prevent him from committing murder and also that it can be less bad for a person to be tortured than to be killed, they should concede that it can be permissible to torture a person to prevent him from committing murder. Apart from the fact that killing is usually worse, the only significant difference between killing in defense of the innocent and torturing in defense of the innocent is that torture can only very, very rarely be used defensively. more........ but you get the gist..........................

I'm avoiding nothing, nor am I curtailed by any political, philosophical ideolgy. My feelings, sympathies and duty of care is towards the victims of crime, nothing more, nothing less. I said...... you answered..... Perhaps it is you that needs to do some explaining. In the meantime the answer to my question is yes, of course they have. Perhaps, so? what do you suggest? I'm pontificating on the morally correct circumstances in which torture could be used, be that on a pedaphile, terrorist, or any other sort of criminal. I see 9/11 as an unspeakable evil act,as do any self respecting citizen of any modern westernised society. Perhaps what you need to do if I am essentially wrong, is become PM or President, and instill into the world your version of "political philosophy". We all are emotional beings. And we all would like to see a perfect society/world, perhaps without International boundaries and political persausions. But hey! instead of preaching to me and my ignorance, tell me the cure. How do we eliminate terrorism? (Noting this thread is not specifically about terrorism) The lives of the many, ( the innocents) or the child, outweigh, any so called moral consideration for pedaphiles, terrorists, criminals etc. That's what a normal westernised society would support, and more importantly, that's what a normal westernised society would expect.

Your position is vague to say the least...a 20 cent each way proposition based on some passive philosophy, and rather weird since you have admiited you would condone it yourself. My position is based on the morally correct edict that while torture per se is wrong and repugnant, in some situations, the need to obtain info to save the lives of a child and thousands of innocents, is paramount by any means possible. A lie? 🤭 Your emotions astound me! If I am wrong, then please give us your emotionless, non political version of what you believe to be the case. While you are at it, have muslims ever done any invading of laands? Perhaps I should have said the innocents outweigh the needs or consideration of the damn criminal, terrorist and kidnapper. At least I am answering your queries rather then ignoring them as you and another are so apt at doing. Your philosophy needs re-philosophising. 😄 Perhaps, but I'm still rather sure he would abide by that edict. Not sure how he would logically view your own situation re admitting you would consider it, and then continuing to rail against the victims and feeling sympathy for the criminals. Mr Spock by the way, lives in a far advanced society, where (you guessed it) evil still exists. So as to add some validity to his unworkable, passive life philosophy, which in reality has zilch. One is a conflict between nations, that may involve the world, the other a peace time criminality occurence, and the reason we have jails...you know those things you also dismiss. The greater common good is for the victims of crime and terrorism, not the perpetrators. So? As long as everything possible is done to save the victims and every the morally correct decision is made to that end. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ The Moral Justification for One-off Acts of Torture in Emergencies: Yet you try and deny me the right to express what I see as morally correct, by accusing me of trying to change your mind. Isn't that what you are essentially doing?