beecee

The same boy you would consider torturing to save many lives. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few...or the one: Spock. You should take heed of it then...Again... Everyone has recognised the possibility of failure, the morals still remain though as always, .... there is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with. But hey again, you need to help me some....Is it your position that you would do it to save those lives, but then forever beat yourself around the brow for considering to harm such despots that I have mentioned many times...35 at least. Actually the opposite. The child, the thousands about to be blown up, the authorities, and society in general, would expect you to do what is morally right. *clue* Check out what Mr Spoack said again. In fact as I already told you, (or was it dimmy) you would probably get a medal. If I failed, then that's bad, and that consequence and responsibility rests with those kidnappers, terrorits and criminals. Jail time would be too good for them. Your decisions are your own, and they appear to be having a 20cents each way bet. One minute you would do it, the you merclessly beat yourself for doing it. But I did try and comfort you on that score previously. You should not take a morally correct and supported decision so hard, simply because it some how violates your life philosophy. You could take up residence with dimmy and comfort each other. If I failed I would be mortified for the innocent victims, and would hope that those that caused it...you know those I have mentioned 35 times, the kidnappers, the terroists, the criminals, would suffer long and hard for their morally and totally corrupt decision in letting them die. Oh, and you again failed to answer the following...remember it was you who decided to shore up your questionable philosophy, by comparing war to peace time incidents, and to then tried to paint muslims as sole victims,....... I replied................ "Numbers don't concern me. What concerns me is innocent people being used as pawns by kidnappers, terrorists and criminals. War is evil but we are not debating the evils of war, all of us accept that fact. 9/11 was the start of that war. Intrusions into muslim countries I'm not that well up on, as you seem to be, but havn't muslims also intruded/invaded other lands of the years? The average muslim is as peace loving as I am. We have quite a few muslim places of worship in Sydney, and some are even in council, state and federal governments. Sadly though, extremism exists with a few, just as it does with some European Aussies. Thankfully our intelligence has uncovered the identity of these potential terrorists, and they are under a permanent watch program in case of any plans for any terrorist act".

Our rain water is collected via a water tank, used for all the gardens, and outside washing and cleaning.

I didn't call you a terrorist/patriot, even though you agreed you would undertake torture, sir. We are emotional beings, you and dimmy must accept that, no matter how hard you try to be purely rational Dr Spock. While rationality certainly applies to science, it does not necessarily apply to emotional circumstances under discussion, sir. Don't be so obtuse. Everyone has recognised the possibility of failure, the morals still remain though as always, .... there is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with. I find a child's life and thousands of innocents, far more concerning than to answer with a simple So? reply, sir. Oh, and you failed to answer or acknowledge this......

Sadly sometimes violence is necessary. And you have yourself agreed you would use it. Still, as always there is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with. Wrong. It's more like saying that while any chance exists in saving innocent lives from kidnappers, terrorists, and criminals, then we are morally obliged to use them. Not my problem that you can't see the differences between war and what we are discussing. 9/11 by the way, was an isolated act of terrorism, that gave rise to the American/Western world war on terrorism. Like I said, stop being obtuse....or ignorant. I would be more concerned with your own imaginations and dreams, and philosophical claptrap, rather then a couple of well thought out experiments where the use of torture maybe morally acceptable, rather then risking the lives of a little child and thousands of other innocents. Rubbish, as already explained. You repeating that nonsense, does not make it any more factual. ?? Are you even in the right thread? Quite admirable, but when the life of a child or thousands of other innocents are at stake, and all rational means to obtain the necessary info has failed, then I fail to see how anyone would not become desperate and/or emotional. And then the cool, calm heads, doing the interrogation think of other means...like torture, to achive the greater good. We are afterall human beings, and while certainly rationality must and is applied with science, these scenarios are not science, and are by their nature, emotional situations. Tell me, what should have been the reaction after the 9/11 attack? The war on terrorism that followed was a direct result of that. Numbers don't concern me. What concerns me is innocent people being used as pawns by kidnappers, terrorists and criminals. War is evil but we are not debating the evils of war, all of us accept that fact. 9/11 was the start of that war. Intrusions into muslim countries I'm not that well up on, as you seem to be, but havn't muslims also intruded/invaded other lands of the years? The average muslim is as peace loving as I am. We have quite a few muslim places of worship in Sydney, and some are even in council, state and federal governments. Sadly though, extremism exists with a few, just as it does with some European Aussies. Thankfully our intelligence has uncovered the identity of these potential terrorists, and they are under a permanent watch program in case of any plans for any terrorist act.

You are being deliberately obtuse again. We are not debating the evils of war, all of us accept that fact. And just as stupid an argument coming from you. We know the guilt of the kidnapper...we know the guilt of the terrorist bomber. We know that the life of an innocent child is at stake, and the lives of thousands of other innocents if the bomb is detonated. You are delving into fairy stories now, just to bolster your unworkable passive, life philosophy. As I told you in the justice/punishment thread, we will always need jails. Nothing as you have been told many times. It is wrong, but sometimes we need to chose a lesser wrong to overcome a bigger wrong, which makes the lesser wrong the right thing to do and morally correct, despite your pretentious consternations. What most people would regret I suggest, is if everything did fail, including torture, and a small child died and thousands of innocents were blown away. In no way in hell would I regret torturing the kidnapper, terrorist or criminal. There is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with. Glad someone else has picked up on that fact with near all posts from dimreeper. In my opinion, it's simply to shore up the irresponsible nature of his life philosophy in any which way he can. A philosophy which has its priorities totally arse up, imo, and one which is totally unworkable. I would also add that if he was faced with a similar situation himself, and say with a close family member's life at stake, he would be whistling a different tune. I'm waiting for you to get it. tell that to the 3000 vicitms of 9/11. If there was "absolute" reason, if there was "near certain" reason, if there was "beyond reasonable doubt"reason, my answer is Yes. My sympathies and priorities lay with the innocent/victms of kidnappers, terrorists, and criminals. I mentioned it earlier, in Australia anyway, we have "victim impact statements" made by the victims of crime, and it in many cases adds to the severity and lengths of punishment and jail time the criminals face.

Sorry to keep picking on you dimmy, but if we take ourselves back to around the year of our Lord, 2000, how many would have imagined that 12 months later, four airlines would be hi-jacked, the two towers of the World Trade Centre brought down after two of those planes were crashed into them, and the Pentagon itself, also feeling the impact of another of the planes. Who would have thunk it!!! Now let's imagine that one of those 19 potential hi-jackers was caught with documents that presented roughly a terrorist attack on or about that date. In essence, the only unrealistic aspect, is the pretentious waffling on about the immoral aspects of torture, on any occasion, when all other methods have been exhausted, and . I repeat...... ..https://www.britannica.com/topic/right-and-wrong right and wrong ethics: "that holds that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action should be ascertained in terms of the action’s consequences. According to one common formulation, an action is right if it would promote a greater amount of happiness for a greater number of people than would any other action performable"… https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml Consequentialism: "Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act, and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act". Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Consequentialism

🤢😵 Holy shit! Thanks for that. My favourite left overs coincidently are chinese food left overs!!!!! They are immediatley refridgerated though.

The other probable reasons are that natural currents may have shifted ocean temperatures the water temperatures this year is 26 degrees C, along with our increased rainfall due to ElNino. https://www.sharknewz.com/shark-attacks-australia-due-to-change-in-water-temperatures/ Still us Aussies being a water loving lot, and having many miles of surfing beaches to practise at, shark attacks will always be on the cards, albeit rarely.

It's a chance and we are morally obliged to try it. The person is not potentially innocent. The person is guilty, and I am appalled that you would rather let a child die or thousands of other innocents be blown, rather then cross your rather obnoxious passive philosophical line with regards to torture, on low life like the pedaphile, terrorist or criminal. But then again, you'ré the same person that pushes for the elimination of jails for convicted criminals because you believe they may have had it hard at some time or other in their lives. Thankfully, in a real society, the priority will always be for the victims. You cannot say it has never happened and I'm pretty sure if you had any evidence of that it or similar that it has never happened, you would be plastering it all over the forum....but even if true, we can be thankful for that, and the fact that we have jails and punishments to deter such criminals. Would you still stand by your pretentious high ground on torture, if it was your child that was kidnapped, or your whole family in the area of the bomb detonation? We are not talking about science. We are debating a scenario where 100% certainty is guaranteed, by the evidence.eg: DNA found under the kidnapper's finger nails, in his hair, in his car, an admission of guilt of the kidnapping in a mocking fashion and daring the authorities to find the child and their other kidnapper....the same admission by the bomber in the same mocking I dare you to find it fashion. Or as in the real life case I gave in the justice/punishment thread, a low life caught raping a little girl and stabbing one of her rescuers. Yes it is stupid and the analogy poor and non existant. Great!!try all the techniques you can think of, even torture as the final effort in obtaining the information. Perhaps mental torture for the jihadist bomber in doing something that will prevent him linking up with his 42 virgins in the next life, I don't really care that much. My general stance with regards to the repugnancy of torture, is over-ridden by my sympathy and care towards saving the vicitms. Of course I would do it, or any other methodology anyone can dream up to facilitate the saving of the little child or the thousands of other innocents. Whatever it takes to rescue the child or save countless other innocents. The criminal, kidnapper, terrorist, will in the end, still be rightly punished for his crimes. If giving the scum and low life some extreme pleasurable moments can bring about a successful outcome, great!!! Like I said, he or she will still be jailed and punished later on, as he or she should be. All avenues tried people!!! That's all I have been saying all along with other robust thinkers!! 😉 Thanks joigus for that wonderful Einstein like thought experiment!! 😉

And we have no evidence whatsoever for any diety, soul, life after death, or anything paranormal and/or supernatural. we do though have evidence that life as we know it, is a result of evolution, just as we have evidence that our universe/space/time evolved 13.83 billion years ago.

Here, hear! Just to add, this is in the "ethics" section, and yet all I'm seeing from some, is for the abandoning of ethics, and morality in favour of some pretentious philosophical, absolute, immovable high ground. I see it as morally contemptable to not try any and every means possible to save the innocent child and the other thousands of innocents. In saying all that, and again to show how philosophical standings, can vary depending on the philosopher, here are some doozies. I also found this.....https://www.britannica.com/topic/right-and-wrong right and wrong ethics: "that holds that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action should be ascertained in terms of the action’s consequences. According to one common formulation, an action is right if it would promote a greater amount of happiness for a greater number of people than would any other action performable"… https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml Consequentialism: "Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act, and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act". Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Consequentialism :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Despite the above, I don't need to depend on philosophical jargon or thoughts of what is right or what is wrong, or what is moral and what is immoral. I simply stand by my own morals and that of the care, sympathy, and priorities to the vicitms of crime in any and all circumstances, and see the pedaphile, terrorist, and criminals, as having set their own bar of morality pretty low to non existent. Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act, and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act.

In the event of any shark sighting or attack, beaches are automatically closed. The shark if simply a sighting, is chased out to sea. If it is after an attack or mauling, drum lines are set and a more intensifying search takes place. When caught, it is removed from the area and again, taken out to sea. In this incident, all beaches were closed along the south coast for 24 hrs, and no more sighting of the shark was ever seen. The only thing so far recovered are human remains and half a wet suit. True, we all know the risk, which is pretty small, when compared to the 100,000 or more Sydney siders that go to our many beaches every weekend, and the number of attacks that occur. As said, it will be removed from the area. This bloke had on a black wet suit and was more then likley taken for a seal. The big problem with this case, is that no more sighting of the shark has been seen. Which probably means it has swam out to sea, and didn't particularly like his new food source.

Of course you do! How can you say that? The recovery of the kidnapped child, or the saving of thousands of lives. Again, you seem to be making presumptions. Who said it has never worked? What is the moral failure you speak of? The non existent moral fibre of the pedaphile, terrorist or criminal? In the current pertaining conditions, my morals lie with saving and/or protecting the innocents, in every way possible. He also knows he may need to suffer more if he does. That's a pretty flimsy excuse actually. 😅😄 "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it". Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

That is a nonsense claim and conclusion. (1) In reality we do not know whether torture will work or not, but in the circumstances provided, it would be morally incorrect and wrong not to try it after all else has failed. (2) Guilt can be logically concluded in other ways, in the situations already described in this thread, if you care to look. (3) Ignoring points 1 and 2 is nothing more than a cop out. While there is a time limit, it could also be minutes hours, or days. We are morally bound to do the best we can in any given situation. (4) If we run out of time, and the child dies or thousands of innocents are killed, then the pedaphile, terrorist, criminal, will and should face the harshest possible punishments according to the law. And personally, I don't really give a flying f^%$ whether that includes what you passively label as revenge. I would guess though, that if it was your own wife, child, brother, sister, mother, father, you maybe whistling a different tune. Yes, you need to keep that in mind, (being human that is) ..we are all human along with our emotions when applied to situations in this thread. Trying to hide that, or somehow eliminating that in situations being discussed is impossible, and is pretentious nonsense. We in Australia have impact statements from victims of crime, that rightly have a bearing on the punishment metered out to the wrong doer. Your first statement is absolutely wrong. Children of course are innocent, as are many adults in certain situations. Now I understand how you maybe able to philsophically twist and turn that claim, but you also know what I think of philosophy over reality. While no human is an angel, in certain situations they are innocent. In essence though, that whole statement, ( None of us are innocent, we're all guilty of being humans) is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and simply put in to shore up your flagging philosophical stance.

I'm not really interested in religion of any sort, and the exact nature of any of the myths you descibe, I'll leave that to those that live there lives hoping to achieve all that peace, love and/or whatever in the next life, as mythical as that next life is.

We can never be sure it won't work the way we want it to, and while there is a chance, we are morally obliged to try it, after all else has failed. This and your other wild claims, reminds me of the three wise monkeys. Yes I have, many times. Funny though, that it wasn't so long ago that I could, and still do accuse you of the same avoidance...that is refusal to answer questions. You know what hypocrisiy means? It seems to me all you want is for others to fold up and go meekly away, in front of your philosophical onslaught. 🤮If you don't like your posts being seen as obtuse, then answer questions directly. If you don't like others accusing you of erecting strawmen, don't erect them. Yes, people lie, I have never denied that, nor have I ever denied that torture sometimes will not work. Curious though, how can you claim that you will not get the desired outcome? More importantly, perhaps you need to explain how and why the situations described are impossible. That is what you are saying, correct? The only unreal aspect of this debate is the opinion you are pushing, that we let a child and thousands of other innocents die, before trying all avenues for a possible successful outcome. And while you are at it, please explain hypocrisy to me. And all avenues in the situations being discussed, must be tried, and as you have agreed to.

Bingo! The finality of death scares many people, and they need some magical spaghetti monster to look after things once death occurs, despite there being no evidence for it/them. The other point is that before science evolved, the ancients needed something to explain the wonders of the universe around them. Reincarnation is simply another form of that more cozy, attractive reality.

Why do you chose to keep being so obtuse? I was simply explaining after your imagined the unreal situation as follows.... Just to be quite clear again, My sympathies lie with the innocent vicitms, be that one child or thousands, It was an example, expressing irrespective of age. I'll ignore your second childish like irresponsible strawman nonsense.

Did you read what I said? So what??? If it was a 7 year old with a bomb vest, about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and was in the sites of a marksman? Ignoring your usual obtuseness, I'll again answer that question anyway. If in the situations given in the original thought experiments, I would not be torturing at all. I, as per the example I gave you a few days ago, do not like the sight of blood. But hey, with thousands of lives at stake, such repugnance would be morally correct and as long as the morally correct outcome was achieved(the saving of thousands from the bomb) then the methodology would be secondary. No, it's a philosophical stance. My sympathies, and priorities lie with the victims. I reject the bleeding heart pretense, for the pedaphiles, terrorists and criminals. It certainly was me that put all examples of innocent vicitms and the one innocent child victim, in the same sentence, just as I put the pedaphiles, terrorists and violent criminals in the same sentence. So what??? If it was a 7 year old with a bomb vest, about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and was in the sites of a marksman? There were probably many times when doctors and such could have ended Hitler's life as a child, but again realistically speaking, (you know, instead of philsophical stone walling) time travel is as yet unknown. And I answered. My sympathies lie with the innocent vicitms, be that one child or thousands, that may even include all your own remaining family. But hey! you have said you would consider doing it!! And still those 6 million Jews would still differ from your directed sympathies and philosophy. Well, yes, in the two cases in question, with near positive guilt, of the kidnapper/pedaphile and the terrorist, those actions are evil. Are you questioning that? Distinguish between the only viable actions left to get the required info that may save a child or thousands of other innocents, or upholding the principle of the general repugnant nature of torture?? My sympathies/priorities lie with the victims, not the perpetrators of these deeds, that have no moral code what so ever. No, I or the authorities can never be sure of that, but I'm sure the intended victims, would want all avenues tried. But there is always a chance. Perhaps in the case of a jihadist terrorist, forcing something on him, that will prevent him getting to paradise and joining with his 42 virgins (or whatver their nonsensical belief is) Couldn't be sure of that either, but again, so what? As long as there is a chance to save the child or the thousands of potential vicitms about to be blown up. Society in any westernised democratic nation would demand that all avenues be tried. We are talking about specific situations, and let me say to you, as a late comer to this ssometimes rather "round the merry-go-round" debate, that I fully support the united Nations charter on the banning of torture, as well as in the laws of my own country, but I also recognise that thankfully rarely, sometimes situations may demand a departure from such edicts. I have also given a link on all the situations regarding any possible justification for torture. Quite a comprehensive article on the pros and cons. They are not absolutes, and far from being removed from the real world. Torture is banned in most democratic societies. But sometimes, thankfully rarely, "complex situations" can exist. Sometimes guilt of a particular person is as near certain as is practicle to achieve. If for instance, the DNA of the little child was found under the finger nails, and in the hair, and the car of the kidnapper. Or a real life exapmle I gave in the justice/rehabilitation thread, where this low life was caught raping a little girl in a toilet block, and on being caught, stabbed one of the valiant rescuers. My only absolute is caring and having sympathy for the victims of crime. The pedaphiles, terrorists and criminals are of secondary concern.

In essence my stand again (for you and dimreeper) is that I see any action that can prevent a worse action, is OK and justifiably morally correct.The saving of innocent people outweighs ten fold, any action that maybe seen as primarily wrong, including that of torture. If there is any chance of saving those innocents in question, that alone is the moral aspect that should be considered. You may not like that, yet you admit you would do it. There are around 6 million Jews who would vehementally oppose that. And of course if all other outcomes have been attempted, is what this is all about. Obtuseness much? 🤭 This philosophy pushed by you and dimpreeper appears full of holes! ??? I find your stance and philosophy as simply stone walling, and strawmen building by the score.. So what??? If it was a 7 year old with a bomb vest, about to walk into a crowded shopping centre and was in the sites of a marksman? More scraping the bottom of the barrel attempts at philosophical notoriety. There were probably many times when doctors and such could have ended Hitler's life as a child, but again realistically speaking, (you know, instead of philsophical stone walling) time travel is as yet unknown. You must know, that there is evil in everywhere we chose to look, from a church to sitting governments. We do not, nor probably ever will, live in some imagined sanitised fairy tale society, as sad as that maybe.

They are all innocents, and have the right to be considered over and above the pedaphiles, terrorists and criminals whose moral standards are non existent. Should someone have put a bullet to the head of Hitler when he was a baby? Or that other nutbag Idi Amin? Not sure where you dragged the seventeen years from, but again, the federal agent would be acting with approval of his department, and more importantly, of society itself.

That's great, if valid. When you don't get the outcome that is necessary to save the little child, or the thousands of other innocents. All avenues need to be exhausted to gain the morally correct outcome, that is, the saving or release of the victim/s. ?? Not sure if I'm following you properly. Torture of course should be legislated against. But sometimes, in thankfully rare circumstances, in a democratic westernised society, even torture may need to be considered when all other means have been tried. The object of course is not what I want to hear, it's simply the truth and revelation of where the child and/or bomb is, in the current situations. And no, success is not always achieved, but I'm pretty sure the intended victims would like all avenues to be tried.

Last Wednesday a professional diver was attacked and killed by an estimated 4mtr Great White Shark. This is the first death from shark attack in near 60 years on Sydney's many beaches, but what makes this attack out of the ordinary, is that it wasn't just a nudge or bite and then swimming away, this poor swimmer was attacked from below, launched into the air, and (as described by onlookers) landed again with a thud. The attack then continued, and sadly not much of the vicitm has been found so far. According to witnesses, he was attacked from below, launched into the air, and landed like a car back into the water. The attack then continued and the victim was dragged further away from the shore line. Here is the account of that horrific attack..... https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/human-remains-found-following-sydney-shark-attack/news-story/cc4ad25e52c5eecaf8fe5f8c235bd596 A number of popular beaches across Sydney will be closed on Thursday after a swimmer died from “catastrophic injuries” in a horror shark attack at a popular beach. Dozens of swimmers and fishermen witnessed horrifying scenes as the swimmer spent his final moments screaming for help and trying to fight off the monster great white shark. The man was swimming off Buchan Point near Little Bay Beach about 4.30pm Wednesday when he was killed in the city’s first fatal shark attack in almost 60 years. Remains of the swimmer were later found, including half a wetsuit, with onlookers watching in horror. Shane Daw of Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter said no shark had been spotted yet. Police and emergency crews have continued to search for the shark overnight, closing beaches from Coogee all the way down the coast to Cronulla in Sydney’s south. Surf Life Saving’s George Shales said beaches are expected to be closed for at least 24 hours. Emergency services rushed to the scene after onlookers reported the terrifying attack. Shocking footage shows the moment the shark latched onto the man’s body and dragged him underwater. The predator can be seen thrashing his body around. “Someone just got eaten by a shark,” the man recording the video could be heard yelling, adding it was a “big great white”. A fisherman can be heard yelling in footage: “Someone just got eaten by a shark. Oh man! Oh no! That’s insane. That’s a great white shark.” “The person’s still there, I just saw a four to five metre great white explode on the surface just here on a swimmer and it was like a car landing in the water,” the man said. “F*** man, I heard a scream and the shark was just chomping on his body and the body was in half just off the rocks here. “It came back and swallowed parts of his body and that was it. It disappeared.” Huge splashes could be seen with the water in the area turning red and birds circling above. Another woman yelled “oh my god … what the f***?” in disbelief. Emergency services were quickly called to the scene where they found half a wetsuit. “Footage clearly shows a body, half a body being taken by a shark,” a police officer told colleagues over a scanner. “They have found some remains.” Dozens of people were swimming and paddle boarding at the beach at the time of the attack. Witnesses said they heard the swimmer yelling at the time of the attack. “Some guy was swimming and a shark came and attacked him vertically,” Kris Linto, a witness, told 9 News. “We heard a yell and turned around it looked like a car had landed in the water, a big splash then the shark was chomping at the body and there was blood everywhere. “It was really bad.” Mr Linto claimed he saw a 4.5-metre great white shark attack the swimmer. more at link.......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The spot where this happened is near the headlands of the entrance to Botany Bay, and a spot where I have swum and surfed many times. There is also reportedly some gruesome video of the complete attack, which I have not watched nor have searched for. The vicitm was a British ex-pat who loved Australia and the waters surrounding Sydney and was a month from getting married after a covid19 12 month delay.

Yes I can, and yes I have. Of course I understand, and have in the past, even pulled up the definition for you, in another of your past obtuse moments. You see your problem is trying to play your one-upmanship games, with as others have agreed, in obscure, cryptic, sometimes weird throw away lines that mean nothing in context of the argument at hand. In other words, try answering questions honestly, without dancing around them. eg: I have answered the first two of your claims in this post, exactly as you have answered in the past...you know, giving you back some of your own. 😉 Wrong again....the statement stands. Oh, and please point me to where you have in any way agreed that "It's not, as I explained 'in that other thread' "If you catch the fecker in the act, feel free to kill in order to stop the fecker" And while you are at it, please show me anywhere where I have condoned torture, after the vicitm/s are safe. Another not so hidden dimreeper strawman? ☺️ And like I said, "I am readily influenced by realistic and morally correct ideas and scenarios, not by your pretentious, unworkable philosophical, new age nonsense, that may give you your nice warm inner glow of contentment" I'll reiterate strongly, my first thoughts in any of the current situations, are for the victim/s. Any feelings I have for any pedaphile, terrorist, or violent criminal, are non existent, at least until a just outcome is achieved.

I already have. My sympathies as you well know lay with the vicitms of crime and such, not with your unworkable softly, softly approach to criminals. If I or others can save a child or thousands of other innocents, then I certainly believe it is worth a try. As usual, and really now not surprising, you are simply being obtuse. Let me help you anyway. Laws are made, as per the prohibition of torture, but sometimes, as per the examples given, it is morally correct to step outside those laws. That just as obviously would be supported, or considered by the law and more importantly society in general. Again, it is also something despite your philosophical nonsense and bluff and bluster, you yourself would undertake. No never ever implied it, in fact if you chose to be honest, the exact opposite. This is just more defensive bluff and bluster from you. I certainly do agree that your own life philoophy is silly, unworkable, and dangerous, in current westernised societies. Of that I am quite positive and clear. What I said of course in full context was...... Common sense? why do you use the "pray" emoji? Who are you praying to? 🤪In the circumstances we are talking about, ( some of us honestly) the guilt is beyond doubt and certain. While such scenarios maybe rare, they are also quite possible. And of course while "common sense" is certainly not 100% reliable, it also is reliable in other situations, such as the validity of lambasting your own unworkable softly softly approach towards pedaphiles, terrorists and criminals. I am readily influenced by realistic and morally correct ideas and scenarios, not by your pretentious, unworkable philosophical nonsense, that may give you your nice warm inner glow of contentment. 😂 Revenge?? Scraping the bottom of that "öbtuseness" barrel again? Please explain to me why any attempt to save the life of a little child, or that of thousands of other people is revenge?