beecee

No not at all, you are actually being rather silly, in equating the number of afirmative ticks, to a forum ranking. And of course what you see no evidence of, is your problem, not mine. I will do my best. 😅 but beecee added to that but each must be responsible for what he says and the consequences. Plus of course....“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” ― Brian Cox No, actually I'm ignoring the rest of your rhetoric, and I'll dismiss all of what you have to say, as your manner and arrogance, speaks for itself. 1. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the things they read (or watch, or listen to, or taste, or whatever). They’re also entitled to express them online. 2. Sometimes those opinions will be ones you don’t like. 3. Sometimes those opinions won’t be very nice. 4. The people expressing those may be (but are not always) assholes. 5. However, if your solution to this “problem” is to vex, annoy, threaten or harrass them, you are almost certainly a bigger asshole. 6. You may also be twelve. 7. You are not responsible for anyone else’s actions or karma, but you are responsible for your own. 8. So leave them alone and go about your own life." [Bad Reviews: I Can Handle Them, and So Should You (Blog post, July 17, 2012)]” ― John Scalzi Mirror, mirror on the wall.......

As a lay person at this game, the above (1) somehow rung a bell with me...I would actually guess that if you were honest, and didn't have some barrow to push, you would realise that that the onus is on you to show any evidence confirming that any of the recognised vaccines, cause any of the conditions you have named. Or for that matter, any other conditions, for any adult age group. You got that? On the second paragraph, and as I mentioned before, it seems just like Trump the clown, you also have swallowed the grand conspiracy that we are all (for some reason) being hoodwinked? But like most conspiracy pushers, using science and logic in trying to convince those holding to such conspiracies, of their gullibility and stupidity, is a lost cause and not worth the time, nor the effort. All that will happen then, is an attack on the institution itself, as being a part of the conspiracy. They innevitably don’t trust the institutions, and therefore the ideas stemming from those institutions. It also obviously gives them a feeling of knowledge and power, in knowing what they see as the truth, and that everyone else, governments everywhere, the WHO, NASA, are all part and parcel of this conspiracy. One big sad illogical merry-go-round!

A 75-year-old man walked into a crowded waiting room and approached the desk. The Receptionist said, ‘Yes sir, what are you seeing the Doctor for today?’ ‘There’s something wrong with my dick’, he replied. The receptionist became irritated and said, ‘You shouldn’t come into a crowded waiting room and say things like that.’ ‘Why not, you asked me what was wrong and I told you,’ he said. The Receptionist replied; ‘Now you’ve caused some embarrassment in this room full of people. You should have said there is something wrong with your ear or something, and discussed the problem further with the Doctor in private.’ The man replied, ‘You shouldn’t ask people questions in a roomful of strangers if the answer could embarrass anyone. The man then decided to walk out, waited several minutes, and then re-entered. The Receptionist smiled smugly and asked, ‘Yes??’ ‘There’s something wrong with my ear,’ he stated. The Receptionist nodded approvingly and smiled, knowing he had taken her advice. ‘And what is wrong with your ear, Sir?’ ‘I can’t piss out of it,’ he replied. The waiting room erupted in laughter. Mess with seniors and you’re going to lose!

I understand after crossing swords with you in other threads, that your posts reflect sympathies and care towards the criminal, the terrorist, the pedaphiles, Hitler etc. I have also explained many times, that such a warped life philosophy is unworkable. I also understand that rarely do any of your posts answer questions directly. Still, let me ask again.....(1) In the kidnapper case, after all avenues have been exhausted, and (2) with the captured terrorist and the potential for saving thousands of lives, would you undertake what is seen normally, as morally wrong, to at least attempt to save their lives? Or would you maintain your pretentious moral high ground under all circumstances? As a result of your "maintaing of your so called values", would you face the parents of the dead child, or the relatives of the thousands that were killed by the terrorist? (not to mention of course, the condemation of society in general) The bottom line is that you as usual refuse to answer directly. ?? You mean like the real life example I gave of the low life human caught raping a little girl, and then stabbing one of her rescuers in that other thread? Ignorant of the evil of callous murder and blowing up thousands of people? Were you not earleir in this thread, waffling about the kidnappers and the terrorists scenarios being unreal? or unlkely? or words to that effect? You understand the meaning of hypocrisy? 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 standards of morality in a society. They, the pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, have set their bar of immorality.

I have never smoked, so still one up on you. I'm saying wrong turns to right, when you are morally obliged to reverse what is normally seen as morally wrong, eg, torture. If for example you failed to act and a child dies, or thousands of people are killed, society would turn against you, and you would probably turn against your self and conduct more self flagellation. It's just that seeing you in so much indecision and pain brings a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat! Like my old Rotty mate, I'm a big softy at heart.

Nice try, but no cigar. You raised the issue of people with so called different values and such...you first mentioned the jihadist with relation to the terrorist...You're the one that deliberatly took my remark out of context...now you are demanding they are off topic! 😆 So why did you take it out of context? If it was off topic, why simply didn't you just ignore it? No side stepping now!! Again, I'm saying I agree with you. I'm saying that sometimes doing what may be classed as morally wrong under normal circumstances, is desirable and morally right under other extreme circumstances. eg: If perhaps some of the terrorists in the 9/11 terrorism had of been caught before they undertook their plan. I'm saying that no matter how small the possibility of success is, that we are duty bound to try them all in those circumstances. I'm not acting as an apologist for murderers, terrorists, religious fanatics, criminals and pedaphile scum. So again, stop uneccessarily beating up on yourself!!!

Attempted shock and awe tactics! 🤣

“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” ― Brian Cox

Seems you have a left wing bee in your bonnet. Let me just say that the right to free speech in any reasonable democratic society, does not include irresponsible, untrue nonsense as statements of facts, that may or may not harm others...( eg: the moron Trump, telling people to take disinfectant or similar to kill coronavirus) not does it give any one that choses to practise your free speech, the right to vilify or marginalize other minorities of society like those of the opposite sex, gays, transgenders, different religious persuasions etc etc. If that's your view of free spech, then go shove it up your clacker. Voltaire said words to the effect , "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it" beecee adds to that, "but every individual must be responsible for the consequences of what he says"

Is your position on so much shaky ground that you chose to be obtuse about it, and take what I said out of context? It is also bordering on dishonesty. What I said was.... Then I finished it off with... I certainly do not tolerate the murdering, extremist religious fanatics, that do not give a second thought to the taking of lives willy nilly, whenever it suits their extremist religiously inspired fanatical and mentally sick minds. And which even their more reasonable countrymen detest. Is this what you deem should be tolerated Peterkin?

If there is any probability of saving the child or thousands of innocent people, after all other avenues have been exhausted, then it must be taken. Ask the thousands of people about to be blown to bits. Why don't you simply answer that question, as Peterkin at least has as follows? The thought experiments is exactly that, despite your pretentious histrionics to avoid and limit that possibility. Everyone to date has agreed that torure is wrong. As is often the case with you dimreeper, your many answers are cryptic and generally never to the point, but a general two step/waltz around those points. Let me ask you straight out. (1) If in the case of the kidnapper, being assured of his guilt, would you still refuse all aspects of obtaining information, no matter how small, that may pevent to death of a child, including the generally held immoral act of torture?...perhaps your child? (2) Would you in the case of the terrorist, continue to act morally, despite the imminent death of thousands of innocent people, and not use torture after all else has failed? Now dimreeper, I'm not going to hold you to a simple yes or no answer, but I would like an answer without any pretentious philosophical rhetoric. I'm saying I agree with you. I'm saying that sometimes doing what may be classed as morally wrong under normal circumstances, is desirable and morally right under other extreme circumstances. eg: If perhaps some of the terrorists in the 9/11 terrorism had of been caught before they undertook their plan. I'm saying that no matter how small the possibility of success is, that we are duty bound to try them all in those circumstances. Of course it matters. I'm talking about normal recognised values in any western society. I'm talking about the fact that I don't really care about what a muslim's general value is, and what value he puts on life and accepts that he has a right to that. I 'm talking about the average muslim's reasonable existance and tolerence of western values, just as per my tolerence towards their values. I'm talking about the probable threat of a terrorist/jihadist, blowing up thousands of innocent people, because he is even in the view of most muslims, nothing but a bloody religious fanatical maniac. I'm not talking about murdering extremists and religious fanatics, that use their religion as an excuse to maim. kill and control. I tolerate the average normal muslim, just as I tolerate the average normal Christian, Caluthumpian, Atheist or whatever an individual wants to label himself as.

I don't see that as a relevant analogy. We have absolutely no evidence of any unscientific, mythical, magical spaghetti monster. In fact all supernatural and paranormal claims are unscientific. Except one is acting under some unscientific concept, as supposedly laid down by his magical speghetti monster. The other is acting to prevent such nonsensical reasons for the taking of lives. And normally so would I. The point though is that in either of the thought experiments given, all other avenues have been exhausted, and failed. Why then see it as 100% imperitive that the lesser wrong in question, be tried, even if only a 1% chance of success. We have the life of a little child at stake, not to mention that of thousands of innocent vicitims. Perhaps threaten, (in the case of the terrorist) him with some action/s that may exclude him from ever meeting his god in any supposed next life.

Excuse my interruption, I'm pretty sure swansont can answer better then I, but the speed of light, "c" is constant. In simple lay person's language, light appears to slow down, but simply has longer paths to travel. With reference to "the index of refraction" is another kettle of fish. Photons are absorbed and reemmited, and that process I believe can also be understood as having longer paths to travel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation). And the index of refraction is...... "The index of refraction, n, is the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum, c, to the speed of light in a medium, c': One consequence of this difference in speed is that when light goes from one medium to another at an angle, the propagation vector in the new medium has a different angle with respect to the normal". https://spie.org/publications/fg08_p13_index_of_refraction?SSO=1#:~:text=The index of refraction%2C n,with respect to the normal. ps: I remember well another suggesting, actually demanding that Carver Mead's G4v vector gravity theory, and a so called improvement by some bloke called Svidzinsky? that also questioned along with the validity of GR, the existence of BH's despite all the discoveries by aLIGO. Any potential discovery, and/or improvement of GR will of course also need to run the gauntlet, so to speak, and not only predict and align with what GR says, but also add new observational verifications that GR does not. OK, I now hand over the operational status of this thread back to the experts.

Then you are correct, and we ageee!!!! Yes! Yes, yes!!! Yes, yes, yes!!!! Yes, yes, yes, yes!!! 😏🙄😏😑And you were going so well up to that point!!!! Everything you have acknowledged before, makes that wrong the right thing to do, and therefor right and not wrong.

I am not sure either, but my position is that in the life and death of innocent parites and situations as detailed in this thread, it still needs to be considered, once everything else has failed. I don't see that as a relevant analogy...apples and oranges. Sometimes the immoral act, fails to inhibit its useage, when the morality of the pedaphiles, terrorists, and hardened criminals, do not act according to those morals. Not sure how many more different ways I need to say that. Because you're a nice bloke, let me try again anyway...... Sometimes doing what is wrong, is preferential and desirable to doing what has been documented as morally correct.

You have answered/contradicted that in your next answer... You may see it that way, I don't, and as such see the facts that the pedaphiles, the terrrorists and hardened criminals, set those standards, which authorities, and you and me, need to morally execute...all your fabricated philosophical objections not withstanding. It is about ethics and morality, (not philosophy) and the justified ethical decision to recognise that sometimes the actions of others, see the need to reconsider the ethics and morality of a particular society, particularly when pedaphiles, terrorists, and hardened criminals have dictated that position.

No, his conclusion was spot on, and that's why I was happy with it. Are we going to go through all this again? 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 standards of morality in a society. They, the pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, have set their bar of immorality. *shrug* "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. It is about ethics and morality, and the justified ethical decision to recognise that sometimes the actions of others, see the need to reconsider the ethics and morality of a particular society, particularly when pedaphiles, terrorists, and hardened criminals have dictated that position.

I disagree, sorry about that. No, but I've gladly put a bully or two in theur place on a few occasions, bloody nose etc...Oh and at other times received them myself. I actually am reasonably convinced you are philosophically over thinking the situation. If you chose to "beat up on yourself" because you have saved a little child and/or thousands of innocent people, then I have sympathy for you. By the same token I respect that you would if the situation were to ever arise, make that morally correct decision, despite it being morally wrong in normal circumstances. I really don't need a minute. I would probably do what you would do, irrespective of your philoosphical jargon and beating up on yourself. And more importantly, the way the majority of a reasonable western society would also see it. Therein lies the crux of the matter. Yes, good movie, saw it a while back. And yes, a painful decision to be made, and thankfully I am glad I would never likely be put in such a situation. It's sad and an indictment on the human race, that sometimes such decisions do need to be made.

😅 Beat up on you!! C'mon now!!!🤣

Found this article......Is this just doomsayer nonsense? Or is Trump behind all this? What I do understand as an outsider, is that the USA's enemies must be rubbing their hands in glee, at the prospect..... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war Is the US really heading for a second civil war?With the country polarised and Republicans embracing authoritarianism, some experts fear a Northern Ireland-style insurgency but others say armed conflict remains improbable Joe Biden had spent a year in the hope that America could go back to normal. But last Thursday, the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol, the president finally recognised the full scale of the current threat to American democracy. “At this moment, we must decide,” Biden said in Statuary Hall, where rioters had swarmed a year earlier. “What kind of nation are we going to be? Are we going to be a nation that accepts political violence as a norm?” It is a question that many inside America and beyond are now asking. In a deeply divided society, where even a national tragedy such as 6 January only pushed people further apart, there is fear that that day was the just the beginning of a wave of unrest, conflict and domestic terrorism. A slew of recent opinion polls shows a significant minority of Americans at ease with the idea of violence against the government. Even talk of a second American civil war has gone from fringe fantasy to media mainstream. more at link............... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My greatest fear is that some of the nuts that also inhabit the Great Southern Land, will play copy cat as they have done before.

Yes, of course! but primarily for my own pleasure, and concern and plenty of times. As yet not to possibly save a child's life or that of thousands of other people. And I'm full of respect for you that you would likely chose that lesser wrong, and potentially save a child's life and/or that of thousands of innocent people.

Agreed, again the Anthropic Principle, makes perfect sense.

No problems. The point I make is that we have had many come to this and other science forums, with new untested, sometimes unscientific ideas, and post them in the sciences, to obtain some air of respectibility.

Not necessarily. Reasonable speculation is part and parcel of science. While quantum gravity is incomplete, the actions of virtual particles popping into and out of existence, do leave observable effects, and as such we can hypothesise quantum foam. A universe from nothing,as proposed by Lawrence Krauss, redefining the quantum foam as nothing, is far closer to our normal definition of nothing, then anything else one cares to conjur up.

If it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be here contemplating it, or anything else. Anthropic Principle. Makes sense to me. Agreed.