beecee

Define nothing? Define god?

All I am saying is that both are morally wrong and we have laws supporting that, but sometimes sadly, circumstances arise where they both may need to be considered. I hope I am never put in such a position.

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-asteroids-sample-earth-reveals-solar.html What are asteroids made of? A sample returned to Earth reveals the solar system's building blocks; Just over 12 months ago, we were sitting at Woomera, in the Australian outback, waiting for a streak of light in the sky to testify that the Hayabusa2 spacecraft had returned from its voyage to collect a little piece of a near-Earth asteroid called Ryugu. Unfortunately for us, it was cloudy in Woomera that day and we didn't see the spacecraft come in. But that was the only imperfection we saw in the return. We found and retrieved Hayabusa2, brought it back to Woomera, cleaned and examined it. The sample capsule was removed from the spacecraft. It was in good shape, it had not exceeded 60℃ on reentry, and the capsule rattled when it was turned over, suggesting we did indeed have a solid sample. Its vacuum had been maintained, allowing whatever gases had been released from the asteroid sample to be collected, and a preliminary analysis of these was carried out in Woomera. more at link.......................... the paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj8624 Pebbles and sand on asteroid (162173) Ryugu: In situ observation and particles returned to Earth Abstract: The Hayabusa2 spacecraft investigated the C-type (carbonaceous) asteroid (162173) Ryugu. The mission performed two landing operations to collect samples of surface and sub-surface material, the latter exposed by an artificial impact. We present images of the second touchdown site, finding that ejecta from the impact crater was present at the sample location. Surface pebbles at both landing sites show morphological variations ranging from rugged to smooth, similar to Ryugu’s boulders, and shapes from quasi-spherical to flattened. The samples were returned to Earth on 2020 December 6. We describe the morphology of >5 g of returned pebbles and sand. Their diverse color, shape and structure are consistent with the observed materials of Ryugu; we conclude they are a representative sample of the asteroid. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The most amazing though expected revelation imo is the following extract...... "These meteorites are unique in being made up of the same elements as the sun, and in the same proportions (besides the elements that are normally gases). We think this is because CI chondrites formed in the cloud of dust and gas that eventually collapsed to form the sun and the rest of the solar system. But unlike rocks on Earth, where 4.5 billion years of geological processing have changed the proportions of elements we see in the crust, CI chondrites are largely pristine samples of the planetary building blocks of our solar system".

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-spacex-elon-musk-1st-orbital.html SpaceX's Elon Musk: 1st orbital Starship flight maybe March: SpaceX's Elon Musk said Thursday that the first orbital flight of his towering Starship—the world's most powerful rocket ever built—could come in another month or two. While he anticipates failures, he's confident Starship will reach orbit by the end of this year. Musk provided his first major Starship update in more than two years while standing alongside the 390-foot (119-meter) rocket at SpaceX's Texas spaceport. He urged the nighttime crowd, "Let's make this real!" "This is really some wild stuff here," he said. "In fact, hard to believe it's real." NASA plans to use the fully reusable Starship to land astronauts on the moon as early as 2025. Musk, meanwhile, hopes to deploy a fleet of Starships to create a city on Mars, hauling equipment and people there. For now, the initial flights would carry Musk's internet satellites, called Starlinks, into orbit. more at link..... LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL He certainly has ambitions. I wish him all the best.

It's certainly not any "cheap shot" and I really cannot fathom how you can arrive at that conclusion. The similarity is there, and I was making that comparison. Giving the wrong-doer, the pedaphile, the terrorist, the criminal, the benefit of the morals of that society, while he/she has grossly over stepped and discarded those same morals. My priorities lie with the innocent and those that have been the victim of crime. We all have agreed if there is another way, then that course be preferred. (1)If success is achieved, none I suggest. In fact he would likely be lauded as a hero. (2) We have proceeded of course as we all know, on the condition of certainty and most likely probability. Or beyond any "reasonable doubt" Throughout this thread, there is one aspect that has me in awe. Even those that claim torture is wrong under any circumstances, are also agreeing that they may act contrary to that morality if in that position. Please explain why? You are saying that yes, sometimes, on rare occasions, we need to kill, but in no circumstances do we have the right to use whatever means necessary to extract information from a pedaphile or a terrorist, that may save a child or thousands of people. Do I have that right?

Exactly to the highlighted part. Again, I see a real resemblance between those here claiming the moral highground and claiming there is never ever any right or reason, for torture, to the same supposed moral high ground by those in the justice/punishment thread, in claiming we have no need for jails. In both cases, the sympathies and thoughts by those, seem to be with the perpetrators and criminals and terrorists that may undertake such atrocities, albeit rarely in the current debate. I fully support Amnesty International with their strict laws on torture, but I also am bloody sure, if in either of the examples given here, that any legal system would make exceptions for those that undertook torture and were successful in the situations as given here, that they would be pardoned...if it at all ever got to legal hearings. Our first chance and we will be rushing to Fiji!

If other methods work, all well and good, and I would be fully supportive. I just cannot see how anyone can rule out situations above and beyond what normality demands, no matter how unlikely. The paper you present covers the general normality. We must then beg to differ. Just a point on my politics, when I was a young bloke, I was delegate of my work place and the chief instigator of a 5 week strike for pay and conditions...this was in 1970. We achieved near all we asked for including $15 a week pay increase (big money in those days) 35 hour working week, and 4 weeks annual leave. I was in line to achieve big things with my union, (the AMWU) a left wing union, but because I didn't follow the exact policy and spoke at times against certain issues I saw as detrimental, I was quickly pidgeon holed. I prefer my politcal postion of being a fence sitter with legs hanging to the left, and absorbing the best from both sides. Don't be too concerned though, If you still make it to Australia (our international borders will be open shortly) I'l still buy you a beer.

I wish it could have continued without the name-calling, inferences etc, and I regret my part in that. Its importance is simply at least in my opinion, the way I also saw the justice/punishment thread...this is similar. I call things the way I see it, and am not immediatly concerned with whether it is left or right of the political spectrum, and that may invoke some emotionalism, and while I'm an avid lay supporter of science, I do see emotion as part and parcel of who and what we are as humans. I don't particulary care about whether you agree with my position or otherwise, more concerned with answering to the best of my capabilities those concerns you keep raising. To me anyway, you did appear to want to have an each way bet.

Totally agree it isn't very imaginitive, and is prompted by emotions, and is not science. But I fail to see how you can call it retribution. What about the stubborness of the kidnapper refusing to confess? Or the arrogance and depravity of the bomber, thumbing his nose at the authoriies trying to prevent a catastrophe? It's a moral concern for a little child, and/or thousands of innocent victims. Your other points as raised by others have also been answered. If with regards to the pedaphile, we find the child's DNA in his hair, on his clothes, in his car, or (god forbid) under his finger nails? The probabilty of his guilt is obvious at least imo. No, we can never be sure of the result of torturing the pedaphile or terrorist, and whether or not they are lying or simply throwing the authories off the track. But I'm pretty sure the little child, or the thousands of people that could be blown up, would want all possibilities examined and tried. And this is the crux of the matter. We are speaking of a situation where all other means have been tried and failed. Will torture work? I don't know, but I hope for the sake of the child and thousands of people and a devestated city that it does work. In summing, everyone agrees torture should be banned in any civilised society, pure and simple, no ifs, no buts...its the law. But as 9/11 proved, sometimes the unexpected happens, the most unlikley scenarios may develop. Its in circumstances like this, that society may need to consider other less moral means, to gain a highly moral result. I disagree. I see it simply as a choice to be made, when all other contingencies and means have been tried, to either sit back and procrastinate further, or try something that maybe wrong, but at least less wrong then the actions of the pedaphile and the terrorist. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ extract: 3. The Moral Justification for One-off Acts of Torture in Emergencies In this case study torture of the car thief can be provided with a substantial moral justification, even if it does not convince everyone. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the car thief will probably save an innocent life; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save the life; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the baby is innocent; (5) the car thief is known not to be an innocent – his action is known to have caused the threat to the baby, and he is refusing to allow the baby’s life to be saved.

Yes, that appears to be the case. As I said earlier, Although I see this more as an exersise in simply shoring up one's personal passive philosophical approach that is essentially unworkable. He has already admitted he would chose the lesser wrong, and is now simply playing with words, as per the following.....That among the "ifs" "buts" "what ifs" makes this debate laughable, as serious as it is. I'm 100% sure Peterkin, and even dimreeper, would do whatever was needed to obtain the needed result in both situations. This is just stone walling, and less then a fair dinkum or honest approach on both their parts. And of course if either case was successful, any resultant court hearings for "the lesser wrong" would be looked on with compassion and reasonability, and total public support would be behind them...particularly that of the little child and those thousands of people that survived. It's a no brainer. As I have said many times, Peterkin himself has admitted to possibly doing the lesser wrong, and in summing this debate has been a back and forth tussle between doing whatever is necessary to save a child, and in the other case thousands of innocent people, as against some pretentious moralisitc concern for the low life pedaphile and/or terrorist. My sympathies are well known and presented. In saying all that I decided anyway to google and found this...... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Torture: First published Tue Feb 7, 2006; substantive revision Fri May 5, 2017 It is divide into headings, the fourth heading being..... 4. The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture extracts from case studies...... 3.1 Case Study – The Beating In this case study torture of the car thief can be provided with a substantial moral justification, even if it does not convince everyone. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the car thief will probably save an innocent life; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save the life; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the baby is innocent; (5) the car thief is known not to be an innocent – his action is known to have caused the threat to the baby, and he is refusing to allow the baby’s life to be saved. 3.2 Case Study – The Terrorist and the Ticking Bomb In this case study there is also a substantial moral justification for torture, albeit one that many moral absolutists do not find compelling. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the terrorist will probably save thousands of innocent lives; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save those lives; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the thousands about to be murdered are innocent – the terrorist has no good, let alone decisive, justificatory moral reason for murdering them; (5) the terrorist is known to be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for planning, transporting, and arming the nuclear device and, if it explodes, he will be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for the murder of thousands. In addition to the above set of moral considerations, consider the following points. The terrorist is culpable on two counts. Firstly, the terrorist is forcing the police to choose between two evils, namely, torturing the terrorist or allowing thousands of lives to be lost. Were the terrorist to do what he ought to do, namely, disclose the location of the ticking bomb, the police could refrain from torturing him. This would be true of the terrorist, even if he were not actively participating in the bombing project. Secondly, the terrorist is in the process of completing his (jointly undertaken) action of murdering thousands of innocent people. He has already undertaken his individual actions of, say, transporting and arming the nuclear device; he has performed these individual actions (in the context of other individual actions performed by the other members of the terrorist cell) in order to realise the end (shared by the other members of the cell) of murdering thousands of Londoners. In refusing to disclose the location of the device the terrorist is preventing the police from preventing him from completing his (joint) action of murdering thousands of innocent people.[14] To this extent the terrorist is in a different situation from a bystander who happens to know where the bomb is planted but will not reveal its whereabouts, and in a different situation from someone who might have inadvertently put life at risk (Miller (2005); Hill (2007)). Some commentators on scenarios of this kind are reluctant to concede that the police are morally entitled – let alone morally obliged – to torture the offender. How do these commentators justify their position? In conclusion, the view that it is, all things considered, morally wrong to torture the terrorist in the scenario outlined faces very serious objections; and it is difficult to see how these objections can be met. It is plausible, therefore, that there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone. Finally under the 4th heading, which I most certainly am against..... 4. The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

I don't believe you. Just playing with words again...try the 100% At least I could die a happy man, knowing I had implemented every possible methodology that was available, failure or not.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa....yes I am 100% sure that the life of a child and/or thousands of people, are worth doing wrong for, or on a criminal/terrorist. Please forgive me. You think so? In reality, and in any normal westernised society, it would be the topmost desired outcome...you know, implementing every possible means of saving a child, or the lives of thousands of people, rather then considering the harm or hurt on some low life dregs of society, the pedaphile, or that of some fanatical cowardly terrorist.

Agreed. Although I see this more as an exersise in simply shoring up one's personal passive philosophical approach that is essentially unworkable. He has already admitted he would chose the lesser wrong, and is now simply playing with words, as per the following..... That among the "ifs" "buts" "what ifs" makes this debate laughable, as serious as it is. I'm 100% sure Peterkin, and even dimreeper, would do whatever was needed to obtain the needed result in both situations. This is just stone walling. Not talking past each other, more lacking the intestinal fortitude to shift from their "disgusting" hardline position. Otherwise nice post. And it would be right to chose the "wrong" that saves the little child, or those thousands of people waiting for you to conclude your pontification. You have already agreed to that. Why all this beating around the bush? Why not just come out and say that in some situations one must chose wrong to do the right thing and avoid the disgusting consequence of a dead child, or thousands blown to smithereens.

Being a humble newbie, you should have posted this in the correct section...speculation.

I was going to put this under another category, but didn't want to upset too many people...😁

Well its far better than giving up and becoming a doomsayer.

You have one up on me on that score. 😆 I love my meat!!!

Good question. All I can say, is I hope so. Otherwise we may lose one of the seven natural wonders of the world.

Yes, as long as there is good reason. In general, I havn't made up any stories, and simply focused on the two thought experiments. In fact I have given quite a few real life examples of crimes and criminals I am familiar with, and their victims...check out the justice/punsihment thread. And I certanly hope I am never in any similar situation, because I do know what I would do to (1) protect any child, and (2) thousands of innocent people. Not me at this time. The world is what it is, and while I am mortified at some of the injustices around, I still have faith in humanity in general, and am doing my little bit in helping, including reducing my carbon footprint where ever practical.

Perhaps then you need to get rid of the criminal element in that/those areas, to reduce and/or eliminate those mistakes....you know, focus on the real problem, instead of the flagging support for your life philosophy. That would be excellent. Bring the gun laws up to an acceptable level instead of clinging to the old west and Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid etc. *shrug* Sure I do. All possible information sources available. And B/W sometimes are all that matters, despite your reluctance to accept that. Far, far far worse, and immoral then not utilising that last resort and killing thousands, perhaps millions of people, and of course the probable death of a little child. No, not at all, I'm not sure if even torture would work in these cases...but I do know you would do it, as you have already hinted at.😉 and because I basicaly think you are otherwise a nice bloke, not withstanding your crazy unworkable life philosophy.😁

I wish you would stop making so much sense!

I get the impresion that you seem to think we are all, (those that accept the official narrative) being hoodwinked by a grand conspiracy. Why would they do that? Do you also believe in other conspiracies?

While significant damage has already been done, it as been found that injecting vinegar into the COTS will kill them. It is though time consuming as each COTS is injected individually with this vinegar mixture by trained divers, to avoid harming the surrounding system. https://www.barrierreef.org/the-reef/threats/Crown-of-thorns starfish#:~:text=Crown-of-thorns starfish control,t harm the surrounding ecosystem.

Yes it is as far as I know. Will do some checking in the meantime. Seems I maybe wrong......................... https://phys.org/news/2019-02-dreadful-discovery-crown-of-thorns-starfish-silver.html extract: "The crown-of-thorns is an infamous pest, responsible for the loss of immense stretches of coral throughout the Indo-Pacific region, especially on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. It's been the object of concern and media exposure for a couple of decades. Many people assume that because it does so much harm, the crown-of-thorns must be an invasive species, but it's not. "It's native to the Pacific," Allen said. "They're widespread and we now know that there are four species."

Undeniably along with coral bleaching, the greatest danger to Australia's Great Barrier Reef, is the "crown of thorn starfish" https://www.barrierreef.org/the-reef/threats/Crown-of-thorns starfish