I can't fathom it would be for anybody else. — ssu

Maybe I asked the wrong question.
If all of the dogs are fed, is there anything left over? Until it is time to feed them again at least. Or does the food continue to be 100% even if some of it is removed?

And what is "all the food" for the dogs since the food can be compared among the dogs?

1. There's enough of food, the goddesses made sure about that. — ssu

Let me ask you a question. Is the 100% of the food is for 100% of the dogs. It makes no difference the actual quantity of the food, only the correspondence of food to dogs.

2. If there was a quantity that could be defined to be different from all other quantities, then there is a dog that would eat this quantity. There are no limitations on the quantities (physical or other), and hence on the dogs. — ssu

Plato is right. By definition #2, there are no physical limitations. A dog that eats the most, and a dog that eats the least implies two physical limits, which violates #2 — Metaphysician Undercover

While it is stated that there are no limits, that does not mean that there is no dog that eats the most or the least.
It is doubtful that the food could be broken down to anything less that a molecule and still be counted as food even though the food is dividable. That would be the food for the dog that ate the least.
And because the food is dividable to share amongst the little beasts, that would limit the amount that could be eaten by the one that ate the most. No dog could eat all of the food as there would be none for the rest of them.

I found the other one I was looking for.

That reminded me of the joke about the guy that committed murder and went on the run. As he guessed that one day he would be caught and sentenced to death he decide to accustom his body to high voltage electricity. Every day he connected himself to a higher voltage until he managed to withstand over a 100,000 volts.
When he was caught and tried he was all smiles knowing that if the death penalty failed he would have to be set free.
The judge sentenced him to death, but the law had changed and now they used a lethal injection. :worry:

A similar phenomenon has been taking place around cities like Nairobi, Kenya. — BC

Yep, there are lots of places around the world that this has happened in. It is like a replay of the early industrial revolution in Europe, except that here they are not even modernizing the farms to produce more food.

I lived in a house with a kitchen sink and an outhouse with cold water only, but the rent was cheap. You got by or you got ahead and moved up to something better.
Individuals have that opportunity, towns, cities and countries don't really.

Do you know the reasons why politicians don’t even bring it up as a goal, even if it’s not 100% possible to provide clean water in all of Mexico? — schopenhauer1

Not exactly sure whether they do or not bring it up in Mexico, I live further south, but here it is now usually local authorities that are responsible for water and sewage. There used to be a national water service but it became unmanageable as so many towns and cities grow. So it is not really a national political issue any more except for rivers and reservoirs.

Why wouldn’t it be like something akin to a space race or something with lofty goals that maybe would take many years? — schopenhauer1

Politicians come and go every 5 years in Mexico, and spend most of their time trying to get through today to worry too much about tomorrow.
Yes they pass laws to try and control abuse of the land, forests and water, yes they have sanitation laws, and yes they all sorts of wonderful ideas about how things could be made better.
But what they don't have are the means and methods to enforce the laws. I don't have any figures for Mexico, but here there are about 250 police officers for every 100,000 people. As you can guess there is not a lot that they can do.

It would also create jobs, I would imagine. Why would clean water not be a part of any comprehensive national infrastructure plan? — schopenhauer1

Jobs like that cost money that is not available to the authorities whether local or national. People would have to pay more taxes to make the money available. Apart from there being a lot of informal labor that do not pay taxes, corruption also means that those that do, business and industries, find ways to pay less by arguing that the informal commercial section is taking away their business and profits.

And if you go into the rural areas then there is very little that can be done because there is little money available.

Mexico will clean up their water as soon as they solve the cartel problem. — BC

Not to be pessimistic, but I really doubt that.

Just like a lot of large cities here in Latin America, Mexico cities has grown without a lot of planning happening. Whole areas have been taken over by people moving in from the country to the cities, these areas are nearly always without permissions or environmental studies. Many of them are set up along river banks and most of them do not have running water, electricity nor sewage systems. They also tend to go up the sides of hills that have no other use
Many of the cities do not have anything more than the old sewage system from when it was a town, and there are lots that do not have even that but depend on septic tanks for each house.
Because of the rapid expansion of a lot of the cities over the past 50 or so years, many of the newer areas do not have even basic storm drain and those that do are usually just an open ditch alongside the road.

The cost of implementation of water, sewage and drainage systems for these cities would astronomical and far beyond the capability of many of the local authorities even with the support of central governments.

First choice:
Spam, sausage, Spam, Spam, Spam, bacon, Spam, tomato, and Spam. With toast and a pint of Tetleys best bitter

Second choice:
Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.

Images like this, with a human like robot doing something as if it is a human. You see images of them sitting in front of a bank of monitors and flying planes.

The funny thing is that it is never going to happen because it will always be cheaper to incorporate the AI into the system instead of building a separate entity. Why would a robot sit and look at monitors when all of the information could be processed inside a small box? A robot pilot would still have the problem of time lapse because of observation/movement delay, whereas the incorporated AI would not have anywhere near as much.

Is it just because the want people to accept the fact that there might be robots around soon or is it just that they think people are stupid?

I mean that the TV viewers started to compare themselves with rich TV heroes and feel envy to them. — Linkey

Still works the same, only now there are the kartrashians instead of mobsters. Same thing I suppose though.

As a result, we have the feeling of envy. When we see that other people live better then we, the fact of their comfort makes us unhappy. — Linkey

Some many of those popular people live much better than me, I don't envy them at all. In fact I feel sorry for them having to work so hard to be popular.

Thank you.

That makes me think of a common thought exercise used in many college classes. There are 6 people on a life raft with enough provisions for 5. What do you do? — Athena

Nothing, I am not there.
BUT, they would only have to redistribute the provisions for six and would probably have to prepare to die a day earlier if not rescued.

I just looked up how long wheat can be stored and that is 8 to 10 years. I am not opposed to storing food. — Athena

Did you checkout how much certain countries actually hold in reserve? And most grains can last decades in the correct conditions.

And this is why my former English teacher was right again in his philosophy of "never discussing religion or politics with anyone" no matter how hard I pressed him on the two — Outlander

I was an English teacher for many years. I used to avoid any discussion about religion, Being the only atheist in a roman catholic school sorts of puts you off things like that.

The asshole being the deceased? — AmadeusD

Ummm. Maybe that word is to nice for him, after all assholes are useful thing. But anyway I would love to been able to see him shitting himself while the helicopter crashed.

Actually the Barber of Seville is an orthodox Jew and just trims his own beard.

But I think that the best answer will be that the Barber of Seville is female.

Now I am going to look at the answer

He shaves himself while looking in the mirror. :cool:

On a computer screen the format is ok, I never use the mobile for viewing anything unless it is an emergency.

But I do think he has it about right. I cannot imagine anyone asking for a moments silence for a mass murderer never mind an asshole like that guy.

Are you saying that a woman who has a child can't also have one or more jobs? (Many single and married mothers, in fact, do.) And she's not allowed to sell her lawn mower? — Vera Mont

What the hell are you talking about? where is anything like that mentioned? How is that even part of the discussion?

(Who said anything about its quality?) — Vera Mont

You did, or do you not remember what you write!

It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of alawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price? — Vera Mont

That doesn't become an ethical consideration, nor yet a change to some different set of ethics, as long as the parking space she's grabbing isn't the handicapped one, and changing checkout lanes doesn't involve shoving in ahead of a doddery senior. — Vera Mont

All I can say now is that you are not even trying to understand, The women's behavior changes depending on the role she is playing. While her morale compass would not let her put anyone in danger, she would not hesitate to grab a spot by going a different route to the rest of the queue.

They're as available on line to you as they are to me. — Vera Mont

You are the one making broad claims about the laws, it is you that is supposed to show proof of your claims. I have made no claims so I do not have to do anything. So I just just ignore the comment.

I will no continue to answer your comments, good bye.

I never once initiated a discussion regarding events or persons involved in that conflict. — Vera Mont

Yes, good bye.

This could be true in Canada but I know it's not the case in the US. — Benkei

So maybe Vera can give us a link to the laws.

An interesting article.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28054493/douglas-murray-iran-president-ebrahim-raisi/

:rofl:

Continued harping on WWII, as if had been the only notable event in human history. — Vera Mont

From someone that has done more of that than anyone else on the thread about WW2. :rofl:

In your example, if someone else had been convicted of, or is currently on trial for those other murders, you would report your new information to the judge, who would then decide whether to reveal it to the police or counsel for the other accused. Innocence at risk clause.
Once they're convicted of a capital offense, prisoners are often bribed to reveal previous crimes, but if you get the guy off this one, he also gets away with the others. So you're in a sticky ethical dilemma. Doctors often are, too.
But it's strictly the job related rules that regulate these things, not one's personal ethics. Basically, when you sign up for the law, or civil service or banking, you promise to leave your own values at home. Some people can go through with that, some can't. — Vera Mont

Seriously. i think that you should stop quoting things you see on the screen and do some actual research on the topic. I would certainly like to see those laws.

I know about roles. Most people have more than one role to play in society. What I disagree with is the notion that each role has a different ethical principle or standard. Each role may have different concerns and obligations, different hazards and privileges, but no person has more than one conscience. — Vera Mont

If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality.

And if you had actually read and understood my post;

And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family. — Sir2u

I think I made it quite clear the morality of the person does not change from role to role, but the ethics attached to that role does. While the mother knows that waiting in line to drop of the kids at school is the correct thing to do she will probably hurry to grab a parking space in the supermarket parking lot. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in the supper market, just like changing check out line to get out quicker.

So, is it you contention that if a lawyer discovers that his client has raped and murdered several children before the one he's on trial for and that if he's acquitted, he will do it again and again, that lawyer is ethically bound to keep that information from the police and opposing counsel? Should he not consider who will be harmed by his withholding that information? — Vera Mont

It is not my contention, I have nothing to do with the laws of any country.
In most countries he is forbidden from revealing any information that his client has confided to him personally. I am not sure how far it goes with information gathered from other sources.

If the journalist is bound by a higher obligation - not putting people in danger by publishing the jury list - why is the attorney exempt from that higher obligation? — Vera Mont

Most journalist I believe would publish anything they can find to get a scoop on the other news outlets. And I am not sure if it is legal for any jury lis to be kept from the public.

But the mother you mentioned earlier must certainly shop and may earn her living as a teacher and a little extra driving a taxi, and she might even wish to sell her lawn mower sometime. — Vera Mont

As I said earlier, you need to understand the concept of different hats used in different roles. If you will not make an effort to do that then you will never understand.
A mother of a child does not need to be a salesperson, a taxi driver, a nurse or any other job for that matter.

A mother is by nature a nurse when she looks after sick kids, she is a taxi driver when she takes her kids to school or games, she is a cook and a waitress when her kids are hungry, she is the washer women when there are dirty clothes, a councilor when the kids have problems and a lawyer when they are in trouble. These are the roles I was talking about.

It has nothing to do with her job or a side hustle, but with the work inherent in bringing up kids.
And pleas do not start talking about how that is going against the equality of women. If what I said bothers you for the obvious stereotyping just read father for mother or the parents to get equality.

I suggest a hierarchy of principles, wherein secondary loyalties yield to primary ones and superficial considerations are trumped by fundamental ones. I also believe most people are aware of this and are guided by it in their important decisions.
And I see no reason why those principles must be suspended while people are slaughtering one another on battlefields. — Vera Mont

You can suggest all you like, you will not be the first one to do so and not even the last. The world has been turning for a very long time and people have come up with so many IDEAL moral theories that you would need a couple of life times to read and try to understand them all.

No, of course not. But it would be basic courtesy to back up a broad claim with at least a real-life situation in which it might apply.

I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas — Sir2u

That is what I was doing when I asked for examples of how someone's ethical decisions would be guided by different principles or standards in that person's various roles.
I respectfully suggest that skepticism regarding a claim may have sources other than ignorance. — Vera Mont

I made no broad claim, I gave you the way to find out what we were discussing by doing some investigation. The concept of roles in sociology and psychology is very well know and documented on the internet. It was your responsibility to find out about it before making ridiculous claims about mothers having side hustles.

Do you think that someone saying that you are ignorant is disrespectful? When someone does no know something, they are ignorant. I am ignorant about brain and tree surgery. even more so about digital money.

I picked $9 million CAD, in view of Japan†. I picked Canada, as I want to retire there. LottoMax's jackpot is $80 million, 6/49's $68 million. Giant jackpots worsen wealth inequality, and are unjust.

Better to LOWER lofty jackpots, but RAISE the probability of winning jackpot. LottoMax ought offer MORE chances of winning SMALLER slices (of the same pie). Rather than one winner hoarding $70M, $70M ought be fairly distributed, for example as $2M to 35 people. Koreans agree with this standpoint. — scherz0

I don't really think that giving one person every month getting the $68 million dollar is going to make much of a difference in the overall distribution of wealth. That would be 12 people a year in a population of about 40 million people.

And from what I have seen, a lot of them blow it all away in a couple of years.

If the winners were smart they would use the money to create a business that spread the profits to more people, thus lowering the inequality.

But if we really want to look at inequality we should be looking at the companies that run the lottos. The owners of these thing are richer every day which increases the inequality because most of the money comes from people that cannot afford to be spending the money buying tickets.

So, what are the different kind of ethics that would guide your decision according to the hat you were wearing? How exactly does the ethical system of teachers differ from the ethical system of taxi drivers? — Vera Mont

Les take an example that is really easy to understand.

A lawyer has the ethical responsibility to keep quiet about everything to do with his client that dos not already reside in the public domain, especially things that might harm the case.
A newspaper or TV reporter is ethical bound to divulge that same information if he has it.
Each of them have their rules of engagement and they are opposite to each other.

But then maybe there is a secret witness that would be in serious danger if his name was revealed, the report would be remiss in naming him without his permission.

They were examples for the application of different ethics to different roles, as you failed to mention any. No, grumbling is not an ethical choice, nor is desire for profit. — Vera Mont

If as, I had indicate, had you done some investigation on the topic of roles you would have found quite a few.
It is not my job to educate you and lay everything out so that you can just sit back and relax. I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas or look up the things you do not understand.
Saying that I did not provide examples of something that should be basic knowledge lays the blame for your ignorance on me and that is not a nice thing to do.

That truly is a ridiculous belief.. as if the Germans had some monopoly on that strategy. — schopenhauer1

It is not quite the ridiculous belief you think it is, Harris actually said that because it was the truth.

As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. — ssu

Or they thought that they British were to ethically/morally upright to do such dastardly deeds.

Harris was true to his word. — ssu

Yep, they got a bollocking, and he was justified in his thoughts and actions.

You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't? — Vera Mont

Please read the post again. I don't feel that I should have to explain something that is basic high school intro to sociology and psychology. I will give you a clue, look up how the word "role" is used in either of the subjects I mentioned. Write "role psychology" in google

It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price? — Vera Mont

This is even more pathetic than the previous one. Please show me anywhere it mentions stealing or lying.

Then what is it you're confused about? — Vera Mont

I was talking about you.
Please stop making a fool of yourself by posting nonsensical ideas. If you insist on posting, please read carefully and make sure you understood what you read. If you have problems with anything, you can always ask for explanations here.

RIP Frank Ifield

I honestly thought he had died years ago.

Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.

If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.

If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu

You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground.

The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu

The final years in office. Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister in May 1940 following the debacle of the Norwegian campaign. Halifax was seen as a leading candidate to replace him but he realised that Churchill would make a superior war leader and, pleading ill-health, withdrew from the race.

Maybe you would be interested in reading this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-foreign-secretaries/edward-wood

Halifax was nicknamed ‘the Holy Fox’, reflecting his passion for hunting and his Christian moral outlook.

Halifax realised earlier than Chamberlain, but later than others, that Britain would have to stand firm against Nazi demands for territorial aggrandisement. But it came too late to avoid him being cast in 1940 as one of the ‘Guilty Men’ (in the publication of the same name), held responsible for the war by appeasing fascism.

In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision? — Vera Mont

Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family.

I see this as playing with words. There is a reason why "war" is different than a fight between individuals. It's "conflict" and "violent", but it's not the same thing. — schopenhauer1

As I said, from my point of view the only difference is the size.

No, because an individual fighting doesn't worry about things that are only seen in war.. collateral damage, for example is uniquely only seen in war. — schopenhauer1

Could you explain that to the landlord of the pub where I was dragged into a fight and he tried to get me to pay for all of the collateral damage to chairs and tables. Maybe he will return the money he took.

Drafts are something that only happens in war. — schopenhauer1

Again the principles are the same but the size is different. If I had called my mates to come and help the collateral damage would have been greater.

Moving massive amounts of people on behalf of the state in tactical and strategic settings to gain some objective only happens in war. They are things that happen at the level of "state". There is a hierarchy one must follow. — schopenhauer1

Does any of this have any bearing on the war being ethical or moral?

I mean not really. There are things that happen in war that would not be seen as appropriate at an individual level. As an individual you cannot drop a bomb on a target or order others to do that for you in any legitimate way. But you can in a certain hierarchical setting on behalf of the state, as a state actor. Interesting how that confers by way of institutionalism, but that is how it seems to be. — schopenhauer1

So people do not sent fire to house to kill their ex's? The Oklahoma bombing never happened? The school shooters do not exist? And you can order killings quite easily it appears on the internet. There have been several cases recently of people hiring other to kill, kidnap or injure others.

The only thing that governments have in their favor is nicely put in the old phrase "Anything an individual can do, we can do better and bigger.

I won't even continue, what a load of crap. These barbarians who think Romans would feel anything but disdain for them go as far as saying all the absurd nonsense you see in this thread. That I have to argue with so much dishonesty and bullshit is well past limits now. — Lionino

So you do not believe what is before your eyes, instead preferring to maintain your ignorance to reality.
How many ancient Romans do or did you actually know? Because unless you can speak from first hand knowledge of the subject all I can say is that you are spouting undeniably ridiculous garbage. show us some proof that the Romans were as good and noble as you say they were or shut up.

These people have no ancient history of their own, their history is a fentanyl addict who died of overdose during COVID curfews, cross-dressing parades, and insane orange politicians. In their insanity they will defend every sort of violation of common sense, "hur dur the weather is part of culture", "hur dur recipes are part of culture", "hur dur we wuz romans n shiet u knowamsayan?", "hur dur hay rabdos sou kai hay baktaria sou. autai me parakelesan". Just barbaric, barbaric all the way through. They don't even know how to use periods. — Lionino

Tut TUT. did you never learn that personal attacks against members of a debating group are the ultimate sign of a badly defeated arrogant ignoramus. Especially when they take up jobs with the grammar police.

Those are the same people who defend that men can become women and that 2+2=5. So if such basic concepts bewilder them so much, to ask them a proper understanding of history is like charging a cat with doing the taxes of a company.

Sparing them with the slighest bit of culture and civilisation is throwing pearls at hogs. They were barbarians 2000 years ago and they are barbarians today and will be barbarians forever — uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy (how can one do philosophy in a language that struggles with concepts as basic as "nation" and "woman"?). — Lionino

As I said earlier you really should do more careful reading, I think that if you look you will find my opinion on men being women is clearly stated on a thread somewhere around the forum.

Oh, one last thing before I tell you to fuck off. Your free grammar lesson:

uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy

It is INCAPABLE, not uncapable (No, I am not going to put a period here just so that I can annoy you one last time)

Now fuck off.

Spare me your rhetorical diarrhea. — Lionino

This is a page meant for kiddies to learn from, maybe it will help clear your learning constipation.
https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/culture/399913

But I guess that Britannica could be wrong.

Nowhere there does it say Harry Potter is part of Hungary's culture. Again, spare me. — Lionino

Karate, Kung fu, tacos, apple pie, sushi, Soul food,the waltz, are some of many adopted parts of the American way of life. Does that make them any less part of American culture

Elements of one's culture are determined by the weather, the weather itself is not part of one's culture. — Lionino

I never said it was, maybe you should try reading carefully. What I said was that many customs are based on the weather, especially in farming. Is that not part of the culture then.
Or do you go skiing in the summer and swimming in the winter? The weather plays a big part in the culture of a people.