You would have a valid point if this degree of error were typical. But it hasn't been in Australian elections. Some of the polls have got the prediction wrong in previous elections. But not all pollsters and not for this length of time: I have to point out that this has bene the prediction and margin for almost all polls for the last 1 to 2 years; I'd need to check the exact time span but it's been a long time.

I was trying to open up some ideas. For instance which of A or B is more mututally inconsistent? For instance should someone who is a vegetarian own an animal that is a meat eater? I could have made the OP more complex by including farm animals. Then someone could own a cow. A cow doesnt eat meat. But usually it leads to meat. Unless it's just a dairy cow or, rarely. a pet;

Quite easily. All the predictions were wrong. Even if I accept that they were within the margin of error, that doesn't help. It should be so unlikely that that margin of error is used over that length of time. It's worth adding that Australian polls have a good track record so this is unexpected. I don't know how "facts and figures" help. I am sure that someone more mathematically gifted than I am could give the probaility curves for the margins of error and show how they shouldnt have come into it so often.

They were a failure when it happened with all of them over a long period of time. You should not be redlining a margin of error for at least a year before the election.

Actually the example mentioned by some people here isn't that facetious or hypothetical. The video of "Russian Roulette stunt - Derren Brown". is still on youtube. He is a British mind control stunt guy. On BBC live TV he got a guy to put a bullet in a gun with 6 chambers. Derren shot himself with the chambers that he sensed had no bullet. Before hand he says to the guy "you are not morally or legally responsible if I ^&&^ this up". Now, I am not sure if I agree with Darren on that. Is that different from how Brandon Lee died when a gun was meant to be empty in a stunt but it was by mistake loaded?

It's as though the US does not want to extradite Assange. He has very strong human rights grounds now to avoid extradition.

I'm going to go a bit left field and say that the most depressing philosopher is Australian bioethicist Peter Singer; making animals have so many rights that they could get medical treatment ahead of me is a depressing thought!

No. Not at all. I am describing relativities of ethical degree. Actually I think that both A and B are unethical. But my argument that A is less unethical is because A has more ethical options to minimise harm such as choosing his or her human meat diet.

But just because we can waste resources doesn't mandate that we should.

To minimise resource usage could free more food for starving people to eat. For instance feeding cows for meat uses more food and resources than growing corn. Not to mention environmental factors. Yes I know that this is simplistic; there are crops like cotton that are wasteful in terms of resources.

No. The pet cannot in itself be immoral. B ut the owner can be for his or her choice of pet.

Ok. The traditional arguments for meat eating being an ethical issues-\
- involuntary harm
- the use of more resources such as food and land for meat compared to vegetables.

Why not, may I ask? You are saying that A and B are of equal ethical or non ethical ststaus?

I only found this out this year. But there is also the aspect of burial. The euthanasia drugs used by a vet are toxic and remain in the dead animal. So any other animal that eats it could get poisoned. So I have buried my euthaniased cats in my back yard; I might do something different in that respect next time.

I guess that less clearcut cases are things like horses. A blind horse can be very hard to keep. On the other hand other horses can help a blind horse by showing it where water is. That would be a hard decision.

Assange. Here's my views. First, I believe in the rule of law ahead of conscience. This is not a fashionable view. Thus Assange was wrong to avoid bail and deserves some degree of jail time. But I have enormous problems with him being extradited. One, there is no way that he will get a fair trial in the US. I had a relative who was court martialled in the British army in the 80's. So I know how military trials work and anyone who thinks that they are fair needs a brain transplant. Second, surely to extradite someone is the second most serious action against them. Only assassination would be more serious. Yet the unsealed charge list is a joke. I've read it. You can extradite someone from that??

I add that to read more than my teacher was not easy; he was once a lecturer in history and literature at the University of Hawaii. But yes I agree that my own views first would have been better scholastically.

Does Mister Rogers qualify as a philosopher?
If so then he's my opposite; I'm an atheist. But the way he lived was enough to make me very briefly want to be a theist.

I suppose that if you expanded the idea of drugs you could include the morality of many "illegal drugs". I am thinking of brain hacking drugs that are meant to make you smarter. So if you had a school exam then one hour before you pop your brain hack pills. I mean, how is that immoral? Trying to make my folks happier when I get better grades! lol My actions of taking the pills will ncrease their happiness!

That's the word isn't it. Procrustean. lol.

I have no idea how I made italics there. I did not intend to.

My point with a Dvorak keyboard would be that it might follow a more intuitive pattern of letters rather than the totally artificial Qwerty keyboard.