I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force. — Quk

If you are claiming that there are external forces that act upon an individual against their will, I absolutely agree. If you are saying that an individual can be motivated to action, any action, without internal force essentially being the only force that can initiate that action, I disagree. The only force that can cause anyone to do anything (other than an exterior physical force acting directly on said individual) is an internal force created by that individual. Ultimately the individual has control over the internal force, even if they have long since abandoned any deliberate use of said control.

I cannot motivate anyone to do anything, ever. I can use words to perhaps convince them to motivate themselves to do what I am suggesting, but the motivating factor is not me, nor my words. It is the internal force created by the individual that results in action being done, or not done, as the person decides.

So your theory is that the mind is the universe. Way to explain nothing. Care to expand on that or no?

Also, for those claiming that the mind is physical: where is it, how big is it, and if, as you claim, it is physical, how come it does not fill up over a lifetime, as any physical thing would eventually reach the limits of it's physical capacity from constantly absorbing information and thoughts.

Thanks

Everything that exists – including the "mind" – is physical. — Michael

Not al all. Lots of things exist that are non-physical. We acknowledge they exist, not because we can see or touch them, but because we can see, touch, and are effected by their existence. Gravity and magnetic force come to mind (also non-physical, and yet existent). Just pointing out a perceived flaw.

Carry on.

"there must be some difference in the way the two humans interpret the same input to be able to produce a different output"

I can provide a real life example of this, not limited to 2 individuals, but rather, male and female staff. I had been a manager in an Emergency Department and, in an effort to ensure the best patient care possible and support constant staff education and improve practice, I said to the staff during a staff meeting...

"Just let me know what you need; equipment, training, specialized education, etc. Anything you can think of that would improve your ability to practice and provide care and maximize the patient experience and outcome. If you think it would help I want to hear about it so we can make it happen."

The male staff heard " The manager wants to know how to make the place better and is willing to train and educate the staff and wants us to provide input."

The female staff heard "Everyone is so terrible at their job that I need to retrain everyone and our equipment is terrible and also needs replacing."

The difference in take away messaging from the same message, at the same meeting, was astounding. To this day I have no idea how I should have phrased the message for equivalent positive uptake throughout the staff. That the take away was so immensely different still bewilders me.

So, to be clear, your position is that, because humans can be manipulated, they are not responsible for their actions, due to being manipulated, and that, again, due to manipulation, they are somehow less culpable for their actions and the ramifications of those actions? Or is your position that, due to manipulation, these individuals have effectively lost their freedom of choice, and so are essentially automatons; capable of action but not of discernment?
Please clarify. This is a position worth exploring further.

Thanks! Good to be back.

"words can’t possibly cause us to change what we say or do think, according to you, right?"

Words, in and of themselves, have no power. Consideration of those words by an audience, any audience, regardless of the intent of the words, may result in a change of thought, or behaviour, or no change at all. However, the words, as words, did nothing. The consideration of the words by the listener, and resulting internal dialogue and subsequently determined path by the listener are not to be attributed to the words but rather to the listener. No matter how inflammatory the words might be, they are, in themselves, utterly inert.

I compare it to blaming a weapon for a killing, rather than the wielder of said weapon. No knife, of it's own volition, ever killed anyone. Knives do not have their own volition: someone put the knife into motion.

I do believe that inciting others to violence should be a culpable offence, but those who commit the violence should be more culpable; they did have a choice to not be incited.

is aware of the fact that sexual relations produces kids — Outlander

Except that most often times, it does not. This statement is as accurate as saying "Driving a motor vehicle results in motor vehicle accidents" True; but also very inaccurate. If by driving my car to get a coffee (something entirely for pleasure) I get in an accident (a possibility, but not likely) I am not morally required to never fix the damage to my, or the other person's, car, simply based on my choice to drive that day. Sex can lead to pregnancy, and is, outside a laboratory, the only thing that does; however it certainly does not do so with each episode of intercourse. Far far from it. Same thing with driving. It is the only way to have a motor vehicle accident, granted, but every drive does not result in an accident; they are, relatively speaking, few and far between. I fix my car if I get in an accident. If I did not want to be pregnant, I would fix that too should it occur.

You are distributing a lifesaving drug. Six individuals all need the drug to survive. Five of them each only require one-fifth of the drug for survival, while the sixth individual requires the entire dosage. — Camille

Why are you saving their lives in the first place? Six people will die without external life support in the form of this drug, therefore, rather than say you are denying life to someone regardless of the choice you make, reframe it to consider: why are you interrupting the otherwise natural progression of these people's lives by unnaturally denying their deaths? Perhaps it is more unethical to deny these deaths than to simply walk away and allow nature to progress.

That and, regardless of the drug, no deaths are being avoided. They are being delayed at best.

I just typed "BBC" in the search bar and it was the first story. A theatre in Muripol. There was a short video clip, a still picture of the theatre from march 14 below that.
Also, why would they have an aerial picture of a building from 2 days before it was bombed? They just took pictures of every building in the city, hoping to get some before and after shots?

This would be considered insurance fraud where I am from: I just happened to take pictures and video of my basement showing all my expensive stuff a day before the fire destroyed everything. Lucky eh.

Information and knowledge management. — Olivier5

I have asked for a reliable, unbiased source of information. You have not provided any.
I have asked that you explain the discrepancies I have noted. You have not.

Which is odd, as with your purported background you should be in an ideal position to do so. Ergo, either you are not what you claim, you cannot provide the requested answers because they do not exist, or you are aware that I am correct in my general assumptions.

Very much so. Which why you should always question what you are told and do your own assessments. Dying due to being lazy is just embarrassing.

That video has actual sick people, dirt in the hospitals, grime on the windows, etc. That was filmed in a real hospital. Nothing discordant there. Unlike what I see in media now.

So explain the empty buildings, the lack of injury evidence, and all the other inconsistences. Don't tell me I am inept; Explain what I am seeing and WHY I am wrong in my assumption.

It may take competence to check information, however, it also takes competence to assess a building for damage, structural integrity and the most likely place to find survivors. It also takes wisdom to determine when something is fucked in what you are seeing, so fucked that perhaps you don't believe what you are being told.

I am a fire fighter, former construction worker, and critical care health worker. I am very familiar with abandoned buildings, demolition, rescue efforts, and people in body bags. What I am seeing is mostly bullshit. Is that clear enough for you?

What is your back ground, that you would judge me incompetent?

And the BBC pictures?

There was no one in that building, it was too small to house 1200, there were no people anywhere, and no litter or garbage anywhere. It looked like a prepped demolition site. There is a person walking by in the video carrying a white plastic bag. The person is walking casually, as if bored. The aerial picture of the theatre has discrepancies from the video of the damaged building. As the aerial picture was taken (stated in the article) on march 14th this year, it should be considered to be accurate enough to use as a landmark for other surrounding structures visible in the video. Some are missing and other have different colours. This is what I mean by non-correlating information. Aerial picture, might be real. Video, real enough, it is a damaged building and some of it is on fire. Bored guy walking by after shopping seems a little off for a freshly bombed site. No emergency crews visible anywhere is definitely discordant with the narrative. Also discordant is no one needing assistance in the building.

Yeah, I have difficulty when there are this many discordant notes in such a short piece.

Honestly, no. My wife might know, but I am at work currently and she is at home asleep.

The pictures of the theatre are from BBC.

I have seen facebook posts with "live video" that have been cut straight out of older war movies, but that is facebook, so question the source eh.

Likewise, your ignorance about Ukraine doesn't imply other people's ignorance — Olivier5

I agree. However, if our collective information source is the media, then our collective information source is questionable. If there is a solid, unbiased source of information I would be very interested in knowing what it is as I do not know it. Until then I will question what I see, and what I am being told. So too should everyone, but that is their call to make.

Then there are live pictures of Kiev. Surely that is real. — FreeEmotion

Not necessarily.

I have seen "live" interviews from Kiev. One had the soldiers that did not know how to hold their weapons, or how to insert a clip into a machine gun. Everyone looked very awkward and nervous, but not afraid or angry. Just really awkward.

The other had a reporter in the forefront of a parking lot "filled with the dead", lots of body bags, all neatly separated by about 6 feet, no fluid leaking from any, no signs of body fluids anywhere, and the bags moved from the inside. At one point over the reporter's left shoulder one of the body bags unzips itself and a guy in a toque repositions himself before zipping the bag closed again.

I saw the latest pictures of the theatre that was bombed in Ukraine. No one fleeing the building, no bodies visible, no blood spatter, no one injured. The building looked abandoned, yet there was smoke from the bombing in the air above it, and coming from the rubble. It looked much too small to house the 1200 civilians that were apparently housed there before the bombing. So what did I actually see: an empty, partially destroyed building, with no people involved at all. That I am clear on. Anything beyond that is speculation.

Don't assume that, because you are ignorant, everybody else must be ignorant. — Olivier5

I have not. I have explained that I do not have decent information, and what I am able to view does not correlate to what I am being told. You claim to have better information than I do, yet, so far, have not been able to explain the discrepancies I have noticed. Either you are unable to do so, are unwilling to do so, or are unwilling to even look to confirm or disprove my observations. I am seeking a logical counter to what I see, and have not yet found it.

100%

Maybe it would be.

However, my purpose is to point out that most, not necessarily all, but most of those posting here are, in fact, not informed past whatever the media has told them. They have chosen sides based on a sales pitch. That sales pitch is likely supported by whichever government is funding the media making the pitch, therefore it stands to reason that the pitch is designed to make you support a specific outcome: Ukraine: Good, Moscow: Bad.

I could show you the same pictures of blown up empty buildings and say "Aliens attack a theatre." There is exactly the same proof in the photo for my claim as the media claim.

Notice that there is no media coverage on how the Russians could be justified in their action? Nothing at all. Which is telling in itself: two combatants but only one side to the story? That makes no sense.

Also it is Maple Syrup. Not marple. Just letting you know.

I am not in the fighting, and so know nothing of what is going on, which I admit.

You are not in the fighting, yet believe you know what is going on and what is what. Very well, explain the empty buildings to me; still smoking from the bombings and yet with no people inside, no blood spatter, and extremely clean surroundings with no injured or fleeing people. Explain why it looks so very staged.

I guess you trust your media. I don't trust mine anymore, nor my government, which is why I have the position I have. If I see it in front of me, if I can question it without censure, and if I trust the source implicitly, then I know something. Other than that, it is a sales pitch, only I don't know what they are selling.

Are you near the battle front or getting your information from media?

French Canadian. Yep, nobody is perfect.

Full on weeping...

If my wife dies.
If my kid dies.
If my dog dies.

Outside of those, not a chance.

certain music which makes me weep I dont feel weak — EugeneW

Are you teary when you hear the music or weeping? Huge difference. Maybe a tear wells up, your eyes get misty. I understand that. But full on weeping? That is some serious music.

Love it.

So you are Russian?

How far, in actual distance, are you from the fighting? I am on the other side of the world, and I know, reliably, as much as I should while on the other side of the world: Nothing.

I have looked at the latest pictures available via media. I see blown up buildings. Empty blown up buildings. No bodies. No blood spatter. Very clean sites, all things considered. Sure there is smoke in the air from the blast, but no one is fleeing. No one is crying and bleeding. In truth, there isn't anyone to see at all. Just a picture of destruction and smoke, but nothing to suggest it was from a bomb other than the write up that says it was.

I have never seen a clean fight. There is always collateral mess, always. But not in these pictures. Curious.

You are correct. I do not know what you know about it. Which part of the Ukraine are you in? or which part of the Russian forces are you with?

You mean unlike everyone else that picks a side and clings to it without actually knowing anything?

What if we all shut up about it? THAT would be great!

I am not actually sure what is going on in Ukraine. I believe nothing that comes out of the media anymore and am even more certain that the politicians are utterly corrupt. So what is the truth of it? I have no idea. The only way I could know is if I personally knew someone in Ukraine and someone in the Russian army. I might not get the full truth, but certainly more reliable than anything available to me now.

Is there a war going on? Maybe. Although I have seen numerous videos to suggest that it isn't. The specific videos I have seen "from the ground" are too blurry to confirm who is fighting who, or from too far away to make any sense of what can be seen. Yes, a tank was blown up, but from where and by who is not clear. Also, much of the footage looks very familiar to some war movies I have seen, too familiar. I have seen an interview with soldiers in which the soldiers did not know how to hold their guns, or how to insert a clip into the machine gun. Seriously bad actors. Also one showing a parking lot full of body bags, counting the dead, in which the body bags are still moving from the inside as the people in them get comfortable for the footage, one guy actually unzips the bag from the inside and wiggles around a bit and then rezips it up.

So what am I seeing, really? I have no idea, but any trust I had in media has long since died, so I will likely never know.

Torturing the baby is more immoral than allowing the people to die, therefore should not be done and the bombs should be allowed to go off. I arrive at this conclusion based on the following facts:

A) The baby has no power in this scenario and can be in no way considered to have engaged in any activity which contributed to the predicament it is now in. It is, truly, an innocent bystander.

B) The people in the stadiums have contributed to their situation by going to the stadiums initially. Yes, they may not have expected to be blown up, however there are a multitude of minor accidents which can occur when going to a stadium and an element of danger exists in all of these. An additional consideration is that any place of large public crowds will also potentially draw the attention of nefarious types who seek to exploit those crowds for their own ends. Bombs, bio-weapons, Etc. This is not a new concept in any way.

C) Letting people die when I can take action to save them is not immoral. This is a false foundation usually put forward by people who have not actually committed any sort of violence. It is closely associated with the equally false statement "letting someone die is the same as killing them." Ask anyone that has killed anything if this statement rings true; it does not.

D) There is no time to evacuate. However there is time to torture a baby until the father breaks and tells us where the bombs are and we have time to defuse the bombs? So this is either the slowest evacuation ever or the weakest terrorist ever and we have the fastest bomb squad ever. Regardless, if we have time to torture and do all that follows that scenario, we also have time to mitigate damage from any explosions: like moving everyone onto the stadium fields. Explosion dynamics would support this as the best way to mitigate damage to the crowd from any explosion in the stadium. This could also be done must faster than the torture option.

E) I am an FBI agent and the best plan I came up with is torturing a baby? That answers why someone wants to bomb my people: we have it coming. Actually, if that answer is acceptable to my population then we deserve the bombings.

Seriously, torturing a baby is never the moral choice.

Look, I can prove God. — Bartricks

Excellent! Do it my friend.

I believe in God. I also believe that no good, all knowing, all powerful person would create some evil, ignorant idiots and then create a world it would be dangerous for evil, ignorant idiots to live in and place them in it. — Bartricks

Again, your version of God, your definition of all the aforementioned "evils". All according to your viewpoint. Limited, limited, and oh yes, very limited.

The word 'God' denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent — Bartricks

Now you are describing me. Thanks. Although, to be clear, I don't actually need the support.

I find your version of God as limited as your willingness to consider alternate viewpoints on the subject. Therefore, to acknowledge exactly what you have claimed, I agree, your version of God would not do such a thing. However, as I do not find your version of God to be remotely accurate, the assumptions based on it are equally invalid.

an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person — Bartricks

Person, likely not. People are weaklings and lack insight. The anthropomorphic version of God should n't be a weakling, so your description of God isn't applicable.

God as an entity does not exist. God as encompassing energy, I believe, is a certainty. God exists because I exist. That which animates my body cannot die, where as the death of the body is certain. There will be another body, and another, and another, (etc.) and further experiences will be had.

Perhaps the end of modern civilization is close at hand. No worries. There will be another.

Why on earth — Bartricks

Why is your philosophy limited to earth and that which is limited to this reality? It seems, well, limited.

There is far less evil in the world than most believe. There is perspective, and most are unable to see anyone's but their own. Mice likely believe my cat to be evil and death incarnate; I find him to be affectionate and enjoyable. Of course, I am not the size of a mouse.