If Trump pardons himself the case against him will not proceed. If the case does not proceed the question of whether he has blanket immunity will not be addressed unless some other case arises before the court addressing this issue. — Fooloso4
Is there good reason why the Supreme Court should not have already quickly and unequivocally ruled that Trump is not above the law? If some of its members are, as they claim to be, originalists, then the overwhelming evidence leads them to only one conclusion, he is not. By prolonging deliberation they are dragging their feet and in effect obstructing justice. — Fooloso4
Is it possible to simulate consciousness with rocks? I think the only honest answer anyone can give is, "I don't know". — Malcolm Lett
If you existed alone on a desert island there would be no need for ethics - every decision would be to determine the burger or the other burger ethically — Fire Ologist
If I have a comment with lots of likes on some platform, sometimes I edit it to include purposefully incorrect information. — Lionino
oh well then, in principle... MAYBE — flannel jesus
Just out of interest, I'll have a go.
So, let's say that this kidney simulation is 100% accurate of a real kidney, to the level of, say, molecules. And that this kidney simulation has a rudimentary simulation of its context operating in a body, so that if a simulated kidney were to pee, then it could. In this example, the kidney would indeed pee, not on his desk, but inside the simulation.
If we take as an assumption (for the sake of this thought experiment) that consciousness is entirely physical, then we can do the same thing with a conscious brain. This time simulate the brain to the molecular level, and again provide it some rudimentary body context so that the simulated brain thinks it's operated inside a body with eyes, ears, hands, etc. Logically, this simulation thus simulates consciousness in the brain. That's not to say that the simulated brain is conscious in a real world sense, but that it is genuinely conscious in its simulated world. — Malcolm Lett
Nothing wrong with supporting people against aggression. The question is: why these people and not others? — Mikie
You don't treat civilians as civilians until shown to be a combatant, but the other way around: a civilian is a combatant unless being really proven to be a civilian. — ssu
These hypotheticals are Hollywood. Real conflict is not scripted. — Vera Mont
But all of that aside, meaning, all of US aside and our morality, before we judge the morality, we can simply see that animals kill and eat other animals.
That simply is, the very subject that already exists for our moral question. We spawn in the same pond of animals as all of our ancestors spawned to be food for the next… — Fire Ologist
As I said, we need general rules, but those rules cannot adequately deal with all cases. — Janus
Of course, torture must be condemned tout court, If I torture the perpetrator to save my family, I will never claim that act is morally justified, because the standard for society has to be "no torture under any circumstances" and I support that. — Janus
The 2A refers to "the people." You refer to "people." what do you mean? What do you imagine the founders meant? — tim wood
In a Massachusetts' court - or in any other court I know of - your opinion wouldn't matter. And, that is exactly the circumstance in which you're obliged to retreat if you can. — tim wood
He's law-abiding right up to the exact moment he is no longer law-abiding. The point being that "law-abiding" seems not a very good indicator of who should/should not have a gun. — tim wood
So if you want to shoot an intruder, you shall have to consider what state to live in. — tim wood
And I'm sure too that you know perfectly well that by far the greater danger to the inhabitants of a house is the gun that is already in the house. So it would appear that justifications are more based in fantasy and wishful thinking than reality, and these fantasies get too many people killed that should not have been killed.
Palestinians are not the enemy, but I do see them as an enemy population in the same way that a highly pro-nazi town in 1945 would have been. The citizens themselves aren't inherently evil and deserving of death, but I would be very cautious of them. — BitconnectCarlos
Turns out that "law-abiding" citizens do most of the killing. — tim wood
— tim wood
Btw, you want to "counter the threat." What threat is that, exactly, and how, exactly, do you plan to "counter" it?
For me the enemy is always the enemy combatants, fighters or servicemen. Legal or illegal. Not the civilians. — ssu
Besides, I don't know if idealism 'solves' the question of re-incarnation. — Wayfarer
Me (now) is not identical to the me of yesteday, much less to the infant me of 70 years ago.
I take the identity of indiscernibles seriously: entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa — Relativist