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.

It is hard to experience a punch in the face unless one is punched in the face. Therefore in order to experience it, it must be available. In order to experience anything, and everything, all must also be available.

Unless you have another all-encompassing theory to explain everything? I would be interested in hearing it.

you do not cover the very real aspect of sex robots (yep, they are real) being used as a safe alternative by people who are attracted to children. Or murders, or rapists, etc. As the sex robots are programmed to respond according to the purchasers order requirements, on could, in theory, order a robot to suit what ever one's particular tastes may be. Screaming, begging, etc.

Of course there is (really) a group out there already pushing for the ethical use of sex robots by their owners, so some body is still going to cry Foul!. However, if one were able to focus one's less-than-socially-acceptable appetites within one's home and property, what is the objectionable grounds?

God exists. Stupid, ignorant immoral people exist. A dangerous world exists. God would not create stupid, ignorant immoral people and create a dangerous world and plonk the stupid ignorant immoral people in it, would he? — Bartricks

God would. Operating from an existential developmental/experiential cycle. We are currently in this cycle, in whatever form we elected to engage it (the cycle) in to further our understanding and experience of, eventually, everything from the single perspective of each thing. As there are a nearly infinite number of things, we will take an equal amount of time to garner the experience of said things from its perspective. In order to become fully cognizant of every possible experience all experiences must be available, eventually, to every being; even pissed on burnt toast, by far not the least horrid thing out there. That which is created the ultimate learning environment for those of us which are.

God can't show his omnipotence. So he's not omnipotent — EugeneW

Alternately, God doesn't give damn about your belief in him, and proving his ability is pointless, he would have to do it all the time to convince some ass-hat that he is real. Endless nonsense.

Rage at the Sun all day and command it to appear no more; however the Sun doesn't do requests, so it will carry on as usual.

.If God exists, he would remove evil from the world — tryhard

Why? Everything has a purpose, especially evil. The assumption that God (if such exists) would remove evil (because we don't like it?) has always appeared to be preposterous to me.

What exactly is "the problem with evil"? That it exists?

Ever turn out the light? Would that be the problem with darkness, or the problem with the bright-ass light that is keeping me awake?

Is there theoretically a wrong way to live? — Jake Hen

Living in such a fashion as to be discordant with your own values. This would be a "wrong" way to live, even if one was accepted by society at large.

I realize that with this interpretation one could state that this position would allow any sort of culturally inappropriate position to be interpreted as a "right" way to live, which is accurate, however I am operating from an individual perspective, not society in general, and certainly not from a "greater good" position.

Just change the Op to "I hate men". Saves time. and you don't need to justify your position with all the bullshit.

The idea of conscription seems dubious:

Scenario A: I love my country.

My beloved country is being invaded and I feel I must defend it against unwarranted aggression. I must defend my family, my land, my fellow citizens, and repel those who would otherwise destroy our existence. No conscription is required, I am willing and wanting to defend what I perceive to be mine to defend. I may need training, or equipment, etc. but that is all. I do not lack motivation to defend. Perhaps I may die, but that is the price of defending that which I love.

Scenario B: I hate my country.

My horrid country is being invaded and I cannot wait for the change in government. The new government can only be an improvement over the existing ass-hats. I have no interest in fighting the invaders and will offer them beer when they arrive. Conscription is pointless, I am so disinclined to support the existing structure that I will strive to assist the invaders at any opportunity, surrendering at the first opportunity and providing as much information as possible to ensure their victory.

Scenario C: I am solidly ambivalent about my country.

My country is being invaded by some other country that I also don't give a damn about. Their position, as I know it, makes as much sense as the crap coming from my government. I don't really want to be invaded, not because I am concerned or fearful so much as I am lazy and don't want to bother learning a new system. I secretly hope it all blows over quickly so I can go back to my regular life of still not giving a damn. Conscripting me seems like a bad plan, I have no motivation to learn, other than to not get killed, and my goal is survival, not success for my army or country. How functional will I be as a conscript?

Now consider the implications of a war that does not involve my country directly, as in overseas. Scenario A, all my motivation does not apply, my country is not threatened. I would, in truth, be the invader, or at best, an imported defender, leaving my country with less defense (due to my absence). Conscription would only infuriate me, dragging me away from my beloved country to join a conflict that is not my business.

Scenario B, My country wants me to die in a foreign land so it can look good. Just another reason to hate it more. This could be a perfect time to leave, maybe join the opposing forces?

Scenario C, I still have no interest in fighting, except to save my own ass. As I would be reliant, or hoping to return home, this might be the only scenario wherein I might fight harder as a conscript overseas than if I were in country, as I do not want to be forgotten overseas.

Conscription just seems like a really bad idea.

If no one wants to fight to defend their country, there is no actual country to defend, it is already dead. Conscription won't help that.

If everyone wants to defend the country, conscription will not be required.

If no one cares about the invasion, conscription won't help that.

If conscription is to supply an invasion force, again, not enough people support it. Why is the government moving forward with such a poorly supported plan?