Wet thumb and index finger and rub them together with the garbage bag opening between them. It will open in a jiffy.

I've cited them often in the past. Educate yourself for once.

https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index
https://www.btselem.org/

ethno-religion — BitconnectCarlos

Of course it isn't. There's Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi Jews, which are distinct ethnicities. Plenty of discrimination between those groups as well by the way although at least on paper they are equal.

But under the law, once citizens, Jew and non-Jew are equal. — BitconnectCarlos

:rofl: Jesus Christ that's funny.

It's not my definition. The Israeli supreme Court has confirmed being Jewish is a religious claim. You can convert to Judaism and obtain all sorts of rights and you lose rights if as a Jew you convert to another religion because Israel is so civilised it has institutionalised discrimination.

A civilizational claim. And also apparently you have no regard for native american claims either. — BitconnectCarlos

It's religious because Judaism is a religion and the passing of jewishness via the mother a religious fantasy.

You really need to expound on that because I have no clue how to interpret that sentence!

I think introducing another calculation as to the moral worth of the individuals is a completely false move. This is what doctors are expressly forbidden to do, but their oath is to do their best for PolPot and Mother Theresa without distinction. — unenlightened

Which is why the Hippocratic oath and triage have nothing to do with morality either but with survivability of the patient irrespective of moral considerations.

Edit: to add, I think I would be forgiven to not help an attacker, favouring a victim, even when the attacker had a higher chance of survival. Maybe even in obvious ways even to me as a layman at the train station. It would be a moral choice for me personally to decide at that moment the smaller chance of the innocent surviving is more important to me, personally, than that of the aggressor. But I wouldn't condemn the layman for making the other choice either. Whether that's a triage decision or not. There's simply not much good either of us can do.

Yes. I challenge the idea that we have no obligation to strangers. We have a small obligation to do something if we reasonably can to make another's situation better if they are in difficulty. — unenlightened

Of course there's a moral obligations to help others but when helping means murdering others... I'm totally awesome but not so awesome to decide who gets to live and who doesn't and reducing this to statistics is not a solution as I could save the wrong person. I could save a Hamas leader or Bibi and I'd rather not.

Having read the recent replies, I still think the trolley problem isn't useful at all and is morally irrelevant. We need agency as a requirement for causality and even when there's agency it isn't a given our (in)action is the sufficient condition for the outcome.

In the trolley problem, save one person everybody knows is a Nazi but I secretly know he's planning to assasinate Hitler or five kids. Save 5 Nazis or 1 old man with terminal cancer. It is only useful where we know nothing about the past or the future, the situation is entirely decontextualised from reality and then we are commanded to chose. It is a game, nothing more and nothing less and we can always choose not to play. All valid moral choices.

↪Apollodorus I wasn't aware it was still in doubt such research was done there. So nothing new to me at least. The second part I'll ignore at the useless speculations of a layman. Especially since actual experts now think it's more likely there is a natural origin instead of a lab leak based on the find in Laos. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2

I suppose that's what you get from reading the Telegraph. :vomit: — Benkei

Well, that comment certainly didn't age well. Ouch. :chin:

I just read the NY piece. Jaw dropping on various levels. I think the most important thing we (the Dutch) need to think about it how to include the risk we're being lied to next time something like this happens. What a difference it would've made if everybody knew this could've been specifically engineered to infect humans.

It's whatever made up stories Jews want to believe in; it just isn't reality.

You're the gift that keeps on giving. How stupid are you when you don't address what I actually say and raise straw men al the time? I'm speaking in your naive language after all.

Ancestral home means nothing because it's a religious claim. As is the claim to be descendant from original Israelites, which, with 10% intermarriage, means current Jews are less than 1,000th a descendant. It's ludicrous because some asshat with twirly hair decided that if your mother was a Jew, so are you. And we are to believe fairy tales as a reason to allow war crimes. This is why all religious people are dumb; they try to elevate stories to facts.

I can see why you thought that was a reply to you but your post simply reminded me of my own big worry that the next avian flu pandemic seems to be right around the corner.

I haven't followed it closely recently. I do recall there was an original Lancet study that said it couldn't be engineered. That turned out to be false but was widely reported in the media which had many people dismiss the lab leak theory as unlikely (myself included, I thought 1% chance). Then the Lancet study turned out to be wrong and the lab leak became more possible. I still gave it lower odds because transmission at a wet market would be more likely than a lab leak, which would at least have some controls against transmission. I also thought we would never really find out because it's an intelligence issue and this information wouldn't be shared.

What new evidence was revealed that this is current?

Good. That's what matters. Individuals murdered. Not killed; murdered. Slaughtered in house to house violence deliberately on their ancestral homeland. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not their ancestral homeland. That's an idiotic religious claim that anybody that isn't a Jew doesn't recognise.

And it would be great if you'd recognise that Israel does exactly the same but then 30 times worse except you're always making excuses why Palestinians deserve it because apparently you think they are all Hamas.

Do you have sympathy for a criminal when the victim hurts him? Most people don't. Because that's what you're asking.

It's not dehumanizing at all; it's consistent application of ethical principles: I don't side with the wrong side especially if they have zero self reflection with respect to their own actions.

I can sympathize with the persons that were attacked on 7 Oct. because on a individual level they are innocent. But Israel as a political entity doesn't get my sympathy. There wouldn't be any resistance if there wasn't injustice. So it's a conscious choice by Israeli leadership to put their own civilians in harm's way in a conflict they have every ability to resolve, if there was a will. But we know there isn't because Israeli leadership is currently made up of criminals.

Waiting for the next avian flu with all the cows infected in the USA. We can rename this thread to "avian flu" so it stays relevant.

Not on the ballot paper. Personally, I found it bad enough beheading a chicken. I do not believe either of us would even behead Putin or Trump. — unenlightened

There's the blank vote, the no vote, the manual write in of another candidate as well. Take your pick if you can't handle the revolution.

What about triage situations and organ shortages? If you have ten people who need an organ and only one organ, who gets it? Who lives and who dies? Do you save Mickey Mantle or a kid? — RogueAI

Nothing like triage either. Triage is merely concerned with who has the highest chance of survival.

As is usually the case, in for instance an election, will you vote for the Dispicables or the Incompetents? — unenlightened

I vote revolution. Off with their heads.

I think this problem is morally irrelevant. This is a game, where the game master has constrained your moral agency to a binary choice of bad outcomes. The lack of moral agency makes any choice morally acceptable.

Fallacious reasoning again. In this case an argument from ignorance. You're assuming other conflicts were fought correctly and we know the majority were not.

Maybe read some Illan Pappé to put all the Israeli crimes and intent of its Zionist leadership into historic perspective.

Oh for fucks sake. It's disproportionate, targets civilians etc. You know, all of the things I've consistently said from the beginning.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/mitt-romney-retiring-senate-trump-mcconnell/675306/

I thought this was interesting.

It is as a reply to atrocities by Israel. "but Hamas does bad things too" is a fallacy to argue for the permissibility of Israeli crimes, which you - and others - do all the time.

Is this a psychology forum or a philosophy one? — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, I could've said tu quoque is a fallacy if that makes you happier.

What do you make of your reflex to deflect every criticism of Israel?

Starvation is slow. At this time it probably is 2 per 10,000 per day.

There were also rumors going around of the IDF raping. These were shown to be false. Also rumors of the IDF harvesting organs from palestinians. When much of the world hates you they'll throw any charge at you. It doesn't matter whether it's true; only that it sticks in the mind of others. If you charge someone or some place with enough crimes of such a gruesome nature, truth doesn't really matter anymore. The association is already there. — BitconnectCarlos

This is such a bonkers reply. That Israel is starving Palestinians in Gaza Isn't a rumour. Trying to equate that fact with rumours nobody even mentioned here is absolutely ridiculous.

I keep hoping for interesting viewpoints and comments from you but I'm disappointed as well. Also, institutionalised racism isn't a plot.

Oohhh... An attempt at ridicule because the facts speak for themselves. Maybe read Israeli newspapers.

Speaking of which:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2024-05-22/ty-article/.premium/this-is-what-israels-limited-operation-in-rafah-looks-like/0000018f-a063-d0e8-a79f-ac7b1e6f0000

"limited" to what they always do: destroy everything.

Which means exactly nothing. A person lies 60% of the time but when he spoke to you he spoke the truth. OMG!

Maybe learn how statistics work instead of expressing shock.

I think the judge and jury were partial, the crime was made up, the conviction was bought and sold, and it was all a classic show trial serving the ruling regime and their acolytes. — NOS4A2

Proof?

What irregularities with choosing jury members have been established?
The judge doesn't establish guilt, even if he were partial (and they all are in the US because it's a political position), what did he do specifically that tanked Trump's defence?
The crime is defined in the law, how is it made up? If his actions met the definition, it's a crime.
Who bought who for what for what money?

You've got nothing except that you're apparently a sore loser like Trump.

Hamas isn't asking for reform; it's asking for an end to Jewish self-rule. — BitconnectCarlos

This is patently false. Hamas has signalled being open for negotiations along the 1967 borders since 2017.

You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics." — BitconnectCarlos

No, oppressors don't get sympathy.

Oh fun, let's pretend it's inevitable for two people to bash each other's head in. The reductio of that argument is that genocide is ok. So, yes, it's wrong. And I don't care that they don't care but I (e.g. my country) shouldn't be picking a side as a result.

The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk. — BitconnectCarlos

That's a bit of a chicken and egg story and the Palestinians can say the same. They can point to Begin in 37 saying they'll remove inhabitants to build Israel and point to Herut and Likud and a straight line from his Zionist statements to today.

Given that, if you say Israel is a viable negotiation partner then obviously the other side is as well. Especially given the fact Israeli set out to do exactly what the Zionists said they'd do through oppression and Apartheid for decades but in contrast Palestinian resistance has been largely ineffectual.

So you are afraid where Israel holds all the power because Israel is ruled by irrational fear. In other words, Zionists are acting like a bunch of pussies and pretending to be a victim.

approximately the same in Israel.

When Gallup last asked Israelis the same question in 2017, 30% believed it would be possible, while the majority (57%) said it would not.

So, really what's your point? Two people are fighting and they both don't want to stop? So they should continue? That seems the wrong answer.

You point the finger at me but I can tell you like muslims more than jews. — BitconnectCarlos

Another misplaced comment. I'm critical about Israel and the Zionists setting the agenda there because of the power difference and continuous 75 years of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israel, whereas Palestinian war crimes are sporadic and reactionary (suicide bombings followed oppression not the other way around). How you conflate that with what I think about Jews is entirely on you.

I actually like you when you're not talking about this subject.

I know you hate Palestinians because you're conditioned by the idiots you surround yourself with but that was a really dumb reply.

You cannot base a culture on the notion that one is entitled to use whatever means necessary to rectify a historical injustice. — BitconnectCarlos

This describes Israeli culture much better and you don't even realise it. Funny as fuck really.