Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/20/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Depends on why they don't have food. Im in the high risk category for future homelessness, and if I were to become homeless, I've already decided I would rather steal food than go hungry. But that couldn't be seen as me getting justice. I'm homeless for the choices I've made, nobody else. But here's the thing, most people I know would agree with both of those statements, they would steal for food, as well as it would be their own fault. Most people I know, would also be unlikely to press charges against homeless people for stealing food from them, even if they were homeless through there own doing. This, to me, is the difference between justice and revenge. Revenge is just an eye for an eye (I'm thinking of Saudi), just a "f^^k you, see how you like it". Justice takes into account the mitigating circumstances and allows for compassion, forgiveness, understanding.
  2. 1 point
    So until the 70s there was a law in effect where stealing things of little value for immediate consumption (like food) were considered a lesser crime than theft. Personal plight (e.g. hunger) were considered mitigating circumstances in the eye of the law. It is relevant in this context to emphasize that the laws has degrees of application and discussing justice and its application probably does not reflect the situation very well. I.e. folks may have equal rights, but the application of law is very uneven, depending on a lot of circumstances. I.e. the discussion of Justice would necessarily need to involve the ideals but also the realities of its application.
  3. 1 point
    What you consider "sensible and useful abstract notions" must be specifically relatable to human references and experiences to be understood by humans. Unequivocally , you cannot know what is understandable by other species without references relatable to experiences you understand as a human being and have acquired through your human experience. Using your example, you wouldn't know other species understood sensible and abstract notions such as numbers without first observing behaviors, which you can identify and reference from your human experience as proof of their understanding. I agree; the way you define instinct behaviors in contrast with mentation process here is indeed poor. However, as I define, instinctive behaviors are those behaviors that a species engages without the appearance of a thought process; whereas, mentation behaviors are those behaviors a species engage that appear to involve a thought process. Essentially, it is a distinction between automatic and controlled behaviors. Rather than an abstraction, it's useful tools for assessing species that engage in thought processes and those that do not.
  4. 1 point
    If flying object will be identified as extraterrestrial flying object (made by organic extraterrestrial life form, or not organic), it will stop being UFO. It will be identified.
  5. 1 point
    That is something you are imposing on the discussion. It’s one possible category of unexplained behavior
  6. 1 point
    That's kind of the definition of UFO.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.