Peterkin

If that happened in a neighbourhood pub on any Saturday night between two half-crocked navvies, the landlord would show them both the door, the other drinkers would have a chuckle, and nobody would ever comment on it again. It was a dumb joke in bad taste at a non-combatant, and a yob's reaction to another yob dissing his woman. The other yob would consider that girly slap, rather than he 'punched the shit out of me'. But they were wearing expensive suits in front of national broadcast cameras, so it the scandal of the century... ... until somebody famous does something even dumber. and they will

From there: All I did was answer the questions as they were put and explain my reasoning and POV for that opinion; not trying to convince or educate anyone and certainly nowhere near invested enough to be called 'desperate'. I stated my position. I never expected to change yours.

Yukon, NWT, northern Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador. (Of course, every place in Canada is growing warmer, way faster than anyone's prepared for, so zones are pretty much a thing of the past.) Depends how long you're there, what you're wearing and whether you're lucky enough to have seven or eight Huskies hunkered around you. Eeeewwh, they put a little kid in the row of soft porn advertising at the bottom of this screen!

I'm always up for that, given an abiding interest in SF, both literary and cinematic. There is a whole separate language - I guess, more accurately, dialects - of symbology in fictional representations. It's made up partly of traditional emblems, partly of linguistic analogues (puns or homophones), partly of real-world association, partly of legend and folklore.

Thaqnks. I'll try to keep my inexpert fingers out of the machinery.

Thank you. This is all new to me; I've never done anything but copy and paste.

Do you leave the question mark?

On which continent? In which climate zone? I've slept outside in summer in Ontario lots of times. If you're near water, you get bitten by mosquitoes, so a tent is useful but a net is enough. Nocturnal birds are not interested in great big lumpy things like a comatose human: they're hunting mice and voles and little things that scurry. In the winter months, you freeze to death. In October, I've been so miserable with cold and damp and a pair of chipmunks having a fight overhead that I decided to walk at night and sleep in the daytime. I wouldn't choose a wooden surface, if I had a choice of sand or grass, but a groundsheet is a good idea against ants. If you're tired enough, you can fall asleep on anything.

Thank you all! I have been clueless all this time.

Thanks! So, it's still okay to superimpose it ^^ per link function into the text of a post? Just don't want to fall afoul by accident.

Well, I kind of puzzled out what it does, but how do I know whether I'm using one?

What is a URL shortener?

And if you were asleep on the ground, a bat wouldn't even be aware of you. Even if you fell asleep on the ground in South America, vampire bats would be the very least of the things you should worry about. https://www.realworldholidays.co.uk/blog/2016/06/27/dangerous-animals-south-america/ On the whole, I'd advise caution, re sleeping outdoors.

It's my list; "maybe" has been my steadfast answer throughout. It would remain my answer, even if I stepped back to third person POV, due to my previous acquaintance with investigative procedure and police personnel. We present our position; you present yours. There is no prize for winning. There is no ultimate necessity (or, indeed, possibility) for a consensus. This is where I do see an error: presenting those two acts as an either/or choice for you to make. They're not. The question isn't whether you would kill a thousand people rather than torture one. Somebody else has decided on the killing; an agent has been dispatched to place the bomb: one wrong has already been done. If the people are killed, somebody else - Anonymous - kills them, not you. But it is you, personally, voluntarily and purposefully, who inflict extreme pain on one human being, one flesh-and-blood - presumed guilty - boy or girl. You're not asked to choose between the killing and the torture, as if one cancelled the other; you're not asked to push the red button to detonate the bomb and kill those unseen people, or push the green button to cause agony to one unknown person while saving a thousand others. Although that's what such on-paper exercises seem like, in the real world, where we have to live out our ethics, it doesn't work this way.You are often forced to choose one course of action over another available course of action on your assessment of its probability of success.

Not really. But I do find some of these enduring icons of fiction interesting. Toxic substances are cyan-green. Red eyes, or red light, or haze means satanic or underworldly activity. White flowing robes stand for the attainment of some kind of heaven or beatific state. A man or humanoid figure that takes slow, heavy steps intends mindless destruction. There is a series of associations behind such images that comes from a shared cultural sensibility.

The Simpsons are a particularly poor example of coulour-realism. How many people have you seen with chartreuse skin?

It may just be a simple, superficial association with toxicity. https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/05/02/scheeles-green-the-color-of-fake-foliage-and-death/ After all, cartoons and comic strips have a limited, unsophisticated palette, as well as a limited, unsophisticated range of conceptualization. They need to make a visual association instantly, without explanation or references.

I enjoy the Nature of Things series with David Suzuki. It's a popular program; introductory, rather than advanced science, but entertaining and an excellent way to broaden one's horizons. I just finished watching this one: The Musical Animal https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/ - qrowe, if that avatar is an actual companion, it might be of special significance to you. While I didn't (this time) learn very much that's new to me, I'm always gratified to see good research in animal behaviour.

It cannot possibly be healthy; it must be directed by a controlling entity or principle that does not allow independent judgment. Such a one-tracked mind will produce slaves, worshippers or copies of itself. Besides, ends never justify anything. Ends are nearly always an unforeseen byproduct of means aimed at quite different ends. I'm not sure you could find more than ten ordinary people or two biologists who agree on what the ends should be - what the traits we breed for should be, what a better human should be.

OK Always, or just in this instance?

I see the others, how the logic follows. I don't see how SCOTUS-approved systemic torture by an accredited government agency has to be accepted on the same principle as considering what I might do in a desperate situation.

The pros are in a previous post.

I seem to be the only one who presented a list for criticism. I didn't pretend it would be objective, any more than the decision itself could be disinterested; I didn't pretend that I had fewer unknown factors to start with than I would have in real life. Indeed, I was basing my list on a possible situation, rather than a scripted formula. I counted two ifs and no buts. But math isn't my strong suit.

Oh, the one you asked for? I see. Reputable? Doctor Who is way more influential than Mr. Spock! The reference was a joke. And that's the last time.

And this has to do with evolution.... what, exactly? If the link is insufficient, you may have to watch some Doctor Who episodes. I recommend Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel, Army of Ghosts/Doomsday and Nightmare in Silver . If you're not a Doctor Who fan, it won't make any sense otherwise.