dimreepr

That's the problem...

And it's very scary...

It's hard to see, how Putin has not painted himself into a corner...

Forgiving your brother's is a lesson, force can't teach...

Your more likely to get a voluntary confession from an innocent person than a criminal. So far from certain guilt, in fact there's a strong argument to say it's less than a 40% of torturing the guilty person. There could be any number of reason's for that, including contamination/mistakes and a reasonable excuse, all of which need to be explored in a court of law to determine guilt; and even then it will be less than 100% certain. You know what I meant, why are you being deliberately obtuse? Those who smelt it, surely dealt it. Assuming you're a freind, whatever you've done in the past, is not religious or delusional, it's self preservation; because one day it maybe your innocent arse on the line... It's not a badge of honour, it's a membership badge that I'm proud of...

Did he need too??? It's my heart that sets us apart...

Fairy muff...

You know I'm joking, right?

But, another nail in the coffin??? One day, 'the Putin' will die and all his promises, will be forgotten...

Indeed +1, forgiving your brother's is a lesson, force can't teach... I love this one... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/28/ukrainian-sailor-arrested-for-trying-to-sink-oligarchs-superyacht

OK, to show good faith I'll answer again (in the dim hope that you'll do the same); BTW, you not liking my answer, doesn't mean it's not an answer. No, I wouldn't refuse all attempts to extract information and yes I would draw the line at torture, because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers). How do you know the sandwhich and cup of tea has failed? (because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers).) How does one pretend to be philosophical? Now that I have answered you in good faith, it's your turn (he asks knowing the answer, does that make me insane?)

Maybe, they were two people that had the same idea; idea's are immortal, not people...

It must be very comforting too be absolutely certain, of what you believe... 😇🙏 This isn't a playground "I know you are, but what am I"; I'm not demanding anything, I'm asking a question that's fundamental to the topic. If you don't want to answer that's fine, discussion over, but this is a discussion on a science site, IOW you present your evidence and we question it; if you fail to present your evidence or a logically sound argument that's not fine, because we then get 20 + page's of dodgem's and gainsay. And with that and your inevitable failure to answer the question, yet again, I'm done... Feel free to have the last word (shame it won't be an answer).

Provided they acted the way you want???

How can we be honest in a conviction we've never experienced?

Nonsense to the first statement, as I have shown and explained to you already. The second statement is another grand dimmy strawman. We are not talking about any judicial system. We are speaking about a kidnapper who we know with absolute certainty, and beyond all reasonable doubt was compliant in kidnapping a child, and/or the capture of a terrorist that has hidden an explosive device somewhere. As much as your logical contortions amuse me, you really need to answer the question (honestly), it's fundamental to your position/argument. Again, from your link...

It's hard to see how Putin will win this game... If he wins the war, he looses credibility; it's like being put into palliative care, for a cold...

This from your link, I get the feeling you've only read the title.

I think all religions touch on the idea of karma, do bad thing's and you'll damage your soul and if you damage your soul you'll regret it, if not in this life then in the next; God doesn't have to be a good guy, he just has to punish the guilty. If you believe in karma (and I think it's real), it's much easier to forgive "the bad man" because I know he will suffer, even if I can't see it; that's my revenge...

Already comprehensively addressed, despite your pretentious objections. No, it hasn't!!! Time to put up or shut up, if it's already been comprehensively addressed, it shouldn't be difficult to actually answer the question. If the court's operated under the edict 'beyond all doubt' instead of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they wouldn't be able to convict anyone. Time to stop pretending you know better than the judiciary/everyone.

Now that it's no longer a game and Putin's gone all in, his mental state is irrelevant...

How do you know who the innocents are? How can you be 100% certain of guilt, without a trial (which has been wrong) if you don't directly witness the crime? The answer to which can't be "I've already told you or isn't it obvious?". If you can't be sure of the criminal, then the world isn't so black and white, and Hollywood isn't a philosophy... 😉 Give them a sandwhich and a cup of tea, rather than electrodes and waterboarding. It may seem counterintuitive to you, but then so much of science and reality is... Now do you understand the parrelels?

Putin might be a mad man, but his rings grow at the same rate...

Because the ONLY way you can be 100% certain of guilt is, if you witnessed the crime; otherwise it's a trial of uncertainty... And some people tell lies...

Even if you're a bacteria you can choose which direction...