dimreepr

That's just broken my irony meter, unless I'm mistaken, you've just accused scientists of being square... 😆

I think you have mistaken astrology with astronomy, not the first time you've gotten confused in this thread.

So it's not applicable to good or bad/evil.

That's like saying, hay-fever is due to the number of people wantonly breathing in pollen.

Was the A-bomb beneficial? It did end one war (with much suffering), but inspired another (with much suffering). An axiom is always true, so not really applicable here... No, I'm suggesting enough fruit was shared to ensure next year's harvest.

Show me a story that's not relevant to the real world. Perhaps the "good" was in that there was not enough fruit for all and no means to assure equitable distribution; do you know what comes next???

I've never been hungry enough to eat from a bin, but I have been thirsty enough to drink from a horse-trough; so I know that if ever I am hungry enough, bin food will deserve a Michelin star.

My interpretation is, knowledge it self led to the banishment of Adam and Eve from paradise (as in the sermon on the mount), it's a variation of "ignorance is bliss" that's not to say knowledge in and of itself is bad. It's where we place it's importance in our daily lives, a sparrow, for instance, uses it's knowledge to catch enough to eat for today, it doesn't worry if there will be enough to eat tomorrow; even if he knows he didn't eat yesterday. We know there is no paradise and tomorrow may bring disaster, because one of our yesterday's did, and with that knowledge we tend to forget about today and so miss, all those little slices of paradise.

If we take politics from the equation, isn't that the point of rehabilitation?

How does one determine repentance from self interest?

You've framed the problem very well. "I think everyone is always responsible for their actions." the sane ones at least; for want of a better word, some people are weaker than other's. The only legitimate answer is already in place, with varying degree's of success. A police force that treat's everyone as innocent, when doing their job; presenting the suspect to the court's as sympathetically as possible. A judiciary that leaves their bias at the door, and actively seeks fairness in the face of political pressure. A prison service, that treats the inmate as a victim, even when they're being difficult; and actively seeks to rehabilitate. The Nordic country's come closest; unfortunately most of the rest of the world's woefully short of the ideal.

Just a few of the many flavours of ignorance. 😉

Indeed, like me, he was never trained in the art of persuasion and not lucky enough to have a natural bent. Or, he was stumped by the question; but inteligent enough to ask for extra data. I didn't say "is a religion", but, "if we take your words seriously then"; it could be...

Sorry joigus, I'm feeling fuzzy again; the thing about Spock is, he was half human; if we don't question ourselves, how will we know if we're content with that knowledge? Knowledge comes in many flavours. Perhaps: 4. Philosophy is something we all do, but some are better at expressing their findings.

True knowledge sounds awfully religious...

It's a ying and yang sort of thing, in my mind. There is no good or bad, wrong or right, black or white, male or female. It's perfectly possible that a bad attitude can lead to a good outcome (and vice versa), for instance, can we be sure that Hitler didn't lead us to a slightly better world.

I guess that depends on what, we sincerely believe...

It's so much easier to be fearful than reasonable, consequently it's so much easier to teach. Imagine how much better a good education in reason could be? Almost all humans don't want to kill, but those that do often find a way despite your fearful attempts to protect. Imagine if we teach the likes of D Chauvin, to be reasonable rather than fearful; it won't work for everyone, because some bullies have no concept of the line before they go to far, but almost all of us suffer when we do. The take a way here is education. The thing about a holiday/vacation is that it differs from everyday life, imagine how good that must feel, when you're not stopped, on an almost daily basis, by an authority that's not pointing a gun in your face?

And you know that beforehand? (If you see a guy with a set of golf club's, he's often going to play a game of golf.). Do you really not see how damaging that aproach is? Or how easily it can backfire and actually endanger you and yours? If the only way to counter my argument, is to strawman it; I can only imagine the premise is sound.

Please don't just gainsay everything I say, but at least you're consistent, I've never said that nor even vaguely implied it. I said/implied, what I think is basis of justice, "innocent until proven guilty", so unless your proposing to populate the police with a version of Judge Dredd, their JOB is to present the suspect to the court's, with an actual judge. sigh 🙄, I continue to suggest: 1. you don't know they're violent criminal's before you talk to them. 2. they try that approach before they shoot or other wise try to kill them. 3. they discharge they're duties in a fair non biased way. 4. all of the above can be taught without additional funds, or a resident Shifu.

You have not, nice post +1. Are you suggesting the police give them a personal escort?

Why are you so fixated, with the idea that you can control people with force? When it's so much easier, and less dangerous (to everyone), with persuasion? Instead of attacking what I didn't say, please try addressing what I did say; and maybe answer a queation or two, I've asked a few... So you reply to an accusation of hyperbole, with hyperbole. You seem to get most of it, given what you've agreed to in this thread, please help me understand why do you find it so difficult to let go of the illusion of control (being a thing)? History is choc-o-block full of example's. You can't control what people believe with violence and chains, but you can persuade them to believe something else... 😉

If I were the chief of police I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with how many innocent people are being victimized by my police officer's. I would seek to change their attitude towards these innocent people and allow the court's to judge their guilt; the appropriate people doing the appropriate job. Why is it incompetent to assume innocence first? I'm not suggesting a passive approach to every police encounter; If a cop sees a mugger/rapist/murderer committing a crime, or they're being attacked, they should act appropriately and use whatever force is reasonable to arrest them.

All of which are created by the system, and a strong aggresive police force only exacerbates the situation; less aggresion does not equal weakness.

In the context of the thread, the risk is equivalent; it's the aproach to the risk that varied.