beecee

On the highlighted part, my answer would be so that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done. I still reject the notion that we can never know a person's guilt. We had an horrific case that I raised in the justice/punishment thread, of a paedophile that was out on parole for previous offences, abducting a little girl, raping and torturing her in a toilet cubicle, then stabbing one of her rescuers when discovered. https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/alleged-dance-hall-bathroom-sex-attacker-released-early-after-previous-assault/news-story/5ef5423868b66fb7939c29c1485cfda8 "Major questions are being asked as the man arrested over an alleged sexual assault of a young girl in a dance studio bathroom was on parole". https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/friends-of-koragahs-good-samaritan-say-hes-been-left-devastated-by-attack/news-story/a2db1459eb0198a3fc4371227af6706d "It has been said that we use the term “hero” too liberally in Australia — but you’d be hard-pushed to find someone more deserving of the plaudit than Nick Gilio. The southern Sydney dad was just spending time with his daughter when, moments later, stabbed while saving a seven-year-old girl from a horrifying alleged sex attack in a dance studio bathroom on Thursday last week". ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yep, exactly as I said, the criminal, paedophile, terrorist, has no absolute forbidden minimum. Is that so? 51%? Can you give me any reference determining that figure? I would logically say that "beyond any reasonable doubt" means, that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial, and that it is clear and convincing evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt Legal systems have tended to avoid quantifying the reasonable doubt standard (for example as "over 90% probability")[2] although legal scholars from a variety of analytical perspectives have argued in favor of quantification of the criminal standard of proof. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+beyond+reasoanble+doubt+51%%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=is+beyond+reasoanble+doubt+51%%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i160.16856j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent. https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article/5/2/159/927739 quantification of the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard Abstract There are many reasons for objecting to quantifying the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of criminal law as a percentage probability. They are divided into ethical and policy reasons, on the one hand, and reasons arising from the nature of logical probabilities, on the other. It is argued that these reasons are substantial and suggest that the criminal standard of proof should not be given a precise number. But those reasons do not rule out a minimal imprecise number. ‘Well above 80%’ is suggested as a standard, implying that any attempt by a prosecutor or jury to take the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard to be 80% or less should be ruled out as a matter of law.

Totally agree about the rights of alleged criminals etc. Under normal circumstances. And of course generally speaking the majority being right as absolute is a furphy, as your example attests to. But I would say that German society in that era were ignorant of what Hitler was doing, except of course, the isolated good he did do in its economic recovery after the great depression and autobahns. Plus brainwashing with regards to Jewish people through movie advertisments etc, did not detail ( I think) the objective of extermination. A better example imo of the majority being wrong, was the election of Trump. No I havn't got any polling figures on what the majority may think in the current examples, but I am still confident that the sympathies would lie with the innocent potential victims. My Mrs, as a practising Christian, still has doubts I did the right thing. 😁 Don't get too comfy, I still disagree on many points, but I certainly hope other would be philsopher types, takes heed of your approach. 😉 I'm also 77 years old, 78 in July so while believing we are never too old to learn, I certainly can be a stubborn old bastard. (1) The terrorist of course. (2) I probably will have regrets that I didn't use all means open to me to extract the info, but of course it is the terrorist responsible for the outcome. Of course that is a possible outcome, but at least we have tried all avenues open to help save the innocents. Not sure if I raised it with you earlier, but on page 1 the question was asked, what is torture? Sometimes simply locking a criminal up can be seen as torture. We have a problem in Australia re deaths in custody, nearly all concerning indigenous people. The criminal, paedohpile, or terrorist has no absolute forbidden minimum. Why should we when we are 100% sure of his guilt, or he has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, offer him the benefits of the reasonable ethical morality of a normal democratic western society, particularly when many innocent lives are at stake.

She sings like a horse? 😉 Nana of course is capapble of singing fluently in many different languages, and is actually up there as the biggest selling female singer ever, and she didn't have to get her gear off to achieve that like your Madonna's and Mariah Cary's etc. 😊 Even in Mandarin..... A Greek song about the capital, Athena......

I was of the opinion that this was the stumbling block. Such observational data are supposedly only evident at much higher energies then what we can achieve in the LHC. I've heard it said about string theory and its derivatives. So how could that be achieved, without the much higher energies that are needed? What size are we talking about? How would the cancelled SSC have faired in that regard?

A bouncy little Spanish number by the Greek Angel:

When you say a full quantum gravity theory, you mean one that can be observationally validated, correct? This seems to be the big stumbling block, observing at those quantum/Planck levels.

Sure, I understand that, re ethics and pragmatism, but I reject the premise that in the situations being discussed, and probably other situations, that doing everything that is humanly possible, before consideration of torture, is not the morally correct decision. At least when innocent lives are at stake. Yep, I also fully understand that all of science is born of natural philsophy...but many areas that were once the sole domain of metaphysics and philosophy, are now also the domain of the science of cosmology. With all due respect, I believe you know that answer. It concerns itself with the rights of innocent people to be able to go about there normal lives, without threats from paedophiles, terrorists, and criminals, irrespective of circumstances. The question was asked earlier, and I don't believe I answered it, if it was my own flesh and blood, say a Brother, or a Father in the position of the paedophile or terrorist, my position would be the same. Truthfully, I really don't know. Perhaps if it was my Mrs or Son within the area where the nuclear bomb was, or were the actual vicitm of the kidnapper, I may say yes. Personally, I have a phobia with regards to the sight of open wounds, blood and guts etc. As a previous regular blood donor of 76 donations, I have never ever watched them actually go about taking the stuff, instead concentrating on the pretty nurses walking by or a travel brochure. Either way if all else had been tried, before any torture, and success was achieved, I don't believe I would feel ashamed or guilty. No, I could not do it, nor would I ever consider doing it as a job. While I see the above scenario as totally unreal, yeah, sure, I would be pissed off in the extreme, and would probably do whatever it took to get out of that situation. But quickly, a reminder...we are talking about the 100% positive guilt of a person and beyond any reasonable doubt. Agreed, mostly. I could give a few personal examples, but they would be mostly off topic. What the heck!!! When we moved into the are we now live, my Son was around 3 or 4 years old. He quickly made friends with another little boy the same age two houses down the street. After a time, my Son would come inside after playing, upset and crying. The wife and I would ask him what was wrong. He said Andrew had hit him. The wife by the way is very religious, (and obviously tolerent putting up with me) she would tell him not to worry and words to the effect of truning the other cheek. This went on for a few weeks and four or five times, he would come inside crying that Andrew had hit him. Finally one day when the Mrs wasn't home, it happened again. I grabbed my Son and told him, if he came inside crying again, I would whack him and that when Andrew ever hit him again, to hit him back, as hard as he could. The inevitable happened and Andrew again one arvo, hit my Son while I was actually in the garden. My Son did what I told him and whacked him back, hard. It was Andrew's turn to run inside crying. It never happened again and Andrew and my Son, both now in theeir 40's are still the best of mates, were the best man at each other's weddings, and his parents and ourselves are also very socially connected. BTW, when they were kids and the hitting was going on, Andrew was being egged on by his two older brothers! Did I do the right thing? Or should I have aligned with the Mrs concept of turning the other cheek? Ironically, you have just posted a post addressed to me, where you have so far failed to be pretentious and condescending. I appreciate that. Thanks for that, and I understand. In reality, I do and have read most of the philsophical threads. My commnets in such threads may be minimal, but I am generally listening. I'm a fairly open sort of person, and really try hard to understand another's position...sometimes that is fruitful, other times, I see it as an unworkable philsophy, (as in the justice/punishment thread) I also try and be as realistic as possible. My education is actually limited, when compared to most here...I left school at 15.5 years old after achieving what we called the Intermediate certificate, did an apprentiship in Fitting/maching/welding. I have been mostly blessed with good luck, although I believe in many cases, we make our own good luck, and moments of complete disaster. I hope I have rose above those moments. Perhaps I could have gone much further with education and knowledge, if I wasn't so attracted towards the good life and having fun. While having no qualifications in science, I am truely attracted and endowed with following as much science as I can and the scientific methodology. (and of course philosophy, despite my less then positive critique of that discipline) Any links you send will be read and digested. And finally, I hope you don't mind, but I just gave you an up vote on your very considered and open post. I'm thinking of starting a thread on the "soft or social sciences" such as sociology, psychology and philosophy. I would say off topic here. Not so much as a critique on my part, but to gauge thoughts by others and knowledge.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Torture: First published Tue Feb 7, 2006; substantive revision Fri May 5, 2017 It is divide into headings, the fourth heading being..... 4. The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture extracts from case studies...... 3.1 Case Study – The Beating In this case study torture of the car thief can be provided with a substantial moral justification, even if it does not convince everyone. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the car thief will probably save an innocent life; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save the life; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the baby is innocent; (5) the car thief is known not to be an innocent – his action is known to have caused the threat to the baby, and he is refusing to allow the baby’s life to be saved. 3.2 Case Study – The Terrorist and the Ticking Bomb In this case study there is also a substantial moral justification for torture, albeit one that many moral absolutists do not find compelling. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the terrorist will probably save thousands of innocent lives; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save those lives; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the thousands about to be murdered are innocent – the terrorist has no good, let alone decisive, justificatory moral reason for murdering them; (5) the terrorist is known to be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for planning, transporting, and arming the nuclear device and, if it explodes, he will be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for the murder of thousands. In addition to the above set of moral considerations, consider the following points. The terrorist is culpable on two counts. Firstly, the terrorist is forcing the police to choose between two evils, namely, torturing the terrorist or allowing thousands of lives to be lost. Were the terrorist to do what he ought to do, namely, disclose the location of the ticking bomb, the police could refrain from torturing him. This would be true of the terrorist, even if he were not actively participating in the bombing project. Secondly, the terrorist is in the process of completing his (jointly undertaken) action of murdering thousands of innocent people. He has already undertaken his individual actions of, say, transporting and arming the nuclear device; he has performed these individual actions (in the context of other individual actions performed by the other members of the terrorist cell) in order to realise the end (shared by the other members of the cell) of murdering thousands of Londoners. In refusing to disclose the location of the device the terrorist is preventing the police from preventing him from completing his (joint) action of murdering thousands of innocent people.[14] To this extent the terrorist is in a different situation from a bystander who happens to know where the bomb is planted but will not reveal its whereabouts, and in a different situation from someone who might have inadvertently put life at risk (Miller (2005); Hill (2007)). Some commentators on scenarios of this kind are reluctant to concede that the police are morally entitled – let alone morally obliged – to torture the offender. How do these commentators justify their position? In conclusion, the view that it is, all things considered, morally wrong to torture the terrorist in the scenario outlined faces very serious objections; and it is difficult to see how these objections can be met. It is plausible, therefore, that there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone. You know in what context the question/s were asked. The obvious answer of course is from society in general, you, me, dimmy, the bloke next door...people that before they became coppers and politicians, were just like us. yet some of them having experienced the worst life can throw at them, rose above that and become world recognised respected individuals...yes and others fail to rise above it and instead took the easy way out. I'm all for attempts at changing the environment to one that corrupts fewer people, and whatever else it takes to reduce corruption and crime, and just as I reiterated in the justice/punishment thread. That does not detract though from the facts that no matter what society does, there will always be those that will throw it back in your face and take advantage of it. That's why we have jails, and always will. I vote for our Labor government as our best to look after the environment and the electorate in general...I have solar panels, a water tank and actively do my best to reduce my carbon footprint...I now drive less then 12,000 kms a year and make use of public transport where ever possible...I regularly attend council meetings re new developments etc, and voice my opinions often...I also have attended NSW Police information services about crime prevention and neighbourhood watch programs we have...and myself and my wife actively participate in world vision and the sponsoring of two children, and have done that for 12 years. If there was anything more practically I could do I would.

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-scientists-stephen-hawking-black-hole.html Scientists may have solved Stephen Hawking's black hole paradox Researchers may have solved Professor Stephen Hawking's famous black hole paradox—a mystery that has puzzled scientists for almost half a century. According to two new studies, something called "quantum hair" is the answer to the problem. In the first paper, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, researchers demonstrated that black holes are more complex than originally thought and have gravitational fields that hold information about how they were formed. The researchers showed that matter collapsing into a black hole leaves a mark in its gravitational field—an imprint referred to as a "quantum hair." In a follow-up paper, published in a separate journal, Physics Letters B, Professor Xavier Calmet from the University of Sussex's School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences and Professor Stephen Hsu from Michigan State University said quantum hairs resolve Hawking's Black Hole Information Paradox. more at link................... the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269322001290?via%3Dihub Quantum hair and black hole information: Abstract It has been shown that the quantum state of the graviton field outside a black hole horizon carries information about the internal state of the hole. We explain how this allows unitary evaporation: the final radiation state is a complex superposition which depends linearly on the initial black hole state. Under time reversal, the radiation state evolves back to the original black hole quantum state. Formulations of the information paradox on a fixed semiclassical geometry describe only a small subset of the evaporation Hilbert space, and do not exclude overall unitarity.

Agreed, hence my comment earlier...

I see....so forum rhetorical rants. The status quo in this case meaning, exercising every means possible to free or save the innocent victims in the circumstances under discussion, before considering torture. That's OK, at least you have endeavoured to try all means possible, before considering torture. No need to get your knickers in a knot over that. Oh I know who it is, I think. he spat the dummy and took his cricket bat home a couple of days ago. ??? I'm saying while we have crooked cops, crooked politicians, and crooked normal folk, they are in the minority, but still need to be weeded out, and receive just punishment for their crimes. Ask yourself, where do policeman come from? Or where do politicians come from?

I have more respect for your gramps then your philsophy and your obvious nonchalance towards innocent victims. Admit that there will always be evil in this world and why we need jails. And really, you need to move away from that mirror. It is certainly apparently normal for would be pretentious philosophers. Being obtuse again? Or avoiding backing yourself into your familiar corner? The question was..... But if you don't want to answer, that's OK....I can probably gauge the truthful answer anyway, quite accurately. And my judging is only applicable to those that we can be 100% certain of guilt, or beyond reasonable doubt. No, my notion of right or wrong is that same notion that would be held by the majority in any westernised democratic society. eg: sympathy towards the victims of crime, terrorism and such, and the ethics and morality of at least attempting to free/help them from the criminals, terrorists and paedophiles, in what ever manner it entails. Your own personal ethics actually appear to disregard the status quo, just for the sake of it. I didn't create the controversy, you did. First let me thank you for confirming that what I said about you considering it was correct. The controversy is that you are unable to recognise the moral correctness of your decision, and prefer to indulge in self flaggelation. So, again, what are you practically doing about it? No sensitivity regarding what you said at all, simply recognising that fact, and of course your own sensitivities. While we are at it, its actually nice to see people interested enough, to give me those neg reps. While it certainly will not diminish my moral ethics one iota, it is nice to see, and hope it at least gives you some comfort with your own ranting and philosophical rhetoric. Bad eggs, scum? *shrug* Wow talk about silly pedant!! If it makes you happy, then please interchange both terms at your pleasure. And of course the bad egg copper, (oops sorry, the scum copper) should get the same treatment as any criminal does. Why would you even ask that? It changes nothing though re the fact, that the vast majority of police are good people, and are there to help us when required. Perhaps at this time, you should focus on the number of police that have been killed or maimed in the line of duty? Can you dig up some figures re the number of invasions and assaults by police, compared to the numbers of invasions and assaults as carried out by other low life and criminals? Please? 🙄 Or is this just another question avoidance exersise? Not familar with this "knock on"terminology, but in recent times our equivelent SWAT teams have arrested dozens of people over the whole of Sydney and NSW and in the process, have smashed a world wide drug smuggling catel. Not sure if any innocents were caught up in it, if any at all, but certaily those arrested all had some connection/s. It's called keeping our kids safe. You certainly appear to be trying to shove it down my throat. While it is all down here in black and white, let me sum up my position for you. I am 100% in favour of the UN edicts and also Australian laws against torture, as is. That doesn't mean though that it is possible on some rare occasions, where torture may need to be considered, after all else has failed....even as dimmy said, after a cup of tea and a biscuit approach. Peterkin has also admitted he would consider it, the difference being, while he would consider it, he still considers it to be wrong. I'm saying in those rare moments, its use after all else has been tried, is morally correct decision. What I'm against, is the philsophical mumbo jumbo in this thread by a couple, rather then answering practical questions, with practical morally correct solutions. While I understand how those thoughts may upset the philsophers amongst us, my own views on philosophy are similar to Krauss, DeGrasse-Tyson, and other reputable scientific figures. You have misinterpreted what I have been saying. We are all against torture, and it is not controversial in most western democratic countries. We still though need to recognise that on rare occasions its uses after all other mthods have been exhausted, maybe needed. A question asked on page one, was what is torture? Simply being locked up for a crime maybe seen as torture by some. We have a problem in Australia, specifically in the Northern Territory, where a large number of indigenous folk, have taken their own lives rather then be in jail.... They are not granted divine powers, whatever that means. They are granted reasonable powers to help keep our communities safe, and yes, on occasions they do err.

Not where I come from....Getting arrested wrongfully is rare. Yes you did. You said you would consider it. And now you are attempting to cover your tracks by being philsophically controversial. 🥱 The evidence is here over many pages. If you live in a society where evil is more prevalent then good, you need to do something practical about it, instead of rhetorical rants. But in reality I don't believe you do. And please, if you don't like insults and are offended and put off by them, then cease your childish condescending posts. No limitations of power necessary, simply jail the bad guys. They (the police) of couse do have ethical standards to uphold, which the majority do, but like everything, there will always be exceptions and bad eggs, just as we have moral exceptions for considering torture. Why make it harder for that which you would cry out to for protection tomorrow, if you had a violent home invasion or an assault on your person. If everyone was law abiding, we would not need them. Again I certainly question your unworkable philsophy.

Worth repeating. Yes, just the facts that in the eyes of a hero, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. You need to check out the good Judge I linked to for the validity of torture. OK, no problems, other then just unrealistic philsophical claptrap. Stop being so obtuse! They are totally relevant to the fact that it is indeed possible that 100% guilt can be known. Abide by the law and you are unlikley to be arrested. There can be of course unusual circumstances, as per the banning of torture. Yep, you would consider torture if all else had failed. But now are chosing to be philsophically controversial as many philsophers are apt to chose. But thankfully they rae in the minority. Of course! What else would you suggest? Police forces, all around the world, like the military are necessary evils.

Yes, It could certainly be the moral decision to make in the scenarios given or similar. I would condone its use as would any reasonable western democratic society would in those situations. No, it is the correct moral thing to do. The innocent lives in those situations, have the right to have every avenue exhausted to free or save them, torture being the last resort. And any reasonable western democratic society would condone its use. Don't be so bloody daft. Spock is speaking of a different set of circumstances, that being the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. The rest is the usual philsophical claptrap. There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione In humoring you though, let me answer the so called probing questions you put..."Logic requires that some evidence be offered in support of such a claim" We are talking about possible examples of scenarios that can happen, but I have given real life examples of 100% guilt in the justice/punishment thread. Is observational or other evidence logic? Of course it is! What is logic, is presuming guilt when it is beyond reasonable doubt. " Which “many”? Which “few” Obviously as dictated in the movie 🙄 “Outweigh” on whose scale? The scale of logic. "For what purpose? Saving the lives of the crew on the Enterprise, To whose benefit? You need to address that to Captain Kirk and the crew. Why is his or their benefit the proper benefit? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Or you could ask the heros that in war and even piece time, that have sacrificed there lives for family, friends and comrades. Spock does not address such questions; he simply asserts that logic clearly dictates his conclusion. But it doesn’t. What it does address though is the recent criticism by reputable scientists re philsophy and poor attempts at philsophy as this is. And of course, There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Yes, I reject that philsophy, the same as I reject yours. At best, the subject can be said to be debatable. My position is obvious and I believe would be the position of the vast majority. Yours is also obvious and the same as mine funnily enough, although you would beat up on yourself, for having the need to reject your "absolute" philsophy. No it is not a fairy tale and I have given real life examples to show that to be a fact. I speak outside the scripted world with such facts, and whatever circumstances you may be able to dig up, I can also dig up others that are the complete reverse. In other words, there is no "absolute" answer re torture as any reasonable society would support in rare circumstances. And with regards to your link, we have bad eggs in all areas of society, government, police, old farts, your punks, the employed, the unemployed, the religious, the atheists and poor would be philsophers. But we all know who to call on in times of need and trouble, when confronted by would be criminals, or kidnappers, or terrorists. The best we can do is weed the the bad eggs out to the best of our ability.

Whether you consider you have done the wrong thing or not, is neither here nor there. And I see it as rather pretentious to say the least. The moral rights of the victims and of the potential victims, over rides absolutely the gutter dwelling moral rights of the kidnapper, criminal, and terrorist. And I consider Judge Posner to be many amplitudes of credible over one or two pretend philosphers. The analogy for your information, was the needs of the many (or the innocents) outweigh that of the few or the one. And your hypocrisy is amazing after just "correcting" me of misrepresentation, and the you misrepresent me. Not sure how many times it needs to be said, but 100% guilt can certainly be determined by reasonable people, not burdened with an unworkable philsophy, and in any case guilt only needs to be determined beyond any reasonable doubt. You have admitted that you would act like a reasonable human being, and probably undertake whatever is needed, including torture. That is commendable and a morally correct decision as any normal western democratic society, and Judge Posner would determine. How you treat yourself, torture yourself, or come to terms with your unworkable philsophy, is your concern.

Not from where I sit. From here I see you as rather pretentious with a "holier then thou" persona. Snowflake where I come from is a term used (sometimes insultingly) for a gay person. I simply see you as a philsophical fanatic. You need to be more like your Gramps. Yes it is, and sometimes the crowd is wrong, but mostly right. A shame you cannot admit that. Again that may sound like a "smart" question to you...to me it sounds weird and dumb and is self explanatory to any reasonable, normal folk. ps: I'll even include your tea and biscuits approach. 😅 See previous reply. Question to you...Do you have any sympathy at all for the actual real victims, both in the thought experiments given, and the real life situations I gave in the justice/punishment thread? Any at all? I mean do they even fit into your justice equation? Just as you have admitted to abandoning, not because it is inconvenient, but because in those very rare situations when the chips are down, it is found to be morally incorrect and dispicable to adhere to. The needs of the many (and the innocents) outweigh the needs of the few...or the one. Spock:

To expand on swansont's answer, scientific theories grow in certainty, over time and as they continue matching observational and experimental evidence, and making correct predictions. The theory of evolution has gained so much indistputable evidence, it is now a fact.

Heard last night that the American astronaut on the ISS will be brought back by the Russian Soyuz space craft. Not that it would have/could have caused any problems, after all NASA has its own service craft to ferry astronauts and supplies now.

What a conversation between two adherents to a "feel good" unworkable idealistic philsophy sounds like......................... 😄🤭 Real airy fairy stuff and appropriatly summed up by There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione I'm an early riser, always around 0500hrs, now 0845hrs

I see some reality in the remarks from about 3 minutes to 6 minutes, and how he is drawn to the autocratic leaders in the world, like the Putins, the Kim Jung Un's, the Xi Jinping's. I just fail to see or understand how Americans cannot see through the fakery and incredible conceit of this meglomaniac, and how in hell he could ever get close to power again.

That may sound philosophically smart to you, but it sounds down right practically dumb to me, and your usual obtuseness path in avoiding the answers when those answers conflict with your pretentious life philsophy. We simply deal with the thankfully rare monsters to the best of our ability, and use any and all means that are appropriate at the time. eg: jail etc. Just to reaffirm, yes I can live with you using all means possible in the situations under debate, including torture, as you have openly admitted, but I do have sympathy that you would mentally beat yourself up and cause you so much anguish and discomfort, by doing the morally correct thing. This is due to your adhering to stubbornly maintaining that absolute factor for torture being absolute evil,, and being blinded to the fact that it is simply that rare morally acceptable exception to the rule of the general evil nature of torture. In that respect you have a tiny bit more intestinal fortitude then dimmy has, by admitting that you are in fact an emotional human, who will, when the chips are down, do the morally correct thing. Or as that old judge put it...... Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote: "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility. Nup old friend, justice is what I want, but I must admit being a regular human being, I have in the past sought out limited revenge. I also suspect that if you were more honest with yourself and the forum, and showed an inkling of intestinal fortitute like your other compatriot ideological philsopher has, you would consider torture yourself when all else has failed, and particularly if it involved a loved one of yours, like a Mother, Father, Wife, Son, Daughter. Then we may see the real dimmy emerge from this fanciful, feel good pretentious life philsophy you are so fanatically adhered to. Ahh, aint that beautiful!!!! 😆

Please stop misrepresenting me and others. I'm all for the UN ban on torture and our own country. But like many other,s I'm realistic enough, and morally attuned enough, to understand that at rare times, after all else has failed, it is an option, that can be used, with may I add, the blessing of any reasonable democratic western society. You admit you would do it, your only difference is that you would still recognise it as wrong. While that makes little sense to me, I can live with you brow beating yourself over making a morally correct defcision, that you determine to be wrong.

20 minute long video..... Amazing, terrifying, unbelievable!