My question is whether a decision based on a moral position can really be considered moral when the consequences on such a large scale are unknowable. — Brett

I don't think a decision based on a moral position can really be considered moral when it forces those morals upon people who disagree with it.

Apparently the Iranians have admitted to shooting the airliner down. I must say that surprises me. Their air defenses must either be old or its operators incompetent. User error is the reason stated.

It now seems that it was the air defence system that mis-identified the flight as a hostile, which does seem plausible. — Wayfarer

I don't think that's plausible at all. Modern anti-air systems have all sorts of mechanics in place to avoid that from happening. For example, civilian aircraft broadcast their position and ID continuously. They have Identification Friend-or-Foe (IFF) systems. Furthermore, they fly at speeds and altitudes that make them easy to identify.
Additionally, these systems require well-trained crews to operate. It is not like one gets behind the wheel and starts shooting.
The scenario of accidentally shooting down an airliner with modern anti-air equipment is very unlikely.

What is more likely? All the representatives of government, the military and all that advises them are complete morons who want to destroy the USA.

Or...

Perhaps we don't have all the information and probably aren't as smart as we think we are?

I'm not so sure. People have been burning American flags in the street. A common enemy usually unites rather than divides.

It puts the Ayatollah in a tough sport. Fight back and be demolished. Or do nothing and lose your credibility. — NOS4A2

If such a loss of credibility would take place, what would it amount to?

It is rather strange, since an isolated act of 'decapitation' accomplishes very little in a military sense. The person who was assassinated has likely already been replaced, and here's to hoping he's not worse than his predecessor. Remember what happened when the United States kicked out the Shah?

So what could it accomplish?

Perhaps it is meant to show support for Israel or Saudi Arabia. They're sweating buckets as the US leaves all the areas they occupied in chaos and Iran fills up the power vacuum.

Perhaps it was a diversion from something else?

Perhaps it was simply murder out of spite, considering Soleimani probably orchestrated a large part of the disaster the US faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Buddy, I don't know who you're think you're fooling here. Yourself maybe?

Have you ever wondered why you desire for all this doomsday rhetoric to be true?

Not that I'd know. But I'm sure answering that question would teach you a thing or two about yourself.

It is a very interesting question.

Firstly, the actor (the one doing the convincing) should ask himself what his true intention is in convincing the subject (the one being convinced). Many people will try to convince others, not because they believe it is best for the subjects, but because they are trying to mend a personal insecurity. For example, I may try to convince people that the Earth is flat, not because I believe it is in their best interest to believe that, but because the more people I manage to convince of a flat Earth, the more I feel legitimized in my own belief. In this case the actor is merely using the subject as a means to a selfish end.

If the actor does not have the subject's best interests at heart, his actions are unjust.

Secondly, the actor needs to be very certain that he knows what is best for the subject. And this is clearly very tricky. If the actor is successfully convincing a subject, he is exercising power over that subject. With this power comes great responsibility, since changing a subject's view of reality can come with real consequences.

If the actor does not act in accordance with his subject's best interests, his actions are unjust.

Thirdly, the actor has to ask himself whether he is indeed as knowledgeable as he thinks, and the subject indeed as ignorant. For example, lets say an actor tries to convince a subject that aliens exist. The actor may believe aliens exist, but he is ultimately ignorant of whether they really do. Similarly, the subject may believe aliens don't exist, but he is just as ignorant. If the actor successfully convinces the subject that aliens exist, ignorance has merely been exchanged for more ignorance. The actor simply had nothing to teach the subject from the start.

If the actor is ignorant of his own ignorance, his actions are unjust.

Lastly, on the topic of manipulation I gather what you are suggesting is to lie in order to convince someone. Spreading ignorance can never be just. You may have brought someone to the realm of true opinion, but in a dangerous way that impedes his chances of reaching understanding. To illustrate my point: The subject may believe that the city of New York does not exist. The actor has been to New York, and can tell the subject the way in order to reach New York (knowledge). If the actor convinces the subject that New York exists (true opinion), but has to lie about the way to get there, he is spreading false understanding, and the subject will inevitably get lost trying to find it.

These are my thoughts. I'm curious to hear yours.

In the period 1890-2014 the sea levels observed in the Netherlands rose linearly with 1.9mm/year, amounting to a whopping 23cm over the course of more than a century; roughly similar to global sea level rise which amounted to 22cm over the same period.

Source: https://www.clo.nl/en/indicators/en0229-sea-level-dutch-coast-and-worldwide

I'm not saying the climate doesn't change. The climate is always changing. I'm saying people should stop announcing the end of times.

Some Wikipedia pages. Very good.

I'm sure Crockford is a very dislikable person, but that doesn't make her wrong.

No scientific studies have been done on her, no.

I guess we have arrived at this game again. An exercise in futility as I suspected.

Take the example of the Canadian zoologist who was fired from her job for coming to the conclusion that polar bear populations have been steadily on the rise, contradicting the predictions made about polar bears going extinct as polar ice melts.

When the idea is that people should be protected from facts, to avoid having their worldview shattered or their feelings hurt, I consider that infantilization. Similarly, I find it infantile for people to be offended by normal words.

Many scientists have voiced concerns over the way political correctness is affecting science, especially coupled with the system of peer review which, in its current form, is horribly flawed. I could link articles, but given your disposition I suspect that would be an exercise in futility. With a Google-search you'll be able to find them yourself.

Clearly, I'm referring to a broader context.

The idea that something that is factually correct should be (self-)censored because it is not "politically correct", coupled with the idea that words are scary and dangerous, to me points towards an infantilization of the public discourse. I find the trend absolutely pathetic.

No, they are not. Building space is scarce in the Netherlands, especially around the big cities, and projects like IJburg were suggested solutions for that problem. From the Iamsterdam website:

"IJburg is a collection of artificial islands east of the city currently being developed to help deal with Amsterdam’s housing shortage. Projected to be a city of 18,000 residences and 45,000 citizens, it is already home to over 10,000 pioneers. Welcome to the windy and watery city."

https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/living/about-living-in-amsterdam/neighbourhoods/ijburg

Planning for it started back in the '60s.

The other article states:

"By 2020 the neighborhood is expected to house over 100 residents across 46 households, all experimenting with sustainable solutions to the unique challenges of on-water living."

A whopping 0.000005% of the Dutch population.

What you and your news sources are doing is twisting reality to fit your narrative.

Are you going to keep throwing nonsense my way hoping some of it will stick? You're fooling no one but yourself.

And to prove my point, here's a site that shares pictures of "woonboten", as they are called in Dutch.

https://pixotale.com/story/7596751/

You don't speak Dutch, but pay attention to the dates below the photographs.

Is anyone here arguing that the climate doesn't change?

That just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Those kinds of homes have been around for decades and a remnant of times when rivers like the Rhine would occasionally overflow. They have absolutely nothing to do with sea level rise.

People will apparently use anything as long as it suits their narrative.

Haha. A friend of mine lives in one of those, and I can assure they have nothing to do with sea level rise. That's probably the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

I was talking about sea level rise.

I haven't gone door to door to ask every citizens whether sea level rise keeps them awake at night, if that's what you're asking.

If you have children, read this to them tonight at bedtime. — ZzzoneiroCosm

They do enjoy fairy tales, but not the left-wing pseudo-intellectual kind.

'It was beneficial in morphological terms during the mid-Holocene, but from Roman times, it has been a threat to the coastal zone evolution and human habitation."

Bloody Romans and their carbon emissions!

Again, no one in the Netherlands takes this seriously. It plays no part in political discourse. If the sea level had been significantly rising, we'd be the first to notice.

Take a guess why that is.

Go bark commands at someone else. Or better yet, google "map Netherlands below sea level" and you should understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

A child should not be put on public display like this, nor should she be ridiculed and personally attacked. But apparently, this is our public discourse now.

Well, I live in the Netherlands, so in a sense I am the canary in the mineshaft, since sea level rise should have put half the country underwater. But so far, nothing.

And what law says that children are not rational agents? — tim wood

Greta does start by saying "This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school." and she sure is right about that.

I suppose you think Trump (and his motley band of all-grown-ups) the paragon of rationality. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Ah yes, lets play the "supposing" game. That will certainly help the discussion.

What precisely do you find irrational in Greta's plea? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Blaming the world for "stealing her childhood", for one.

Issues of climate change are "ideological" issues? — tim wood

I'd say when we let children do the talking for us, we have definitely left the realm of rational thought.

Debating ideology really brings out the worst in some people.

If they were very religious ending their life while in a coma would not be an option either.

What would be stopping them from ending their life (or having it ended by doctors) after they regained consciousness?

What if they wish to continue living despite the pain? Examples of people living with pain are many, so this should be considered.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, consider that this person has never had the chance to say farewell to their loved ones. If I had to trade a day of suffering to be given that chance, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

If a fair chance exists of regaining full consciousness, and the patient has never expressed any desire for euthanasia, I don't see how it would be morally acceptable to make such a decision for them.

What is the motivation for not waiting to see if they regain consciousness and let them make the choice themselves?

Will Franken sums up my thoughts eloquently.

"Do what you will" as a starting point is untenable, since there's a psychological and philosophical process that needs to take place before one can truly understand what it is the self "wills".

So, in my view, it is not so much the point of departure as it is the final station.

"Everybody who disagrees with me must be stupid."

If it's the fact of man-made global warming, please do it elsewhere. For this thread I take it as a given that it is chiefly man's activities and their increased CO2 emissions which have caused the problem. — Tim3003

I don't know exactly how you would specify "the problem". If you're referring to extremes in climate, those have been around long before man walked the Earth. Ice ages, periods of extreme drought and rain, periods of sea level rise etc. The Earth doesn't need mankind to produce such fluctuations at all. Currently the climate we're living in can hardly be considered extreme compared to situations in the past.

So I'll repeat my statement: climate change is a reality of life on Earth.