dreksob

That’s particularly ridiculous.

No, its something we learn in first responder training

Babies can drown in 2 inches of water, or people who are completely dependent on others for activities of daily living.

Or anybody who is unable to escape. Somebody who is unconscious, somebody who is trapped,

Suggesting the average person would drown in waist deep water is disingenuous

What's disingenuous is seeing me say

"Push somebody in the canal, they fall awkwardly and could easily die. Get trapped by a submerged branch, hit your head, get trapped by silt, break a leg etc."

And then completely ignoring it for a straw man.

Think of everyone you know; would any of them drown if you pushed them in 3 feet of water?|

If they fell awkwardly and hit their head? Easily

A person can drown in 2 inches of water, more or less.

Push somebody in the canal, they fall awkwardly and could easily die. Get trapped by a submerged branch, hit your head, get trapped by silt, break a leg etc.

This is what republicans mean by "protecting women"

Occasionally i hear the phrase “there is no morality outside of human society”. I believe, what is meant by it, is that you cannot say whether something is morally right or wrong in nature, if it isn’t part of human society.

More or less.

It depends on who says it,. but the general idea is that since morality is defined by humans for humans, we cant really apply morality outside of that.

For example, when a turtle eats a bird (here’s a video about it), you cannot say whether these deeds are “good” or “bad”. It’s part of nature, it’s part of the circle of life, … if these things didn’t happen, the bird couldn’t be alive in the first place.

Correct.

Now, i’ve had some interesting talks yesterday with a close friend about what “morality” really means. They very certainly assured me that morality is simply the construct and the set of rules that society uses to organize itself to make itself more successful. In other words, morality aids the fitness of the group, but not necessarily of the individual. Do you agree with this view?

No, this is a really bad "understanding" of morality. Morality is a system of code about behavior which involves evaluative judgments about actions and the people taking them, and specifically about if a behavior is "moral" or "immoral" with "moral" generally equating to "good" and "immoral" generally to "bad".

To make it simpler, morality is a collective judgement about if something is "good" or "bad" based generally about how a majority of a population can be expected to react.

And if so, would that entail that the beneficial effects to the group can overwrite the wellbeing of a single individual?

By your friends definition, sure.

Where do you draw the limits?

Very very much depends on the population.

Like if some republicans claim that some women cannot decide themselves who they are/should be in a relationship with … does that derive from that view of morality?

Yes, because by the republican judgement, women having a choice is bad.

When you are speaking about morality, you need to clearly define what group is making the judgement.

What do you respond to that?

Its pretty well known that republicans think women having a choice is bad.

I’m seriously wondering because all these discussions make my head spin and sometimes i wonder truly whether i even know anything at all… How can you find certainty in what’s morally acceptable and what is not?

You cant, Morality is subjective, more or less by definition. What is "good" or "bad" will always depend on who you ask.

Some groups like to make lofty claims about how morality is for the greater good, notice how those people never seem to decide that morality decides they should sacrifice for "the greater good," and how "the greater good" always seems to mean "what's good for this specific in-group"

She… she plead guilty.

So probably not guilty then

So… 1, 0.99, very high likelihood.

Trumps DOJ targeted her, and she pled guilty.

Both of those things tell me she is very likely not guilty.

This isn’t like an accused street criminal getting basically conned into pleading guilty because the cops planted evidence and got a false witness to make a false testimony.

This is the known to be corrupt FBI (under trump) going after somebody who looks different, for a bogeyman crime that we know they dont actually care about.

This is a person who would not be targeted by that kind of thing and can afford good lawyers.

The DOJ has been very specifically targeting exactly that kind of person. And Republicans dont care about lawyers because they dont care about the law.

She was the mayor.

ok?

So what are the chances she was actually an agent for the Chinese Government? Slightly better than 0? Actually 0?

you have to register as such with the US government.

You very clearly don't, you just have to be working for Russia and its fine.

Sorta.

If I genuinely cant win an argument because logic and science don't agree with my position, I should change my position.

If somebody simply insists something is true and refuses to engage with reality, I cant "win" an argument against them, but I also shouldn't change my position.

Not every time.

But most nights when I get into bed, I get into bed facing the outside, roll to face the middle, roll to face the outside, then settle in to try and sleep.

It settles the blankets in a way I like, and its sorta a ritual now

In short, yes.

Its not just lost its punch, its almost gone around to being a badge of honor at this point.

Yea, they only want kids who are under 15.

Are you trying to say the Holocaust didnt happen? Or are you trying to say that there was a genocide of some 6 million pagans that happened in the last 100 years that nobody knows about?