No on both counts.

S2 is better than S1.

I appreciate this comment.

particularly women with some sort of past trauma that gives them an instinctual fear response

Surely the answer to traumatised women is to give them accommodations and special treatment, not to punish anyone who sets off that trauma response because of perceptions about that person’s race or gender.

forcing politicians to vote along party lines

They are not forced to vote along party lines. However, they don’t get to stay in the party unless they vote with it. They become Independent.

Some issues, usually moral issues, are “conscience” votes and there is no party line for those.

What part of “no matter who does it” did you not understand.

I’m embarassed for you.

Killing civilians doesn’t avenge anything, no matter who does it.

That’s an interesting theory but there are many churches where women are supposed to put on a hat especially for church.

Probably it has more to do with this rather ridiculous passage from Corinthians:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. Source 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16

@CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world

This is the problem with the trolley problem.

If it were replaced with, say, being told to shoot one group or another by a sadistic guard, the possibility of refusing to choose would be more obvious in terms of what it means morally.

The trolley is an inanimate object. It isn’t making choices.

Political parties are more like the sadistic guard. They are making choices.

deleted by creator

Californians don’t live in Death Valley.

The countries with the hottest temperatures in inhabited areas are places like Kuwait.

Witty.

You may be right. It may have been an innocent attempt to turn the discussion away from this landmark decision and back onto the more well trampled ground of US politics.

I like hypotheticals myself, but not when they are used to mislead.

Chiquita was the entity calling the shots and the death squads were killing and intimidating anyone who went against their commercial interests, including politicians.

For that reason, the hypothetical above reads like an attempt to pretend Chiquita was somehow a passive participant.

I do see what you mean. I think when a dork engages in repeated personal attacks they cross the line for me regardless of their intent.

It’s a philosophical question akin to Baudrillard’s “simulate a robbery” idea.

Speechless that two people have come in here to defend United Fruit Company/Chiquita for its well known use of death squads.

Remind me not to post about Nestlé.

Israel have already said that they are not interested in the agreement.

She might be a TOFI.

To determine that, I will need two pieces of information:

• do you stand to profit from the killing or intimidation of Palestinians?

• are you one of the US Government’s main sources of money and weapons?

Of course you did, or I wouldn’t have commented on it.

Here is a wikipedia page that explains what a tankie is.

This article makes it clearer.