And your solution is.... to let the trolley roll over them anyway while feeling morally superior. Unless you have some plan of removing the trolley before January, you are choosing to let it crush them anyway. Choosing to not vote or pull the lever is also a choice that you will have to live with and one that requires moral justification.

Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.

As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.

The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.

If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.

Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.

Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.

Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?

A bicon

Or, better yet, increase the number of justices to at least the number of circuits we have. I would say take that number and multiply it by three so that there are 3 from each that can form a small panel to deal with smaller issues and form a larger, randomly selected, 9-11 judge panel to deal with bigger issues. It would also dramatically limit the power any one justice holds. Mandate a strict code of ethics and disclosure and put in term limits.

But something must have triggered the big bang.

That's a separate claim you'd have to prove. We have no evidence of something triggering it, we don't even know that it would need to be triggered. All of our observations occur inside this universe, therefore we have no idea at all if cause-and-effect even applies to the universe as a whole. The short answer is: we don't know and have no reason to posit the need for something else.

What does it mean for something to be "beyond" everywhere or before time?

Why shouldn't they have been there? By the logic of the other poster, having the national guard with rifles lined up would have protected the protesters from an active shooter. Wouldn't everyone be so angry at the police if they didn't stop the active shooter with the national guardsmen?

Is there something special about being a sniper that makes you not a cop? That makes you not part of the same system, the same trainings, the same culture, the same lunch room, that leads regular officers and riot cops to brutalize protesters, especially those on the left? Is there some requirement that to be a sniper you have to be extra nice to leftist causes?

The fact is that absent some specific threat the department received, or some extra-special high value target/event (Superbowl, presidential address, etc) the use of snipers to "protect" the protesters is a farse. We should both know that if anything the snipers are there to "protect the university and its property" much more than the protesters because that's what the rest of the cops are there for.

They only get out on parole if the board (or whatever the UK's equivalent is) believes they have learned a lesson and are safe to reenter society. If not then they stay until the next board meeting. I have a hard time imagining they would get out after 20 years for murder without the board being pretty damn sure they are no longer a danger to society.

As gross and heinous as these crimes are, I will never favor life-without-parole or the death penalty for minors.

No, it'll also be the fault of idiots like you who think you get the privilege of voting for someone you really like instead of just getting to pick the least bad option. You have the chance to vote to keep trans people safe for another 4 years, to keep abortion legal on the federal level for the next four years, etc. You choosing not to do that in the desperate bid to feel like your hands are clean will directly result in harm to those around you. Your hands will be dirty either way.

They've got their own issues (at least the first few gens had an ink sponge that would become full and was not replaceable at all so you had to throw it out and buy a new one), they are definitely better than any HP inkjet, especially the "instant ink" ones. The best option, especially if you can avoid color prints, is a b&w Brother (or similar) laser printer. They are built like tanks.

I get your general point, but I'd like to say that theoretically you could have a socialist system where the state owns the means of production for certain industries and the workers would have control through the state as long as the state is an actual functioning democracy.

The problem, of course, is that states with that much power almost always devolve into authoritarianism because of the corrupting force of power.

All I'm trying to say is that, if done right, you could have actual worker control via the state as long as the state is actually listening to and, in some sense, subservient to the people.

This is no way defends the state capitalism we see in China and Russia since they are not even close to a functioning democracy.

It's the same "pick-me" behavior we see with Blaire White and Candace Owens. They either truly think they will be seen as one of the good ones, or they don't care and just want the power and money that comes with being the token.