With The World Environment Day Conference.....

"Jack May" enscribed:

I have not been following the story closely, but it depends on what is
called torture. If it is just overheating a room, keeping it very cold, or
preventing sufficient sleep, then that is not considered torture.

It was called torture when it was American soldiers who were prisoners. I remember Americans screaming about war crimes when it was American pilots held in Iraq's prison.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"pigo" enscribed:

I just saw a rassmussen poll that said that 20% of Americans think
that the treatment of prisoners is unfair. 36% thought it was too
lenient and 33% about right.
So it looks like the lefty morons are a small minority.

How many Germans thought Jews got what they deserved in 1935? Is morality subject to majority vote?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Jack May" enscribed:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
Dave Smith enscribed:

It's an old moral principle that the ends always justify any means.

Quoting rigid rules is childish. Life is never so simple as to rigidly
follow rules. That is why we have judges and juries along with leaders to
make the final decisions.

Adults must continually consider what is required and appropriate. People
are a lot smarter than simple rules and laws.

What is done is depends on the severity of needing the information. If a
terrorist is going detonate a nuclear weapon in LA, the means to find the
bomb are going to very extreme to save the lives of a large number of
people.

It's one of those irregular verbs.

I/we interrogate.
You pressure.
He/she/it/they torture.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki did have nuclear weapons detonated on top of them. What is your opinion of Japanese treatment of American POWs?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

pigo wrote:


I don't think anyone has a problem with interrogation. It's the
reports of
torture that rankles them.

I have not been following the story closely, but it depends on what
is called torture. If it is just overheating a room, keeping it
very cold, or preventing sufficient sleep, then that is not
considered torture.

I think torture is generally considered to be something that is
unbearable that the prisoner will say anything to stop it. Under
those conditions, what the prisoner says is totally useless and is
foolish to use.

I just saw a rassmussen poll that said that 20% of Americans think
that the treatment of prisoners is unfair. 36% thought it was too
lenient and 33% about right.
So it looks like the lefty morons are a small minority.

LOL Are these the same Americans who backed their president when he
invaded Iraq to rid Saddam of the WMDs that the government now admits
weren't there? Are these the same Americans who thought Saddam was behind
9/11? Having the backing of a significant percentage of ignorant and
misinformed people doesn't make it right.
I trust that you are aware that hundreds of those guys who were abducted,
taken half way around the world and mistreated for two years have been
released after it was determined they had nothing to do with al Queda.

Disgruntled Customer wrote:

"Jack May" enscribed:

I have not been following the story closely, but it depends on what is
called torture. If it is just overheating a room, keeping it very cold, or
preventing sufficient sleep, then that is not considered torture.

It was called torture when it was American soldiers who were prisoners. I remember Americans screaming about war crimes when it was American pilots held in Iraq's prison.


I recall the initial reports about Jessica Lynch fighting off her attackers, being captured and then beaten and sodomized, and then a special operation was launched to
rescue her from her captors. Then it turned out that Jessica's unit bumbled into an ambush, she was hurt in a truck accident, gun jammed, she never fired a shot. She was
taken to an Iraqi hospital where she got preferential treatment and was well cared for by Iraqi doctors. No hero. No rape. No Sodomy. No beatings.

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
But I do point out your continued statements of bigotry. As long you claim
merit is distributed among a pool of job seekers based on color, creed,
national origin, etc, you are a bigot. Live with it.

There is no mechanism in evolution to produce the results that you claim are
true. You are essentially espousing the equivalent of a "flat earth" theory
for biological science.

In evolution, when a type of animal splits into disconnected groups, like
being separated by a distance where there is no interaction between the two
groups, the two group evolve separately dependent upon the environment and
the characteristics that will best make the group survive and reproduce.

Over time the two groups evolve different characteristics and without
interaction there is no mechanism to prevent their characteristics from
diverging from each other.

The present "out of Africa" theory that presently dominates human evolution
theory has a migration of a part of the humans out of Africa up through
Asia and Europe and then over to the America and other places.

With the migration, the interactions between the groups obviously reduces to
almost nothing because of the great difficulty of travel. All the
different migrating and non-migrating groups then evolve differently
producing different characteristics because of the different environments
they live in and from just random mutations.

The net result is that it is essentially impossible for all major groups of
humanity to be the same. What you are calling bigotry is little more than
your gross ignorance of the fundamentals of biological science.

It is a touchy subject in our society because it is personal. Treating
fundamental science as wrong though and trying to kill discussion of our
knowledge with PC to maintain ignorance of reality is highly immoral and
intolerable.

"Jack May" enscribed:

With the migration, the interactions between the groups obviously reduces to
almost nothing because of the great difficulty of travel. All the
different migrating and non-migrating groups then evolve differently
producing different characteristics because of the different environments
they live in and from just random mutations.

And you don't present this revolutionary theory on sci.bio because you got tired of being laughed at?

The net result is that it is essentially impossible for all major groups of
humanity to be the same. What you are calling bigotry is little more than
your gross ignorance of the fundamentals of biological science.

The net result is that you have to ignore genetic taxonomic evidence that easily disproves your claim. You're also trying to slip by with the word "same". Nobody asserts everybody is the same, nor that different concentrations of various genes appear in different populations. What has been proved is the remarkable homogeneity. What does happen, thanks to humans' innate (enate?) exogamous tendencies, is that successful mutations quickly spread throughout the world.

It is a touchy subject in our society because it is personal. Treating
fundamental science as wrong though and trying to kill discussion of our
knowledge with PC to maintain ignorance of reality is highly immoral and
intolerable.

Human populations have not been as isolated as you pretend. Besides the historical fact and archaeological evidence of whole tribes migrating vast distances and continent spanning trade networks throughout the existence of our species, all you really need to spread genes around is a single fertile adult traveller.

In short, you're an ignorant jackass hoping to wow people with your pretense of knowledge. Parrot some more David Duke drivel.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

pigo wrote:
I just saw a rassmussen poll that said that 20% of Americans think
that the treatment of prisoners is unfair. 36% thought it was too
lenient and 33% about right.
So it looks like the lefty morons are a small minority.

Polls again!

Enough of the right people in Afghanistan thought the Taliban was the
right way to run things.

If you defend or dismiss the abuse of prisoners by American military
personnel (as has been well documented), then you have no _honor_.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

Your un-American attitudes indicate that you should consider moving to
one of the more dictatorial countries where you would be more
comfortable with their traditional restrictions on political freedom.
You clearly have no liking for America.



pigo wrote:
"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...

"pigo" enscribed:

You made allegations of treason against Clinton and Democrats. I
still haven't seen back up your words yet.


I said aid and comfort. And though "aid and comfort" is part of the
definition of treason it's not necessarily so that all aid and
comfort rise to the level of treason. And in my opinion, for a
senator to stand up in congress and compare Gitmo to several
genocidal campaigns is giving the current enemy aid and comfort by
encourageing them. Not to mention that it's an outright lie. Normally
I would just right it off as speach of a buffoon and sore loser
(which it is also). But in the light of things like what happened to
Trent Lott I think it only fair the same thing happen to him.


He hasn't done that. Recognizing that there are groups that can be
seperated by color or whatever doesn't mean that he is saying that
they are "inherently" inferior. They might be perfoming that way
for
any number of reasons.

Are you really so stupid you cannot realize what you just typed? Or
do you think I'm going to swallow that crap.


Are you too ignorant to know that saying whites are stupid is not the
same as saying that whites are _inherently_ stupid? That goes for
any race too. I just wanted to write _whites_ so that you wouldn't
have the opportunity to snip and selectively quote (again).


Recognizing that there are groups that can be
seperated by color

What exactly do you think racism is?


So the congressional black caucus is racist? NAACP?


I've seen your spew three times so far, and I've already detected a
pattern. You make wild, unsubstantiated allegations, and when
challenged on them, you run away. How Republican of you.


Some of your replies are just soooooooo ignorant, obvious trolls and
parroting of the stuart smalley line that it's just not worth
responding to.

In ba.transportation Frank F. Matthews wrote:

....

I'm not getting through, am I, Stan? I keep asking you whether
we should consider this a problem (and if so whether we should try to
do something about it), or just assume it will fix itself, or just
ignore it. And you keep describing (accurately or not) the symptoms
of what I believe is a problem (and one that has, and will continue to
have, serious consequences for the problem), and whose fault it is.



OK! I'll bite. It's the problem of the local community. Thus it is
the responsibility of the community leaders. If they complain that the
kids won't listen to them then perhaps they aren't the actual leaders of
the community.

Hey, how convenient! It's somebody else's problem to solve,
and you can just wash your hands of it.
(1) If you really believe what you said, what are you doing to
support those "community leaders" who agree with your position, e.g.,
Bill Cosby?
(2) In any case, if the "community leaders" are not making much
progress in solving the problem, is there anything the rest of the
country can or should be doing to help?