Sayonara

Or obvious, depending on how you look at it. On a more general note, there's no evidence afaik of interbreeding between us and Neanderthal man, and no requirement for it in terms of the extinction event, so what's the point of needlessly multiplying entities?

Yeah, except that's wrong.

Depends how it dies, but there's usually going to be a lot of element-spreading involved.

That's not really true, unless you mean by individuals rather than societies.

You are the one who feels threatened. I am saying that if your beliefs are that strong in the first place, then someone saying something to you (oh noes) shouldn't really affect them. It's not like he has actually presented anything threatening, and he didn't beam "threatened vibes" into your head.

Also, I'd like to point out that "not torturing someone" does not actually require that you value their life per se, so let's drop the straw man.

If you feel your beliefs can be threatened merely by someone else stating theirs, then I'm not really sure that's anything to do with anyone else.

Accused != sentenced. Also, you are speaking from the perspective of a hostile occupying force. Nice one. No, it's being placed at the same level as all other life. You know, that most sacred and irreplacable of qualities we all share, the one you are purporting to value? If you inherently assign someone's life at a lower value than that of any other, you are no better than a terrorist.

Then we are at polar extremes, for I find it reprehensible. What I find to be out of place here is that you are the one (iirc) with the more religiously-founded moral structure. Firstly, this is simply not true. There is a difference between punishment and torture, and you know that. Secondly, you are assigning the label "guilty" under the presumption that someone your people have already labeled a "terrorist" is A Deeply Evil Person™. As long as you can stick enough labels on somebody, they obviously deserve whatever we can dish out, huh? In the case of Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf, you might not find it difficult to argue the toss here, so let's not forget that he is merely accused of bombings so far, and those accusations come from a hostile occupying force and a new regime that is anxious to sweep away all links to the old, including insurgents. It's a little premature to be talking of punishments, never mind the limits of interrogation an torture. You have already as much as admitted that you view this person as being inferior in terms of basic 'allowable' rights by pre-judging him without seeing evidence; which in your own society you would see as an abhorrent abuse. Thirdly, there will always be another way to get the required information, which was conveniently not mentioned in your scenario. I realise the following scenario is a flight of fancy, but go with me on this: Imagine old Dubya went a bit crazy and the USA became a threat to international stability. Canada organise an occupying force and invade the States, deposing Bush's government. It's highly likely that all those nut-job militia types would start blowing anything Canadian-looking (and, let's face it, anything else that looks like fun that hasn't caught fire yet) with their bizarre arsenals and home made pipe bombs. I wonder where you'd draw the lines on them being interrogated?

I suggest you write down a list of your ailments and take it (and yourself, obviously) to see your GP. Or at least have the decency to stop posting a new thread for each and every twinge.

He didn't say he'd disproven it; he said he was 100% sure. That makes it a matter of belief, and if you* want the right to your beliefs then I don't see why that right shouldn't be extended to the opposite camp. * 'you' in a loose sense.

The debate with you was never intended to. My o/p in this chain did, and still does. I really don't like this phrase, but it seems to fit: "That's your problem". I don't really think I did "give up" on anything, bearing in mind the meaning of the words I carefully chose, and the order I put them in.

You're evil.

Are you going to back up that "should" with some reasoning? No, we're trying to make him sound like a human being. He only becomes a victim when you start torturing him. Come on, it's not difficult to understand. Personally I see your legal ability to execute people based on circumstantial evidence to be something else that is ****ed up, rather than the all-covering moral precedence for justifying torture that you paint it as. There's that "should" again.

Breeding is cheaper and a lot easier.

If by 'ignore' you mean replied to, and by 'distort facts' you mean point out that it was fairly meaningless, then yes - guilty as charged. I was paid by the illuminati to undermine your groundbreaking work. I wouldn't count on it. As opposed to what, voting on it?

If the book is too much effort, watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact. That at least fills in some of the gaps.

Then you'd be wrong. It's not that pressure needs to be 'released' from your ears; it's about differentials.

Why would we want to clone [macroscopic] animals for food?

You aren't really winning me over here. Are you now saying this machine is 64% efficient? If so, it's not perpetual motion, is it?

See, the funny thing here is that you automatically place his life and/or suffering below that of other people. This is because you've been told he's a terrorist, and in the current cultural climate that conveniently relieves you of all moral accountability. That's not really a position from which you can actually make ethically sound decisions.

I think the culture in the USA can be quite confusing for people in this regard. Most of the dramas and stories that really influence people usually have strong "the good guys are super moral and nice" themes, but when something bad has to be done it's "okay", because they're the good guys. There are very few that actually force characters to live with the consequences, or face their own demons in a non-messianic fashion. That probably contributes to a false sense of cultural identity.

Dickaeopolis estiv tuflos!

It works for you because you are a weirdo. The problem is pressure-related. I can't remember the exact mechanism, but plugging the ears and drinking is sort of the inverse of yawning to pop your ears during a change of altitude; it has something to do with the Eustachian tubules iirc. Glider might have some notion what it's all about.

Oh right, it's "okay" to torture terrorists.