Aardvark

There are always a few who escape the pressure, but peer pressure is remarkably powerful, scarily so. Great idea, but i'm not sure what the practicalities would be. Perhaps a series of short films promoting role models, smart adults who came up from bad/difficult backgrounds, facing the same pressures and choices as a lot of children, to go on to do cool things like be fighter pilots and volcanologists. How to make professions like quantity surveying and medicine cool? I have pupils who actually boast to me about how 'thick' they are, it makes me furious. I don't know how much of it is because of sporting and entertainment role models who are stupid and uncivilised but i'd bet it's a major factor. In addition there seems to be a 'tall poppy syndrome' in the UK. If one person does particularly well this is seen as grounds for resentment rather than admiration. Someone who does well is seen as 'getting above themselves', they 'think they're better than everyone else' and so on. Whereas there is no stigma to failing. All this results in children not believing that they are clever or can do well and those who do try being viewed in a negative light. The general waste of human potential and chronic underachievement i see every day is very angering.

It was the stars and stripes on the moon, not the golden arches of McDonalds. Seeing the rivalry between the USA and the USSR as purely a matter of ideology is ridiculously narrow. The nation state is the natural unit of of organisation for humans. Patriotism and Nationalism are what drive world events.

Doubtful' date=' esp as there won't be enough vaccines for every person. Stockpiling flu vaccines equals socialism! What paranoid fantasy are you living in?

You misunderstand. It's not a case of children using the notion of 'acting white' as an excuse not to work, it's a case of black children being subject to abuse if they work hard and are successful, being taunted that they are 'acting white'.

What a way to go! Seriously, if everyone had 3 foot long tongues then the world would be a much happier place.

If you want scientific information about nutrition then this is a good link. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/index.html It's for the Linus Pauling institute, he won a Nobel prize for his work on vitamin C and the institute is set up to continue his research into the health benefits of different nutrients.

No, you are mistaken. No species have 'radiated' to fill the niches left by the extinct megafauna. (Unless you count the 'radiation' of swarms of humans). Introducing species to reoccupy niches would potentially have the effect of making the ecosytem more complex (reversing ecological simplication) and more robust. Species evolue in tandem. When one species is removed it effects others. Restoring a similiar species would potentially have a postive impact.

As an Aardvark it seems perfectly obvious that using the animal world as a basis of observation and learning would be of great benefit to the human species. Most animals have a lot more sense than most humans in my biased and partial opinion.

Why do you say that the Sunnis have usually been the good guys? They are the minority group which have historically held power in Iraq through brutality and repression. It would be more accurate if you rephrased that as 'some rogue elements amoungst the Shiites are accused of commiting excesses'. You might also mention the Sunni insurrgent tactic of bombing Shiite mosques and assainating Shiite preachers. And you think they are 'good guys'? It's called democracy. The Shiite population is greater than the Sunni population so the Shiite candidates got more votes. Simple. As far as you know? Is that an open acknowledgement of ignorance? If you check the facts you will see that Sunni Muslims have a long history of not being at all easy to get along with. There are no grounds for thinking that they any more peaceable than Shiites. Syria is a Sunni country not Shiite. You have argued that Sunnis are generally 'good guys' whilst giving no proof or reason to back that assertion. You have argued that Iraq having a Shiite dominated government is somehow a 'joke' despite that being the result of democracy (which i tentatively presume you are in favour of). You have argued that Syria is a Shiite dominate country where Sunnis are mistreated, despite the fact that it is a Sunni nation with only a tiny Shiite minority of no influence. If you are going to make statements and criticisms please at least ensure they are not completely contrary to the facts.

I'm not asking for a magic precise moment where a foetus becomes a child, that would obviously be silly. I'm wondering if you accept that there is any point during a pregnany that you would consider a foetus to have developed sufficently to be considered part of humanity and therefore it becomes your business to intervene on behalf of its welfare. Or alternatively, do you think that it is none of anyone elses business accept the mothers until the actual birth itself? Understood. With slightly disturbing mental imagery. Yes, the causing of harm to another individual, even iof that harm is administered in a delayed fashion.

Yes, i can understad your concerns, it is important that the authorities act in a measured way and that a difficult situation is not allowed to be an excuse for overreaction. We, the general public, need to be able to trust that the people acting to protect us will always behave in a professional manner. That is a legitimate concern. In this case it is my opinion that the police were acting in that manner, although, as you pointed out we have the investigation and inquest to follow to clarify the circumstances. I am sure that when you have had guns pointed at you by security forces it does bring the importance of the point home about those forces acting with apropriate restraint. It is a difficult and fine balance that has to be made.

When you join the police and volunteer for anti terrorist duties i will be happy to congratulate you. Up until that point i shall regard you as an immature braggart. Fortunately i doubt you are ever going to be in a position of sufficent responsibility to have any influence whatsoever on these decisions.

My approach may seem cavalier because from my reading of the situation sufficent facts are available to reach clear conclusions about what happened. However i do accept that it is possible that new facts may come to light. If that happens i again state that i will retract and apologise if my initial judgement proves wrong. You are correct, the precise facts will need to be carefully gathered and checked. I have at no point wished to defame the dead man, i obviously regret his shooting, it is a very sad matter. The way i see it, it is possible to regret his death and still believe that the police acted correctly and bravely. Perhaps it is the sight of a bomb blast less than 50 yards from where i used to live on a bus route i used to take, or that the train my brother takes to work got blown up that has made me rather hard hearted in this matter. I don't think this is an abstract philosophical matter. The police have to defend the public against callous murderers who are not ammenible to any reason or compassion. That means using deadly force where there is no other alternative. The posts i have read calling for the police officers to be prosecuted and blathering about their being an open season on anyone who looks suspicious have struck me as deeply foolish and offensive. I do not mean to come across as uncaring and heartless but comments about prosecuting the police who are trying to protect us and ill informed talk about the police lacking guidelines and even comments that it would be better to let the suicide bombers blow up trains to demonstrate some sort of moral superiority to them digust me. This is a real situation with a lot of real people dead and even now there is a knee jerk response against the police. I hope some people will wake up and understand the reality of this situation and stop living in some sort of fantasy land of moral relativism.

From the available facts, the police were following a man who they had reason to believe may have been a suicide bomber. They followed him until he reached a Tube station. At which point they identified themselves as police officers and ordered him to halt. This man, instead of halting, ran into the Tube station toward a crowded Tube train. The police officers chased him, tackled him to the ground where he continued to struggle. At this point, in a crowded underground Tube station full of innocent bystanders trying to restrain a struggling suspected suicide bomber the police shot him in the head. From those public facts it is clear that the police acted correctly. If it turns out there is any new information which completely changes our understanding of what happened i will retract and apologise but that does not seem remotely likely because the facts are so clear and definitive in this instance. This is a clear situation where the police acted properly and very bravely in the course of protecting people from suicide bombers. They have my thanks and respect.

That is very true. There should not be a choice between unmanned and manned space exploration. If the human race is to have a future it needs to go into space. Spending uncountable amounts of money trying to cosset a rickety shuttle that is elderly and obsolete is not the way to do it. New means of travelling in space need to be devised that can do more than just get into orbit, fingers crossed, if everything goes ok. Reliable, reuseable craft which can travel beyond this planets gravity are the next step but it looks like it might not be NASA which is going to be taking it. It would be an irony, if after all this work and expense the USA were to cede its position in space and be overtaken by innovative private companies not operating under the dead hand of federal control and political and porkbarrelling constraints.

I think the distinction is that a foetus subjected to alcohol abuse will go on to suffer when it is born and for the rest of its life. Whereas a foetus that is aborted will not go on to suffer in later life. They are two different moral concerns. I'm not entirely sure i understand you here. It's not your business if a woman aborts a foetus but it is your business if a woman tortures a baby? Is that because you do not consider a foetus to be an individual in its own right and thus part of 'humanity'? And at what point do you consider a foetus does entail the rights and becomes your business. Only after birth or at some late stage of the pregnancy?

In your example the suspect apparently thought he was suspected of theft and so therefore did not comply with instructions. As i have repeatedly pointed out, police do not point guns at theft suspects so that misunderstanding would not arise. Yet again, another false assumsption you really should stop defending. Off duty police do not ever carry guns in England. Ever. Only specialist highly trained armed response officers ever carry guns and only when on duty. The problem is not one of police having guns. The problem is dealing with a suicide bombing campaign. In this instance it is clear that the police acted correctly. Wrong again. Firstly the police do operate under guidelines written by the ACPO. Secondly, they do not kill anyone 'on the spot' for suspiscion. Shooting is done only as a last resort where innocent lives are judged to be at risk. If you bothered to actually check the facts before making your unsubstantiated statements you would know that their are guidelines in place. You have made an argument in which you have jumped to unsubstantiated and incorrect assumptions. You have made near hysterical statements bewailing behaviour and situations that don't exist. You have made incorrect statements characterising my opinions and thoughts. You have not bothered to acquiant yourself with the facts of the situation. If you feel my pointing out of these gross and multiple deficencies on your part is somehow insulting then i suggest that you stop being so over sensitive.

They just don't care about the opinions of the rest of the world. Everyone else is a decadent infidel, whilst they are the followers of the true faith. Allahu Akbar.

You don't seem to understand, in England if a policeman suspects you of theft he will not point a gun at you. Again, it's really simple. Police don't point guns at normal criminal suspects. If they are pointing a gun at you they suspect you are carrying a deadly weapon. I was pointing out the difference in police methods as you clearly have no idea how English police operate and seem to be under the impression that they behave like American police, comments about off duty police carrying guns and armed police arresting people for theft. You lecture about English police procedure but clearly have no understanding about how English police actually operate. If you'd bothered to actually check the facts you'd find that English also operate under constraints. English police can only shoot someone if they have good reason to believe that is the only way to prevent loss of innocent life. That should be simple enough for you to understand. Wrong, police are not simply put out on the streets and told to shoot at will. Wrong. Why don't you actually read what i have written? The police officer will shoot to kill as a last resort where it is judged the only way to prevent loss of innocent life. Wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong. Right. They already have guidelines. They only use deadly force as a last resort where it is judged to only way to save innocent lives. How hard is that for you to understand? Except that isn't what i think, or what i have stated or what i have implied. And it is inconceivable that aerial patrols of penguins will hunt down and apprehend all suicide bombers. It's a good thing that no one on this thread has been calling for that isn't it? There are guidelines. Perhaps you should have aquainted yourself with that information before your rant?

The dispassionate observer can look at the belief systems and see which one has any evidence and which one doesn't. Arguing that there is no final proof is a diversion. It has not been claimed that there is 'final proof', rather it is stated that there is a ggod deal of evidence, going back to the legal analogy, the forensic evidence is mounting and reasonal doubt is being eroded. When you have to make a choice between two belief systems the one with logic, reasoning and physical evidence should be given more respect than one which has none of those items.

In your example the suspect believed he was suspected of theft. The question is very easy to asnwer, if a gun is pointing at you then you are suspected of having a deadly weapon on your person. That is how the hell you know what you are suspected of. Simple. Normal criminals do not get guns pointed at them. I 'Find out why they're not complying'? The only way to do that would be to wait and see if they explode. Again, to clarify for you. In England if a police officer points a gun at you it is already a last resort as that officer has good reason to think that you are carrying a deadly weapon. If you aren't, then all you have to do is stop. The only reason to run would be if you really were carrying a deadly weapon. Try and understand that this isn't the USA we are talking about. Guns are not routinely used by police, suspects of normal crimes do not have guns pointed at them. When dealing with suicide bombers the only way to stop them is to kill them. That means that police officers have to take decisions based on how a suspect is behaving and if a challenged suspect, instead of surrendering, runs into a crowded Tube station then that suspect has to be shot.