(V): Have you heard of Dr Keller?

I fail to feed google with that

(V): 'sell by' dates...

You describe how you get nicked, as I said: The British food system means to produce much too much and to have short expiration dates.

(V): lmao I like it

(V): 30 pc of all sold patatos in Great Britain end up as trash. The farmers and food producers throw away about one million tons of the bulb every year. In spite of a more and more massive fishing crisis, in between 40 and 60 pc of all fishes catched in european waters get moved off board, all dead. The value of the three most important dish fishes of the Brits thrown back to sea is about 80 million Euro. The 60 million Brits throw away 484 million yoghurts in their sealed package. The supermarket chains are real champions. Sainsbury = ca. 60'000 tons, Asda = ca. 75'000 tons of foodstuffs thrown away on landfills. The half of the fruits and vegetable grown for the supermarkets never reach the counter because of wrong size or not looking super fresh anymore.

For the food industry, the described above is market logic, the economical system means to produce much too much and to have short expiration dates. The whole system does not correspond to the real needs. What also shows this exemplarly is that food gets poisoned in refuse skips so that nobody can consume it anymore.

The law criminalises poor and destitutes if they take fresh food out of a dustbin.

The earth could nourish 12'000'000'000 humans yet 24'000 children die every day on starvation.

The daily mass murder serves the profit, every thrown away yoghurt is a optic manifestation of the capitalistic system gone trash, gals'n dudes.

Alone the food thrown away in Great Britain could nourish 113'000'000 humans.




Now, what ya say?

Übergeek 바둑이:"cause severe pain and suffering."  is subjective  and certainly less painful and causes less suffering than say having one's toes and fingers removed.  It's not meant to be pleasant.  It's meant to be used only as a last resort and NEVER to be used as general policy.  But it's one tool that should  be in the tool box should the need arise.

Meanwhile, who will be blamed when we have a terrorist captured who could provide intel on an attack that will certainly kill hundreds of lives and we offer tea and crumpets instead of waterboarding?  The terrorist act goes through, 700 are killed, their bodies ripped apart by bombs.  And the terrorist sips his tea and the US powers say, well, there was nothing we could do.  We knew he had information on a pending attack but we could only ask him nicely to tell us.  We did ask please.

And BTW, the "enemy" is already employing harsh techniques.  Um, they cut off parts of the body and mostly they kill whom they capture and drag their bodies through the streets.

I prefer to be waterboarded over decapatation.

Übergeek 바둑이:  I don't think it's complex at all.  I think the question is rather simple; it's the explanations and obfuscations that get complex.  That there is a life of some kind involved is beyond question.  The kind of life that "it" is, is human.  Therefore it's a human life.  This is a solid scientific fact.  So that question really has to do with the human life that is ended in an abortion. 

If you argue it's not a human life, and if you were correct, then there should be no debate.  If it's not a human life, kill it.   If it is, then it's not a complex question at all.  It's not right to take the life of a human being (and it is a human being from a scientific point of view) without just cause. 

In reponse to this comment:

> For all the hype, this fact seems to make the "torture" claim insignificant.
> Waterboarding cannot kill and was only used in extreme cases.

I have read the interesting posts. It occurred to me to go and find the definition of torture and see if waterboarding falls under that definition.

According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture torture is defined as:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

I think waterboarding does cause severe pain and suffering. The pain might not be physical, but it certainly is psychological. Since it was part of an interrogation procedure, it was used to obtain information. It was used to coerce information or confession from captives and it was done by intelligence agents acting on behalf of the government.

It was out of this definition that waterboarding became classified as a form of torture.

I think the litmus test would be as to alternative applications of the procedure by governments other than that of the US. Suppose that an American soldier or intelligence officer was captured by an enemy and subjected to waterboarding. Would it be acceptable then?

There is no doubt in my mind that waterboarding and similar techniques are used not only by the US, but by many countries around the world. By the legal definition under the UN CAT (see above) I think waterboarding is torture. If we say that it is OK for our side to use it, then we should not be surprised when our enemies start using it against us.

Czuch:

> The notion that a woman has a right to do with her own body as she wishes,
> i will not argue, and so too for a man..... but an unborn child is not a part of a
> womans own body, the womans body is simply the incubator for the unborn baby....

If women are mere incubators of babies, then women must be things. You should read your own statement. I can buy an incubator from a medical supplier. Should women be bought and sold? A woman is more than an incubator. It is what sustains the fetus' life. For approximately the fist two trimesters the fetus needs the woman to survive, and in the last trimester survival outside of a woman's body does require an incubator.

> how can a sperm, injected into a woman by a man, be then called part of the
> womans body???

The fate of sperm in a woman's body is well known. Most of the sperm are consumed by the immune system so in a sense they do become a part of a woman's body. The one (or more) spem that fertilize the egg enter the egg and become a zygote. The egg starts as part of a woman's ovary until ovulation releases it. Technically speaking, except for the DNA and a small fraction of proteins in the sperm, all of the baby's tissues come from the woman's body. Is the baby then part of a woman's body? It is certainly made from it.

I find that most abortions are probably unnecessary, but in some cases abortions are difficult choices.

A girl of 13 is pregnant. At the time of conception she might have been too old to realize the consequences of having sexual intercourse. Should she have a child or an abortion? There are people who adopt, but do we have the right to subject a child to the pain of childbirth?

A woman is pregnant and doctors determine that the child has a genetic condition that will predispose the child to a painful, debilitating disease throughout the child's life. Should the woman have an abortion and spare the child a lifetime of suffering? What is worse for the child, abortion or disease? Some genetic conditions can give children a chance for a full life, but some are painful and devastating.

Another woman is sick and gets pregnant. If she attempts to carry the pregnancy to term, she could die. Should she risk her life to give birth? Should she accept her fate and risk dying?

A woman was sexually assaulted and became pregnant against her will. Should she have a child she never asked for? Should she go through the risk and pain of childbirth even though she never asked for it?

I find that in many cases people tend to see abortion as the product of some woman not willing to take responsibility for her actions. Perhaps people see a middle-class woman who got pregnant carelessly and now does not want to face the responsibility of having a child. In reality most abortions are a lot more complex than that. In most cases women face difficult circumstances that nobody has the right to judge unless they are walking in their shoes.

Pro-life advocates sometimes paint abortion as the murder of children. People on the Pro-choice side are not advocating abortion as a whim or a game, but rather as matter of a fundamental right of a woman. I have not met any pro-choice people personally, but I doubt any of them thinks abortion is good. I never met a woman who said "Gee, I really want to have an abortion, it might be fun."

The issue is extremely complex. I think it will always be. However, I think that giving or denying women the right to an abortion will accomplish nothing if we fail to educate boys and girls from an early age on how to protect themselves and how to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Sexual education should be an essential means to prevent unwanted pregnancies. My only criticism of some (but not all) Pro-life advocates is that they oppose both abortion and sexual education in schools. They expect people to refrain from sex, and that seems unrealistic to me.

(V):  Even McCain thinks it's torture.  But he's wrong.   It's appropriate to use such a technique if the stakes are high enough.  As a matter of routine, or just to bring unpleasantness to a person, then yes you are right.  But in the right context, Keller is all wet (no pun intended.)  It's not torture.   It can be used as torture but it's also a useful interrogation tool.  And if your family's life were at stake, you'd use it too.  As for me, I'd go right to the tougher stuff like snipping off fingers or well placed electrodes if my family's safety is at stake.  If a terrorist means to do me harm or my loved ones harm, or if he/she has information that could save lives, I'll use whatever I can and the terrorist be damned.  But that's me.  The US military has very strict guidelines which is why waterboarding has only been used 3 times.  Three.  THREE.  And only in these rare cases was it employed as a last resort.  It's nonsense to be against something that ultimately saved many lives.  The people it was used against were cold blooded murderers.  I have no sympathy for them. 

Artful Dodger: Really, it cannot harm you.... Are you sure, I suggest you check

Have you heard of Dr Keller?

And as such there is no confirmation for the purposes of training it is not used.

(V):  Nope.  It simulates the drowning reflex.  You need to be accurate here.  It cannot harm you.  It only simulates drowning.   It's meant to be unpleasant.  It's NOT meant to be "nice."   But in now way can permanent harm come to the person.  And it's ONLY been used in very rare cases and only after all other methods have failed.   It's only used when there is sufficient reason to believe that lives are at stake and that information is necessary to save the lives of one's fellow soldier or US interests. 

And it's not been used since 2003.   One can only guess why it keeps being brought up considering the facts.

It beats beheading too.   And I notice this board (as well as world opinion) concentrates on the three waterboarding episodes and ignore the hundreds of beheadings.   I'm against beheadings but have no problem with waterboarding.  It can't kill anyone.  I only scares the crap out of ya (not to mention it also scares vital information out - which is the point).

Artful Dodger: Yes....

"...is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he is dying...."

You think that is nice??

If so, explain how.

(V):  That's not an explanation.  Please explain how waterboarding is torture.

And your "half drowing" is inaccurate. 

do you even know what waterboarding is?

Artful Dodger: Ok.. Get someone to half drown yourself repeatedly, and then report back to me how it feels.

(V): simply saying "half-downing" is not an explanation. Besides, you're wrong.

Give an explanation of waterboarding. Why is it torture. Explain it. Be exact.

Artful Dodger: I just did explain.

"half drowning"

And please... waterboarding was just one of the methods that Allied troops have been accused and taken to court over. So your other post is rather moot don't you think.

(V): "What!!! You consider repeatedly half drowning someone a nice thing??"

You're the one making the claim that it is torture. I'm asking you to explain why.

Only three terrorists were waterboarded and NONE since 2003. For all the hype, this fact seems to make the "torture" claim insignificant. Waterboarding cannot kill and was only used in extreme cases. On the other hand, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was responsible for the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

In case people are unaware, waterboarding lasts less than a minute. It simulates the feeling one has when they are drowning. Yeah, not a picnic. But in the three cases it was used, it yielded results.

OTOH, beheading lasts a bit longer. The person being beheaded is put before a camera, bound, and three armed men stand over him. He knows he is about to be killed. He's been beaten and tortured for day before this event. After a speech condemning the prisoner, one of the terrorist reveals a 12 inch knife. It is curved and looks like a miniature sword. The terrorist grabs the prisoner and pushes him to the ground. Taking the knife, he begins cutting away at the man's neck. The man begins to scream. Blood begins to squirt out of the man's neck as the terrorist continues to cut away at the man's flesh. The other two terrorists hold him down so he can't thrash about. He is now smearing a death scream. A puddle of blood moves upon the ground. The man is motionless now as the terrorist cuts through his neck and removes his head from his body. The terrorist holds up the bloody head to the camera.

Daniel Pearl died this way. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is eating three squares a day and enjoying the protection of international rights. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was responsible for the murder of many including Daniel Pearl. Daniel Pearl did nothing wrong. He was an innocent man murdered in a most brutal way.

And the left takes the side of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while never mentioning Daniel Pearl.

I'll bet Daniel Pearl would choose waterboarding over beheading if he was given the choice.

Czuch: I never said that.

Czuch: Saddam at one stage.. Taliban at one stage, and many others in the name of the cold war. They have all killed civilians.

Or is such info kept out the papers in the USA so you can eat your breakfasts without indigestion problems??

(V): What??? You consider sending a man to his death a nice thing????

If you do... please explain how!


What does being nice have to do with torture? According to your last comments, then anything that is not a nice thing is torture?

(V): how do you know they are conscious? To mutilate and torture an unborn child they have to be conscious


Really? how do you know they are not conscious?


So, if I take a terrorist and render him unconscious, then cut off his hand, that is not torture or mutilation??? Really?

(V): your gov agencies just support people that do in the name of democracy


Really??? Name the most recent civillian that the US government supported to be tortured????

Artful Dodger: What!!! You consider repeatedly half drowning someone a nice thing??

If you do.. explain how!

Czuch: No.. your gov agencies just support people that do in the name of democracy!!

As to unborn babies... how do you know they are conscious? To mutilate and torture an unborn child they have to be conscious, and much of the arguments are based on old ideas from Judaism that the sperm is the carrier of life.

Is that enough explanation?

(V): Some archaic old law based on misconceptions of how a baby is made???




explain the misconception of how a baby is made then? I mean, you can obviously accept that we are an evolving creature from the point of birth into adulthood and beyond, right? But you cannot accept that we are the same evolving creature from the point of our conception?

The notion that a woman has a right to do with her own body as she wishes, i will not argue, and so too for a man..... but an unborn child is not a part of a womans own body, the womans body is simply the incubator for the unborn baby....


how can a sperm, injected into a woman by a man, be then called part of the womans body???

If I pick up some diamonds from your table and swallow them, are those diamonds now part of my body, which I have the right to do with them as i please????

(V): how is waterboarding torture

(V): but torturing them rather screws up the higher ground that those interning the terrorists are claiming to have.


Thats not true... the higher ground that we claim to have is that we dont target and kill innocent civilians and we dont torture any civilians who are innocent!

You dont think it is torture to make a man walk to a chair and be tied down in it for the purpose of injecting him with something to cause his death?

Where is the nobility in that?

You dont think it is torture to mutilate an unborn baby, like making an omelet?

Where is the nobility in that?

Czuch: why are abortions no better then terrorists?? Some archaic old law based on misconceptions of how a baby is made???

As for terrorists, sure they ought to be caught and tried... but torturing them rather screws up the higher ground that those interning the terrorists are claiming to have. You see it's called terrorising a prisoner.

Where is the nobility in that?

gogul: No. It doesn't. That would be totally illegal, and anyone caught poisoning waste food would be subject to criminal prosecution.

Yes alot of food is wasted, this is due to food safety and that much food is imported out of season to the UK's own calender, but at the same time if you shop wisely you can use the sell by system to your advantage. It is possible to buy food at a fraction of the original selling price!! All then you need (if you are going to consume it that day) is a freezer. Especially handy with meat products

And there are some stores that offer to sell to charitable people of the 'soup kitchen' ilk at a very reduced cost rather then waste it.

I do admit some of the 'sell by' dates are stupid in regards to products that never go off (eg honey) ... but if you are friendly (like we are) with local stores, then they'll just bung it to you with your regular goods rather than it be wasted... free of charge!

gogul: Being poor is not the cause of famine...

Lets challenge something completely new. Like the so called food suppliers, who make everything worse on this Planet, just to be able to buy 100 cars at once. Nestle, a prominent company among these.

Let me remind you that in our part of the world food gets thrown away, enough to feed the world population 7 times. In Great Britain food gets even poisoned, so that poor people can't take it out of the trash. No, the Brits prefer to criminalise the poor than to offer solutions to the problems.

gogul: no i do not...

Czuch: You know enough to make tha difference between criminals and workers in the high society? www.amcham.ch/leadership

Tuesday: I saw video of waterboarding. Bush and Cheney are no better than the terrorists.


Terrorism is an act to purposely attack INNOCENT civilians....

Waterboarding these non civilian terrorist, you cant see as even remotely different?

We allow NON INNOCENT people here be killed for their crimes, legally put to death... but you dont like that we waterboard some one who has intentionally attacked innocent civilians?

We allow women the right to kill their unborn children, but you cant stand us allowing a terrorist to be waterboarded???


I saw a video of an abortion and anyone who has had one or who has supported the right to have them, are no better than the terrorists

Tuesday: I don't want to put in words what I feel for figures like these. But it is because of individuals like them and more I like to bath in hate, I too need to be alone at times. Hate or lots of alcohol, that keeps me alone and away from G.W.Bushs decade.

And never ever in my life I hear a official American trying to define what Turkey is.

To put it short: Mohammeds fight was the one against the Bizantine Empire. As it is Istambul today, Mohammed was successfull and the reformation of the Islam can be found about 100 years back in time. Anyone wants to challenge this thesis?

(V): Aha. It's not that we have nothing from and with the Muslim. For my blabla it would go to far to explain Castel del Monte to readers, but I do like it.

gogul: .. Interesting that many English laws (and as such all western law) derives from Islamic law... as entertained by John Makdisi in a 1999 law review.

(V): The Sharia is just another of these books that serve to scan and understand ugly minds.