1. Flipping particle could explain missing antimatter

Comment #148405 by jaster on March 22, 2008 at 11:50 pm

It is going to be so very exciting when questions surrounding topics such as this can be made closer to being answered (or ACTUALLY being answered) by the LHC in Switzerland. Can't wait!

2. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129857 by jaster on February 19, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Pop quiz:

In what year did evolution officially become a scientific theory?

(this is NOT a loaded question and is not meant to make a point.... just a little trivia!)

3. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126278 by jaster on February 12, 2008 at 9:23 pm

ratio,

Good insight, I appreciate the post. Isolating just the idea of "moderate pain," you may very well be right, it may just be resisted.

I wouldn't limit torture to just levels of pain though. Torture often includes, for lack of a better phrase, 'extreme discomfort.' Once again going back to water boarding (because I am most familiar with this technique, personally); it can easily be conducted in such a way that there is no long-term effects and little to no pain. The amount of discomfort is extreme, however. So much so, that even someone trained to resist such a technique would crack rather quickly. Those in the military that are trained to resist water-boarding are not so much trained to resist it altogether (that can be impossible) as they are simply exposed to it to know what to expect and to be able to resist it longer (but, again, not indefinitely).

I won't claim to be the world expert on torture, but it seems, in my experience, that, aside from extremely high levels of pain and imminent death, extreme discomfort is more effective and possibly less likely to have long-term effects than pain exclusively.

4. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126273 by jaster on February 12, 2008 at 9:02 pm

mesomodel,

"McCain [sic] is in favor of "banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror." I think this statement actually goes beyond opposition to torture, however you might want to define it. I consider "degrading treatment" to be decidedly less severe than torture."

I go back to my loopholes comment. McCain's statement could really be interpreted a few different ways. I’m a little surprised more people don't demand a more specific definition from him.

I don't mean to say I have the correct definition of torture. I only ask that it be a discussion point in the debate, rather than "I am for torture” or “I am against torture." I can think of techniques that would not result in long-term or permanent physical or psychological effects and would also not be considered "inhumane and degrading treatment," yet may be considered torture. Again, it's more words that need to be defined (inhumane, degrading) and people will always disagree on their definition. I will use water-boarding as an example again. It has no long-term effects and I wouldn't consider it inhumane or degrading. Yet, it has potential for garnering information.


"Do you think that you would change your opinion if you had been captured, imprisoned for years and tortured?"

That is a very fair question. I cannot pretend to know what I would think after such an experience. I would like to think that I'd still be in favor of torture that has no lasting effects if it means potentially saving lives. Then again, if I had been subjugated to treatment that left long-term or permanent scarring on myself, my viewpoint might be skewed.

5. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126267 by jaster on February 12, 2008 at 8:46 pm

LeeLeeOne,

If you found venom in my reply, you certainly have reading comprehension issues. You earned the response you got from me. Are you now implying that being in the military and being a humanist are mutually exclusive? I no longer need to point out your cocky and smug attitude, it's doing well revealing itself. You are a borderline troll as far as I am concerned.

I have read most of the Humanist Manifestos, and while III has TONS of great material in it, I do not agree with all of it and I do not subscribe to all of its teachings. That's part of my free-thinking spirit. Men wrote that material. Men with faults, as all men have. To blindly follow everything a book/document has to say is too close to being religious for me.

6. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126265 by jaster on February 12, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Radesq,

"Jaster are you really Col. Jessup?"

Haha, I'm not sure if that's an insult, compliment, or simply a joke, but either way, it gave me a chuckle! Thanks =)

7. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126264 by jaster on February 12, 2008 at 8:30 pm

MelM,

I appreciate the thoughts in your post and I agree with the sentiment. Bush's plan is painfully faulted. The "Forward Strategy" is an utter failure. Spreading peace and democracy would be the answer if it were possible. However, I do not believe that it is. The parameters for a successful democracy are unfortunately pretty specific (regarding economics, social structure, will of the people, etc.). Thankfully, America fell within these parameters when it was founded. Most countries in the Middle East have none of them at this time.

In addition, there is too much historical violence and hate and not enough proponents for peace and democracy to make it work. Although, I believe more people in the region would embrace a peaceful democracy if they were more familiar with what it is and less brainwashed by Islam. How can we successfully make them more familiar with it? I don't know. Forcing it on them is one way, but I don't believe that is successful in the end. To go back to the old adage, you have to win over "the hearts and minds." Easier said than done. In fact, that may very well be impossible.

There certainly is no peaceful solution to radical Islam. Some people believe that there is. They are sadly mistaken. The only solution is to eradicate these extremists. There is no dealing with them peacefully. There is no negotiating. There is no diplomacy. The only way to secure our future as a free people, is to use violence. Some people don't believe that, and they are simply fearful of the truth. They don't understand that freedom requires fighting for. However, at this time, there is no plan, violent or otherwise, that appears to be a successful strategy in winning this convoluted war.

8. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126254 by jaster on February 12, 2008 at 8:01 pm

LeeLeeOne,

You have already failed in this discussion because you have drawn multiple false assumptions from my post. Do not think for one second that you know me, because you are so far off the mark, it's, well, remarkable. You are being presumptuous, cocky, and instead of thinking out a post rationally, you are simply reacting to something you do not agree with.


"you justify your ability to reconcile the deplorable with the "tide of our days" simply by "serving my country and doing two tours." "

Wrong. I justified nothing with my service. al-rawandi asked me what my contribution is, and I answered. You made an assumption here, and a poor one at that.


"This is how leaders, people, citizens, nations, countries, nationalities, races, etc., collectively or individually "justify" or "legitimize" inhumane action."

Do you have anything to back this up? I'll answer that for you. No, you do not. That statement is drivel at best.


"You personally stated you would stop torture at a level that is not defined in current legal documents, Geneva conventions, agreements, contracts, etc."

I'm not sure if you mistyped something here or not. Between the four most significant international/UN documents on the subject, all forms of torture are covered. I am against most of the torture outlined in these documents. There is no form of torture I am against that is not already outlined.


"Why must anyone accept or tolerate any form of torture, defined or not, documented or not?"

I've already answered this.


"Jaster, you claim to be an atheist. However, I beg to differ. You have a 'god' of sorts in your heart and soul. It is that of nationalism and patriotism"

This is rich. I think you are mistaking me for someone else. Or do you always just assume whatever you want about who ever you want in order to form a strawman? This seems to be a trend around here. I am a humanist, first and foremost. I am for freedom. I stand against those that would take that away from us. "Us" being free nations all over the globe. I served my country because I'm grateful for the freedom it provides and I felt I owed that service to my country. Many people fail to understand this and I feel sorry for them because it is a sign of under-appreciating the freedom they enjoy. I did not join to fight for any one man, or a political party, or political ideals, or any other reason you'd like to make up. Was there patriotism involved? In a way, of course, as there is for any man or woman who serves their country. Nationalism? No. But thanks for assumption #48.


"bottom line, you define the worth of a human being by the borders within which they live or are born into."

I define the worth of a human being in no such way. I define a human being by their intentions, their actions, and whether they have a positive or negative affect on other good-natured individuals.


"You state you served your country by doing two tours of the middle east, but have you ever bothered to ask yourself - did you serve humanity?"

Huh? What kind of corny question is that? You state you went to the grocery store for food, but have you ever bothered to ask yourself, did you feed the hungry? I mean, what are you implying here? That I served because I love Bush and I wanted to go fight in Iraq? If so, you are dead wrong and off by 180 degrees. If that's not what you are implying, I ask you to clarify.


"Torture, is torture, is torture, is torture, is torture... no matter what name you place upon it."

I don't know how to make this anymore clear. The range of possible "torture" is huge. Far too large to lump into the same bucket and say torture is all the same. Do you equate yelling at someone for 30 seconds and asking them for information with cutting their eyelids off, ripping their finger nails out, and slicing off their genitalia for no other reason than enjoyment? Both techniques have been used and both have been labeled as 'torture.' Now, I ask you, do you not see the importance of defining what torture is? If your answer is no, then there is no reason for me to continue this conversation with you because you are too feeble-minded for rational discussion. I am not looking to rename torture as something else, I am looking to have it defined.


"You would choose torture, for you 'may' get worthwhile information? - sacrifice the few (the life of the tortured as well as the sanity of those who carry it out) for the mere possibility it would positively affect the lives of an unrealized many?"

Who is sacrificing anyone? Does torture automatically equal death? Did I ever say I was in favor of that? No. I would ask you to read more carefully next time. I said I am against torture that leaves long-term or permanent physical or psychological effects. I would think that that would include death. I am absolutely 100% for torture that has no long-term effects and that may result in information that could save lives. I don't see how anyone could be against that and still call themselves a rational thinker. It's the same logic applied to stem cell research. If the loss of one embryo results in saving the lives of many, what is the right thing to do? I know what most god-less atheists would say, I've seen the surveys. And unlike losing the embryo, I'm not talking about even killing the captive in the torture scenario.


"Perhaps you also would choose capital punishment - yes, you will get your finality; who cares if a few innocent are sacrificed in your search for 'justice.'"

Another strawman and I'll shut this one down too. I am for the IDEA of capital punishment. I believe if you murder someone in cold blood you should be put to death. And not because I believe in an "eye for an eye" or revenge. I believe that because a murderer has such an extremely negative impact on society and has such a lack of regard for human rights, that he is a detriment to the human race to the point that the best solution is to extinguish his life. However, I am against the IMPLEMENTATION of capital punishment because there is no way to know for certain who is guilty and it's not worth the risk of killing innocent people, which does frequently happen.


"Your thinking, jaster, is part of brainwashing militarism."

Great, another assumption. Hey, YOUR thinking is part of brainwashing hippie-ism. Where are we getting here with these feeble and stupid comments? You don't even know me and you are telling me I am brainwashed? Seriously, keep your fantasy strawmen to yourself, I'm not interested.


"Do not discount me because you may feel I may have not 'served' personally for the country in which I live. You have no idea what the meaning of servitude is. My 'serving' goes much deeper and more heart wrenching that mere service. It started in World War II and has gone through every decade and every military action since."

Unlike you, I will not make a post based completely on false assumptions. The only way I will discount you is if your posts reach such an illogical level that it is no longer worth my time to reply to you. And you can imply whatever you want to me about your 'servitude,' but I can't say I care one iota at this point. Finally, don't ever tell me I have no idea what the meaning of servitude is, you have no clue what my life experiences include.


"War is war, torture is torture, inhumanity is inhumanity - no matter how one tries to justify their actions in the end."

That’s your opinion and I find it utterly irrational and naive. You are painting the world in black and white and that simply is not reality. It’s as if your mind is trapped in an enclosed cave and you are incapable of open-mindedness and free-thinking.


"Please don't cloak your justification for torture with the ribbons upon your chest for military service while beating your drum that claims you feel you are an atheist."

Wow, the level of guile you have is impressive. Never have I associated my justification for torture with my military service and I never will. I justify it by the beliefs I have outlined in my past few posts. And, I'm sorry, but you are telling me not to claim I am an atheist because I only feel like I am one? You come off sounding like you are saying while I merely believe I am an atheist, you know I am not. Sorry, I'm an atheist, and if you are somehow offended that a fellow atheist could possibly disagree with you on this subject, that's just too bad. And guess what, I'll take your presumptuously arrogant and conceited advice when I’m six feet under and the worms are snacking on my left testicle. In the meantime, keep on assuming the absurd conclusions you are drawing from that exceptionally out-of-control wild imagination you have and see how far it gets you.

9. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126221 by jaster on February 12, 2008 at 4:31 pm

al-rawandi,

You failed to gather the point of my post. What is torture to you? It's not enough to be idealistic and condemn all torture, that is narrow-minded as well as naive. Your opinion is one of the problems with the torture debate. You are uninformed on the subject and making it too black and white. And if you are going to to use a document to backup your torture-phobia, I would suggest the UDHR, which is just as out-dated as GC III and IV, but has a harder line against torture. The Geneva Conventions apply to a 'prisoner-of-war,' or a unifromed combatant. They do not cover terrorists. The most recent document, and the only one of the 4 main ones that was drafted after 1950, is the UNCAT (1987 if I remember correctly). This document, thankfully, leaves some loopholes regarding torture.


"Good, expect American, British, Danish and other soldiers to be tortured."

They already are. That statement does not help your argument.


"How about collective punishment? We can't find the terrorists? Starve the population in order to get them to capitulate. How about bulldozing civilian infrastructure to get information? Acceptable?"

Those are your words, not mine. I will not concern myself with your strawman.


"Torture is outlawed for several pretty simple reasons. It is a bad idea for several more."

Torture, in general, is bad and should be avoided. The problem today lies in the fact that warfare is now unconventional and assymetrical. The UN documents regarding torture were drafted in a time when terrorists were not a significant concern and warfare was conventional. If you have a non-unifromed terrorist in custody and have a chance to foil another terror plot and save numerous lives, do you not try to extract the right information? Do you say 'screw it, torture is bad and we probably won't get what we need anyway'? That, in my opinion is morally irresponsible. But again, it all comes back to 'what is torture?' Where do you draw the line? That should be the issue here, not whether to condemn all torture or not. In the scenario I provided, to what length would you go? Ask him politely? Threaten him? Keep him awake for 24 hours? Water-board him? Cut his fingers off? I would like the UN documents revised to condemn only torture which results in long-term or permanent physical or psychological effects. Anything short of that, such as water-boarding, should be fair game. And to throw in my two cents on water-boarding: I have been water-boarded. It sucks. It really, really sucks. And it's scary. But it has no long-term effects and results in no permanent damage.


"We can't expect to torture people then have the moral high ground on human rights."

There are more important things to worry about in the war against terrorism and radical Islam than torturing someone and being scared to later take the moral high ground. Many people would prefer strictly peaceful solutions, but history has taught us that there are sometimes groups of people that simply cannot be dealt with peacefully. Unfortunately and regrettably, violence is the answer in these cases. Either that, or standby and be destroyed. To think otherwise is ignorant and naive. But I reiterate, I am not in favor of torture except in those rare cases where a captive may have vital information that could be used to save lives or assets.


"Torture does not yield reliable information."

Wrong. 'It does not ALWAYS yield reliable information' would be an accurate statement.


"As an American many of my countrymen have died to keep me free (and many other peoples as well), I am willing to sacrifice my life in a terrorist explosion so that we don't become a country that tortures people and disregards human rights and dignity. That is my contribution to freedom. What is yours?"

My contribution was serving my country and doing two tours in the Middle East. Some of those that died defending your freedoms were my friends. I have a significant stake in this issue. You are free to believe what you'd like, but I strongly disagree with you on this issue. I find it unfortunate that so many people are ignorant/naive on the specifics of torture, but are quick to condemn all facets of it. It's irrational thinking, similar to that of religion.

10. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126157 by jaster on February 12, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Is torturing for revenge and retaliation acceptable? No.

Is torturing for information and as the means to a positive end acceptable? Absolutely.

But making claims on what is and is not acceptable regarding torture is pointless without defining the word. What is torture? Loud music and keeping someone awake for long periods? Water-boarding? Physically damaging the body? Psychologically damaging the body? Permantently physically or psychologically damaging the body?

There is an extremely wide spectrum for "torture." Saying you are for or against torture is not enough.

11. Some non-Christians feel left out of election

Comment #121490 by jaster on February 3, 2008 at 1:38 pm

As always, it's a bunch of crappy candidates from a crappy two-party system. That said, Obama gets my vote. I agree with him on more issues than I disagree and he's simply the least of several evils.

12. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121478 by jaster on February 3, 2008 at 1:14 pm

This crap will never end. Never. It will be a constant struggle for generations and generations. There may be ebb and flow, but Islamofascism is here to stay. Maybe in a couple thousand years the civilized world can settle on a new planet in a new solar system and the Islamofascists will be left behind to destroy themselves. But, that's wishful thinking, and I know it. This will never end.

/rant

13. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112690 by jaster on January 17, 2008 at 8:35 pm

This kind of crap (anti-evolution movies) is so tiring. When America ceases to be a superpower and when the human race eventually destroys itself, it will be because of morons like Ben Stein and Mike Huckabee. Praise the lord.

14. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103069 by jaster on December 24, 2007 at 9:26 am

He's coming back as a police officer.

15. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #96935 by jaster on December 11, 2007 at 5:59 am

As a patriotic American that has served and fought for his country and considers himself an atheist, I am deeply saddened that men like Mitt Romney are out there, in the positions they are in. Along the way there are several other emotions involved; worry, anger, fear, disgust, among others. But, when I lie awake in bed at night and consider it all, it is overwhelming sadness that I feel.