Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 5 Feb 2010 06:49 In article <7t1a22F7ecU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <7srr82FphmU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >>> I guess there is a bit of monster in me somewhere because it doesn't >>> bother my conscience one jot or tittle to write this. :-) >> >> Writing about it is one thing, Mr Dashwood... *doing* is another. A >> favorite tactic I've seen employed is 'Well, what if you have an enemy >> prisoner whom you know to have information that will lead to deaths >> unless you perform (horrid action)?' > >I think I would argue that the 'horrid action' solution is only one of a >number, limited by imagination. The response to that is '(horrid action) has been shown to usually work and the clock is ticking... deaths will be on your hands, it is time for action.' > >If my conscience forbade me to employ that action, then I'd have to find >another solution or leave it, as you noted, to people more experienced in >these matters. (That is really such a cop out, it would bother me a lot - I >should not expect others to take action I wouldn't take myself...) I've heard that posited before, that the only immoral actions are those one would expect others to do but not one'sself. I question this... haven't performed many thoracic endocardiectomies, myself, nor am I familiar with what is necessary to insure the good functioning of the brakes on a schoolbus (outside of hiring A Professional). I'd refuse to do either. > >> >> My response is 'I try to live my life so as not to find myself in >> such a situation... and were it to happen I would seek the aid and >> experience of those more skilled in such behaviors than I.' > >I s'pose at this point I should reiterate that at no time in this discussion >have I advocated "horrid action" against the enemy. Neither have I suggested >we should do what THEY do, or become like them in any way. > >I am advocating they should not enjoy rights and priveleges that we might >extend to people who have NOT done "inhuman" things. If 'being human' has, as a component, being treated in a certain manner ('enjoying certain certain rights and priveleges') then it seems, Mr Dashwood, that unless folks behavve in a certain manner you advocate that certain folks not be treated as human. There's the rub. DD
From: Anonymous on 5 Feb 2010 07:13 In article <7t1c4nFg4vU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <7srvmtFe1pU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >>> In my view they are BEYOND criminal. >> >> Sad - or perhaps very fortunate - to say, Mr Dashwood, corpus of law >> does not seem to be in accord with your view. Might you be able to >> locate a set of codified conditions which constitute 'BEYOND (caps >> original) criminal'? > >Nope. I can't. I am advocating that there SHOULD be such a codex. Right up there with 'I don't know what 'art' is but I know what I like', perhaps... but back to matters of law; it might be wisest to establish boundaries before acting. > >Based on two things: > >1. Modern technology has empowered Terrorists to use weapons and horrors >that were unimaginable 200 years ago. > >2. Terrorists are not only capable of doing these things, they are >enthusiastic about it, and proud of the mayhem they create. There is no >concept of "humanity" in these crimes so we need a new level of criminal >justice to recognise this and deal with it appropriately. It might be time to look into the design and use of slave-ships, the innumerable tales of (members of sect) collecting (members of other sect), down to the infants, into their house of worship and setting it afire, the spreading of plague by catapulting body-parts into cities... and lo, less becomes new under the sun. DD
From: Anonymous on 5 Feb 2010 07:25 In article <7t1eepFphtU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <7ss2foFq7gU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >>> It is therefore a fair question to ask if they should be considered >>> as "human" simply on the basis of their biological origin. >> >> I'd prefer to see it that way than on the basis of 'spiritual >> adherance'... that way lies the Inquisition. >> > >I take your points, but whether on physical or spiritual or mental or >emotional or any other grounds I think there is a difference between someone >who commits crimes againnst Humanity and the rest of us. 'Crimes against Humanity' is a rather recent legal invention, Mr Dashwood... and I recall that it was created just for the reason of making sure Us did not become like Them. As someone is quoted as saying, 'If the Russians had gotten their way there would have been no courts, no trials, no verdicts of 'crimes against humanity'.' DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Feb 2010 08:14 SkippyPB wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:04:09 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> Howard Brazee wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:44:19 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>>> Let's say we had a law against not wearing loud shirts. Someone >>>>> is accused of not wearing loud shirts. He gets arrested and gets >>>>> to defend himself in court. >>>> >>>> But that is not the same as being at WAR over the issue. >>>> Certainly, our citizens have the right to their day in court >>>> whether it is for wearing a loud shirt or for having exploding >>>> underpants. But if you wear those underpants on a plane with the >>>> intention to destroy yourself, the plane, and everyone on it, that >>>> is not just a violation of the underpants law. That moves it up to >>>> a whole new level. >>> >>> Does war (even an undeclared war - that excluded home-grown >>> non-Islamic terrorists), mean those accused don't get the right to >>> prove their innocence? Or does it mean foreign accused people >>> only don't get the right to prove their innocence? >> >> I have been talking about people who are proud of what they did and >> don't want to "prove their innocence". Rather they trumpet their >> actions so they can be heroes and martyrs to their own perverted >> followers. >> >> I agree that people who are NOT in that category and DO protest their >> innocence, should have their day in Court. The reason for that is >> that they obviously haven't been persuaded to the cause, and so >> there may still be hope for them. Perhaps they were caught up in >> something that got out of their control, or they were peripheral to >> it and were dragged in. Perhaps they were entirely innocent >> bystanders who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. >> >> If someone (like OBL) commits atrocities that beggar the mind of a >> normal person, is proud if what they did and would do it again given >> the slightest opportunity, then they are candidates for my little >> needle. >> > > Do the names Hermann Goering, Hans Frank, Whilhelm Frick and Rudolf > Hess mean anything to you? Very proud guys who never had any remorse > for what they did. They had their day in court. It was called the > Nuremberg War Crime Trials. Due process and all. Imagine that. Was there ever any doubt as to the outcome? What was the point? So we can smugly say: "Well, they had due process...?" I guess that makes them less executed... Pete -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 5 Feb 2010 11:09
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:55:34 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Nope. I can't. I am advocating that there SHOULD be such a codex. > >Based on two things: > >1. Modern technology has empowered Terrorists to use weapons and horrors >that were unimaginable 200 years ago. There's a long history of this which they knew about. The new weapons gave huge advantage to authorities, which is what they were most afraid of. >2. Terrorists are not only capable of doing these things, they are >enthusiastic about it, and proud of the mayhem they create. This also is as old as history. >There is no >concept of "humanity" in these crimes so we need a new level of criminal >justice to recognise this and deal with it appropriately. What do you recommend? Eliminate due process? Presume guilt? Show the world whose values are worth emulating? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |