Are you seeing the problem here?

No buts.....

Torture isn't reliable. Is the victim innocent and just telling the torturer what he thinks the torturer wants to hear?

Again, refer to my specific scenario. There was a reason I laid it out the way I did. We are talking absolute proof. The terrorist has already confessed full knowledge of the events that are to take place. He openly brags about it. All doubt as to his guilt has been effectively removed. Thousands of lives are now on the line. You have tried EVERYTHING except torture to get at the information which he holds. Tell me, what do you do now to get that information? If you do nothing, you know that thousands will die.

I hope my scenario helps you see what a crock of sh*t hypothetical situations are, because they bear no resemblance to actual situations.

Are you joking? A hypothetical situation can be as real or as fantastical as you choose to make. To say they bear no resemblance to actual situations is absurd. The scenario I laid out is perfectly plausible. Rather than address my specific situation, all you do is present a fairly more ridiculous one as if it has any bearing on mine. Why not focus on the scenario I presented and tell me why, IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE, torture would not be justified?

I'm sure this will be a very unpopular viewpoint but... I didn't really see the evidence in this video that showed definitively that torture is never justified. Sure, better options should be persued initially and any type of torture would be an absolute last resort and only in special situations. Do people honestly believe that torture could never be justified under ANY circumstance?

Let's say, hypothetically, that we held someone that we knew, without a doubt, had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and could provide the who, the when, and the where. Let's also suppose we tried every other technique in the book in order to obtain this information without success. Finally, we find ourselves in the aforementioned "ticking timebomb" situation. Is this one individual's human rights worth more than the thousands of innocent lives that would be spared?

Keep in mind, in this hypothetical situation, I am talking about absolute certainty, as rare as that may be. Wouldn't access to the information be justified by any means necessary in this situation? If not, how do you go about explaining to the relatives of the victims why you did not do everything possible to try and save their loved ones?

Bombardment!

A woman pulling a red (i.e. bloody looking) rag out of her nether region is NOT sexy!

"The female detects the low frequency vibrations through her legs. She responds by allowing the male to mount her."

Will have to try this out on the missus tonight.

"As far as effects of legalization go, consider what happened in Netherlands between 1984 and today as cannabis policy became more and more permissive. In 1984, only 4.4% of Dutch adolescents had ever used pot. By 1996, it was 10.6%. In the 18-to-20 age group, lifetime use rose from 15 percent to 44 percent."

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

dont forget where the electricity comes from..dirty dirty power plants, so our environment remains to be screwed!

Ever hear of hydroelectric, solar, wind, and yes, even nuclear power? All relatively clean when compared to burning fossil fuels.

Ugh, this was just horribly annoying. I'm all for funny WoW stuff, but this just....wasn't

Good to know it's not just me.

"drugs're bad, mmkay?"

Well, now I'm convinced!

"Sperm + Egg = Human"

Well, technically sperm + egg combine to create a zygote - the combining of two haploid cells into a single diploid cell. From this diploid, in time, will grow a human but to suggest that a zygote = human is a bit of a stretch. I think when most people think of a "human" they tend to picture a fully developed, thinking, breathing being and not a mass of cells that could exist in a petri dish. If you want to start talking about whether or not that same zygote has a soul, well now you're stepping into the realm of religion which has no place in science and should not be the basis upon which government makes decisions.

Well, if you want to argue that he's 12 feet "long" I might give you that. But when you talk about how "tall" something is I think most people think in terms of head to toe. And streching arms over the head wouldn't apply to a measure of height. If that was the case then I guess I can consider myself around 7.5 feet tall.

Not to nitpick or anything but I think they're exagerating just a bit when they say he's 12ft tall. Go to 0:30 when he stands on his hind legs. Now unless the guy standing next to him is around 8ft tall, there's no way that's 12ft tall. I'm guessing closer to 8ft. Still pretty damn big mind you but let's not get carried away.

For all of the conspiracy theorists, what about the fact that the government would have no way of controlling what the dozens, if not hundreds, of bystanders would have witnessed? The fact is, dozens of eyewitnesses DID say they saw what appeared to be a large commercial airliner strike the Pentagon. No cover story and subsequent coverup effort, no matter how ellaborate, is going to change what people saw with their own eyes.

For anyone interested in facts over speculation:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y