I sincerely wish I could have continued on here but I must go with Negro's advise. Like I said, the dude is a fanatic, he does a good job of latching onto what he believes in and never letting go. He is equally as tenacious when he is dissapointed. I am dissapointed as well, of course any reasonable person would be under the circumstance. In any case, for the general benefit, I cannot share everything but it cost nothing to share this link with you. Stay alert! http://www.wikileaks.org/

Adieux!

I must add that as educated people, we need to recognize that the proper way to shut down opposing views is through healthy and informed debates, not by shouting the opponent down with noisy but meaningless vulgar words. If there is merit in your view to counter the original post then it should be shared. Accusations will only escalate emotional responses and divert away from logical and valuable interaction.

Now this is a good feedback, far removed from your previous nagging and accusations. What I presented in both posts are thoughts and they are open to contention. On the 1 post, I am saying that certain changes in the society (man-man marriage) have created the possibility that other similar patterns will evolve and can be expected to surface as challenges that may or may not result in a legal victory for the proponents of anti-culture movements. How is it wrong for me to suggest that? On 2, there are two camps; one believes that HIV/AIDS in Africa was a deliberate and wrongful act targeted at Africa, the other camp says no, it is not, it is a disease that afflicts Africa because of our promiscous nature and poverty conditions. It is open to debate. How am I wrong in bringing it here for discussion?

Always know when to back down, when you have been beaten or out-debated. To carry on will make you look like a fool, and undermine your credibility in future discussion.

Im here to relate and enjoy the communal feeling of simple human interaction. If I want to fight you or Bastage, a virtual forum is the wrong way to do it. I cant throw a knuckle punch at you here for effective damage to your lips. I can use words but their effect will not satisfy me, so its a waste of effort. There has been no debate! This has been nothing but accusations from you both. Is that what you call debate, cussing and using vulgar words? So if you want to challenge me to fight, do it the proper way and if you want to debate me, do it the proper way also.

As an "intellectual" maybe you should go and learn about the differences between theoretical/speculative statements and evaluative/factual statements and their use in the English language. Whilst you're there, maybe you can attend to your comprehension and grammar skills.

Apply your proficiency in english language to advance thoughts and progress, not to show off your peacock feathers. I will remind you again not to humilate your dignity. Don't waste your time studying dictionary so you can come online to parade colorful words. Spend time reading on social policies that impact your lifestyle. Understand your relationship with the government and how legal actions authorized by the government impact your well being or lack of. Humble your attitude and your manners and put the dictionary down.

To then justify those deluded theories by stating that their novelty gives them credence is totally ridiculous.

What is wrong with you? This is a theory, not a claim of credibility. They are untested ideas, nothing more than that. Why all these panic and huffing and puffing over simple issue? I did not ask for ethical or moral argument, I am inviting logical insights. Why are you humiliating your dignity over a theoretical thought? Wow!

Huxley, you have been corrupted by association. I cant believe this topic came from you buddy!

Dang! Negro, is this what you do now, teach Ifa? You are hard to find here. Anyway someone said to tell you hello. I forgot his name now, spent so much time searching for you. This guy was in Foreign Politics. Email me sometime. What's KR upto lately, did you see that Stanford dude engage CR on torture? She need a vacation to refresh, dont you think?

I will if I see him. I see he has found religion and now advocates for Ifa. Huxley on the other hand may never find God. Bunch of looneys!

Hey pal, look what I found!

This idiot has been watching the Obama Deception documentary. Bloody conspiracy theorists.

The fact that you do possess some perspicuity of language only proves how intrinsically stupid you are. You are an educated buffoon lacking in any perspicacity. After initially accusing Obama of being a muslim, you are now launching some inane diatribe about Obama being in the pocket of the 'controllers of capitalism'. These two allegations are incongruous with each other and are either symptoms of conspiracy theorism or signs of mental and logical instability on your part. If you keep jumping from pillar to post, lacking any lucidity in your postulations, you will have to wear the cap that fits - that of a conspiracy theorist. We all know who controls the world, but what does that have to do with Obama being a muslim and kissing a ring?

Seems you have suspicions with conspiracy theories. Now I see why you said I am Negro. Much as I like him, Negro is a fanatic and is hung up in the cloud but if you cut out his bullshit he presents very substantial and insightful topics. I am same way but my feet are planted on the ground. Do not. A well intended message can be screwed up by bad presentation. Sometimes a bad presentation can be well received. I am a conspiracy theorist and I guarantee you will enjoy my posts and theories on subject matters.

Negro and I share similar beliefs. Another person with such openess is Huxley. Huxley though stays put in religion. I have often told Negro that he is a theorist and he continues to dispute that, preferring instead to call himself an ideologue. But no, this is not Negro. I know Negro and he knows me. In fact, in blog circles people often mistake him for me or me for him, like you just did.

Intellectual and logical discussions are open to extreme views. When you introduce pre-conceived ideas and customary beliefs into it then you create bias. Innovation and creativity require that you delete old ideas and contemplate theories for what possibilities exist in human interaction and what policies should be formulated to respond to that. It's a proactive way of looking at things. This is why academic institutions that encourage openess are also the same ones that produce society leaders. As much as Ahmadinejjad is hated in America, a University did not censor or bar his views from the public. I am an intellectual, I am a theorist and I have written views and opinions that both of you combined can never have the capability to produce. I say this because you are limited in your mind capacity to contemplate outside of concepts that you are familar and comfortable in. You should step out if you are interested in influencing society. This is why I recommend to you that you update yourself. It is no joke, you need to read more books on policies and social movements. You are smart, you are articulate but you are by no means an intellect. Good command of english language does not equate to high intellect. I know of many people that can write speech for Obama but lack the aptitude to brainstorm on strategies and policies, they are intimidated by the subject. I place you two in same category.

I am waiting for some powerful brains to engage me on the discussion, not people with truncated and half-developed brains.

NOTE - This is presented for logical and intellectual debate. I welcome intellectuals to participate but I will ignore emotional responses.

Animal cloning is a scientific advancement. To get to that point where an animal is successfully re-imaged, the path, I am sure, is strewn with many unsuccessful products. Imagine a goat with mouth located where the eyes should have been. The anus is left exposed with no tail to cover it because the tail is mis-positioned midway along its back. What is cloning? It is not an accidental outcome. Cloning is artificially predictive, it is deliberate and it is utilitarian. Cloning is genetic engineering, a process whereby you mess with the DNA of a specie and divert the structure of its organisms from conforming to predictive natural outcome. You manipulate their characteristics and cause it to result in a modified outcome different from its DNA imprint. Through manipulation or cloning or mutation or genetic engineering, whatever you want to call it, you can cause a goat to bark like a dog. You can mutate a snake to loose its predatory function for rats. Or turn a mutated rat loose to hunt on non-engineered rats of its specie. I heard the other day of a new dog specie that glows in the dark. You turn all the lights out at night and you can see the dog radiating flourescence light from its nose and ears. That's a genetic function in jelly fish. So if you take that characteristic and recombine it with the dog DNA, then you have a glowing dog. But then this destroys the natural ability of the dog to conceal itself or to hunt because its glow is serving as advanced warning to preys and equally alerting predators like Hyena to its presence and location. It's a scientific success but a destruction of ecological relationship. A dog with no stealth looses its primary place in the food chain and becomes the hunted, not the hunter.

Genetic engineering is not limited to animals, it is used in agriculture as well. Scientists use molecular biology techniques to modify crop plants created for human and animal consumption. Traditionally bred or grown crops respond to seasonal schedules and are susceptible to damage from insects, birds, drought and so on. But through genetic engineering you can breed plants that yield crop in rapid succession and in larger volume and can endure drought spells or self-shield against insect attacks by generating its own pesticide. This is achieved through complex designs whereby characteristics are cross-transferred between plants or between animal and plants. These applications are advancements in research but they carry tremendous costs to health and population. Healthy and disease free living is factored upon food organisms releasing their nutrients into the human body. Therefore arguments against genetically engineered food (more appropriately, genetically modified organisms) stems upon the possibility that humans will ingest cross-transferred characteristics that endanger life and behavior.

Another application of genetic engineering is in the field of medicine. There are many ways you can administer medicine but two are prominent - by giving it in food/beverage or as a pill/injection. Now, this application makes it more likely that genetic engineering can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. I will not bore you much about a subject called "mechanisms of social control" but you should familiarize yourself with it if you can. Far more than concerning itself with whether or not terrorists will acquire knowledge of nuclear technology, the government ought to conduct study on their sophistication in scientific knowledge and the understanding of genetic engineering. It takes years to produce nuclear armament and it's such a monstrous project that it's almost impossible to hide it from public awareness and media outing. On the other hand, creating modified organisms in food and medicine for public consumption is less tasking and can easily be decoyed to conceal its intended target. I am sure that the government is well aware of the strategies and all the potentials in these applications. To catch a thief, you first become a thief. How far in the field has the strategies of genetic engineering been deployed and to what extent has the results of its outcome been acknowledge or denied?

Let us start with AIDS virus. A number of people in Europe and America have advanced the theory that HIV and AIDS virus originated from "contaminated polio vaccine". The HIV 1 virus is found in chimpanzee. The virus was mutated as a chracteristic code used in the production of polio vaccine (hence the label "contaminated" but should correctly be "engineered" which was then administered experimentally in Belgian Congo. This was back in colonialism when Congo was under Belgium. The vaccine was given to millions of natives without their informed consent. So the media claim is that AIDS originated in monkeys in the Congo and it was not at all a covert operation by the West. They never explained how humans got it from the monkeys even though they admit its transmission is only possible through blood contact and or sex. Isn't Congo where the famous EBOLA virus was also said to have originated?

In 1996, Pfizer did a similar experiment in Nigeria. Pfizer marketed a drug called "trovan", which had earlier been banned in America and Europe, to the government in Nigeria. The drug trial was deployed in Kano and was to be dispensed to children susceptible to polio from meningitis attack. You see, another polio medicine! The consent of the parents were not obtained. Well, a handful of children died and many more ended up injured or deformed. Genetically engineered medicine, marketed as one thing, but designed for something else. I have often wondered why AIDS thrive amongst black South Africans but white South Africans are largely immune and are disproportionally not casualty to the disease despite the fact that the white men are very promiscously engaged in sex with blacks. It is equally suspicious that AIDS was not a problem in S.A. when it was under white rule. Regardless, given the exposure of what happened in Belgian Congo and in Nigeria, there are enough evidence to support an allegation of wrongdoing and criminal intent from the West to use Africa as experimental laboratory for its researches in genetics engineering. The impact is great on all front but particularly destructive to the human population, health and lifestyles of the African. AIDS is not an attribute of poverty or bad hygiene, it is a weapon of mass destruction, marketed to unsuspecting and non-consetual consumers as a disease fighting drugs.


Just food for thought!

I believe in another post somewhere, you are the same person I asked to identify your country of residence. Your views of contemporary events seem outdated. I will ask you again before I care to educate you on the legal argument about gay rights and same sex marriage. Which country do you reside in? You are shocked by the thought of a human relating with an animal in a matrimony setting but you fail to understand that the concept of domestic partnership, in which all or most of the legal rights of marriage exist in a man-woman cohabitation are also present in a man-animal cohabitation and that the name "marriage" is the only thing missing. 30yrs ago in America if you proposed a man-man marriage you will definitely get lynched. Well, look where we are now, no one is getting lynched for proposing it, much more for taking the vows. I believe your reaction is driven by impulse and not logic. It's understandable, you are human. I am shocked too, by everything, whether it is man to man, father to daughter, man to animal, it is deeply disturbing to me. However, if you read my original post I said it's food for thought, a logical thought process, not an emotional one. If you can not engage me in a logical argument for or against it then I suggest you do not respond at all to the post with emotional outbursts. Understand?

I'm no fan of homosexual marriages but to state that they may open the floodgate to incest, pedophilia and beastiality is just bullshit

.

In a society where pedophilia, incest and beastiality exist and in a number of cases has resulted in pregnancy, I think you are naive to respond the way you have done. I suggest you read up on "the strategy of protest and the mechanisms of social control". You definitely need an update!

It seems more states are jumping on the bandwagon and allowing same sex marriage. I think there are like 11 such states now. The constitution is the highest authority of the courts and that document is silent on a lot of personal issues that have erupted in the society lately. It is agreed that the document is written to curtail the excesses of a government and protect its citizens against tyranny. It also says that whatever is not outlined in the document is therefore not prohibited. If that's the case, then the constitution is not written for the people. So what happens if a man chooses to have sex with another man and the two decide to go into marriage with one another, can the government stop that? This was the contention sorrounding gay rights and same sex marriage debate. Now that it is agreed by many and particularly supported by Democrats that the constitution does not authorize the government one way or another to define marriage or sexuality, then it is clear that the grounds for sexual and marriage interests will grow and it is very well possible that this social liberty may have done an irreversible and permanent damage to the diginty of mankind.

We can expect that sometime in future a group of Americans will advocate for rights to marry their pets. Animals have rights of inheritance today and have legal protection of custody when couples divorce - same rights that children have. Remember the gorilla story few weeks ago? The woman took bath with him in the nude and they shared bed. I know people that sleep with their dog and you know there have been reports and videos of people having sex with their animals. So what is left? Marriage and children. It is reallly disturbing, but hey, becareful what you ask for. If you support a man having sex and marrying another man and you call it liberty, then why deny liberty to the animal lover?

We can expect that sometime in future a group of Americans will advocate for rights of parents to marry their own children. People practice incest already and father get their daughters pregnant or mothers get pregnant by their sons, so why not join them in wedlock? A lot of them are in the closet now but they will begin to ask for right to enjoy liberty. Why can't they? You gave it to those practising sodomy and bestiality.

We can expect that sometime in future in America, polygamy and polyandry will become socially acceptable. Only few sects practice it today and under religious rights but in future, even the atheist will get this right to marry multiple partners. There are clubs for those that wish to swap wives and husbands today anyway and how much longer before it becomes acceptable that you could keep all those varieties you desire and dont need to swap for it.

Jut food for thought!

correction on tail end

>>> I debate subject <<<<

I come here to discuss views and debate opinions. News reports contain varieties of views. If i do a search on the topic "waterboarding is torture", there are plenty of results. Which one should I bring you, the one that agrees with my opinion or the one that conflicts with it? Instead of linking, I leave that aspect open for the individual to make their own choice. After that then we can converge here and debate the topic, not the news. I don't believe in debating news, debate subject.

ElRazur, what good would a news link do? All you have to do is go online and search under the topic and you will get many results, you pick in order of priority and get the information you need. Ok?

I really do not see how the ICC would get involve in such a case that is crime against one person, and not Humanity. I really do not see why the red cross should be involved, is UAE a war or disaster zone? Perhaps you should look up on what the IRC do. The UAE have a court system to deal with issues like this.

ElRazur, what is reported here is an extreme case of violence.  For someone to own a cattle prod, apparently it wasn't for decoration! The dude had no reservation about carrying out these extremities and went as far as demanding that it should be video recorded.  This is the mind of a sick person. The video here is one revelation out of possibly many others that are not revealed.  He is a powerfully influential person with access to government to the extent that he is being assisted in the crime by a uniformed policeman. I am shocked that you failed to expand your imagination and err on the side of exaggeration than to give this criminal the benefit of doubt that he lacks capacity to abuse his priviledged position and use indiscriminate power to inflict injury and violate the security rights of a multitude of the population.  So many people with similar traits have been excused on same bias you proposed and many lives were lost that could have been saved if the proper intervention had taken place early on in the discovery.  Uday is a perfect model.  Think about it ElRazur.

Bastage, what country do you reside in?

President Obama is moving deliberately to grab influence and he is doing it with gun laws. This move will stoke the fires and infuriate NRA and Republicans to great lengths. The battle will elevate his Presidential weight tremendously.

If you never owned a gun I encourage you to go get a handgun before laws are modified. If you already have a handgun, then you should add a rifle or a shotgun to your arsenal. You will soon find out why this is important.

The news article is a distraction. It lacks relative substance to issues in the country. There is evidence of human rights violation, why is media debating the morality of it in public airwave? What is the International Court of Justice doing about it? What is International Red Cross doing about it? What is White House going to do about it? By bringing it to us for consumption, what exactly do they want us to do, what response do they want, a protest march, an uprising, hunger strike? This is no more than distraction, there is defect in this news production.

Ikomi, not to diminish the weight of your input at all, the point I am making is that respectable societies do not bring sex up as a bargain to negotiate national unity. Sex is a subject matter on its own for social policies affecting family and household. It's not to be used as a bribe on national scene, unless you are a backward and decadent society. By reporting it and giving it national glamor, BBC on its part is irresponsible to the well meaning ideals of the people of Kenya and the newsreport is a mockery of their lifestyles.

Thank you Horus, I agree with you. The aid is an impediment to our ambition for self realization and blocks our resourcefullness for competition.

There are defects in the story and it should be returned back to the press room for re-production.

There's difference between common knowledge and a governmental policy statement. It is commonly logical and acceptable that torture is unethical and immoral, however it became law in US. While common knowledge and logical responsibility demands that one should defend the motherland against any form of foreign aggression (physical, ideological, philosophical, economical, ) it is shameful that no African nation practices on this principle of common knowledge.

Late 2003, Donald Rumsfeld started a discussion on his proposal to increase US military force capability by what he termed "a total force". This total force would be a beef up reinforcement using reserve and guard commands to back up regular combat troops on conflict deployments. However, the term was expanded in 2005 when Blackwater security got in trouble in Iraq over some indiscriminate acts of crime against citizens. To absolve Blackwater from accusations of war crime, Rumsfeld declared that they were part of his "total force" and therefore legally covered under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) of the US military. The interpretation here is that a civilian outfit that ordinarily in time of peace is not part of a professional armed service can be conscripted or contracted during conflict of war and then armed and deployed as a supplementary to the regular force against the enemy.

The interpretation carries weight. Using Pakistan as example and applying this principle of "total force", it means Taliban and the elements of the autonomous tribal areas are potential "total force" that Pakistan could draw on to combat a foreign enemy. This potential dwarfs any argument that proposes wiping out the autonomous areas as a safe option for the security of sovereign Pakistan but indeed makes the protectorates a desirable keepsake in the long term.

By similar weight, if Nigerians know what is good, the Minister of Defense ought to initiate discussions on a balanced relationship with the fierce combatants in MEND. Their presence serves a deterrent but in all likelihood of a war with a neighbouring army, they become a "total force" component.

Nuzo, I like the opening in your response. Did you read the BBC article? It is ridiculous and racist that the editorial did not find it insensitive to turn a national political discourse into a free-for-all graphic entertainment on sex.