From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
The real problem is that "if we can make them so can
the enemy" so who do you find to test them on and
possibly find an antidote to them? Prisoners of war or
volunteers? You are damned if you do and damned if
you don't. I don't know the answer, but it takes a
certain type of person to subject his fellow man to such
a horrific series of tests.
[...]
Without expending great verbiage on this
matter, allow me this: I all boils to the issues of ethics
and morality. What is ethical might not be moral.
Is it more ethical to disable another by inducing
a sickness, than by projectile or explosion?
If none is ethical, then what is the moral route
to disabling your enemy?
In my own mind, that which is the swiftest and
induces the least agony, is probably the most ethical and
the most moral.
Beyond that, it it both morally and ethically
gross to even <consider> experimenting on any population
without having their prior informed consent.
But then, this is the price we pay for having our
respective governments that bully their way around, knowing
full well that the flock are too tame to do anything but bleat.
I wonder: what do you suppose would be the response
in Switzerland?
ET
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
