It seems pretty clear that there is NO MENTION of the word "torture" in the section you quote.

Again, you are demanding OTHER PEOPLE answer your questions (which in my case I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED) to prove your point.
If you can't provide the evidence on your own, you have lost your point.


Garysher, there are methods for breaking a man down and getting him to talk that DO NOT amount to torture.
NOWHERE in your quoted section does it say that the APA condones torture, or supports torture.

In the first paragraph, it explicitly states what the U.S. MILITARY is doing.
Not the APA.

In the second paragraph, it talks about SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. And there it does not talk about torture.

Quit trying to lie about this.
It's embarrassing for you...

"In particular, the Pentagon Inspector General provides concrete evidence that techniques developed by the US military for withstanding torture are being used against prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

After 9/11, the Pentagon began using so-called behavioral science consultants, or "biscuit" teams, to advise the military on how to "break" prisoners to make them more cooperative."
Democracy Now! | "The Task Force Report Should Be Annulled" - Member of 2005 APA Task Force on Psychologist Participation in Military Interrogations Speaks Out

>>>>>>>>>>
The onus is on YOU to explain why these pathetic "studies" have any merit.

After all this time you have still utterly failed to do so

Are you for real?
What part of what I ACTUALLY SAID still needs proof?
A) These studies are done by experts.
B) Published in peer reviewed journals.
C) MULTIPLE expert organizations have all concluded the same thing.

Just simply let me know which combination of A, B, and/or C needs proof...


0) You never did answer which study was done by mailed out questionnaires...
1) This isn't an issue of "disspelling" tradition.
Tradition is not scientific. It is simply an issue of repeating what was done by generations before, sometimes for no real reason other than that is how it was done previously and the people involved lack the intelligence to think outside the box.
Slavery, misogyny, genocide, killing people over religion...
ALL these things have "tradition".
Hell. All of those things have been ordered by god in the bible.
NONE of that is scientific, nor is it a scientific conclusion.
You're asking science to prove history wrong?
Might as well ask biology to prove political science wrong...


Another blatant lie from you. I have REPEATEDLY demonstrated how these studies have merit.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of these studies which CUMULATIVELY examined SEVERAL HUNDRED gay parents all found the exact same thing. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the child's happiness or healthiness with a child being raised by gay parents.
NONE.

Moreover, there has been NO STUDY performed which ever found ANY detriment to a child from being raised by gay parents.
Unanimous findings are incredibly poignant.

Your refusal to acknowledge that is not a "failure" on my part.
Sticking your head in the sand is not my "failure".

1) There is no "us".
Only YOU who are asking about this.
2) You're asking me to tell you the answer to a question based on YOUR CLAIMS???
Unbe-fricken-lievable.
YOU claim there are significant differences.
YOU explain what they are.
3) Your refusal to explain what significant differences exist, when YOU CLAIMED they exist, only points to evidence that it is YOU who has not read these studies.


I already told you Garysher.
This is not the first time we have discussed this.
The last time we discussed this, I did the work and added it all up. The total was several hundred.

And then you DROPPED THE ISSUE.
And true to your circular nature, you LATER bring up the argument AGAIN insisting that I AGAIN do the work to educate you.

No way. I'm not doing extra work all over again just to prove you wrong, only to have you drop the issue AGAIN, and then repeat the cycle over and over and over again.

We BOTH know it IS several hundred.
You haven't even tried to dispute that.
Your requests are only feeble attempts to make me waste my time.


0) What is it with you and the pretense that you are plural.
YOU are SINGULAR.
YOU are the ONLY IDIOT here who is insisting that single parents should not be able to adopt.
(Didn't think we had forgotten you DROPPED that issue, had you???)

1) You lie like a dog.
I am not answering your stupid question because it would be a waste of my time to do the leg-work to add it all up all over again.
You KNOW that I have given you that answer in the past. Either that or you are too stupid to remember.

And now you are trying to goad me into answering questions all over again.

2) If ANYBODY ELSE wants an answer to that question, I'll happily spend some time to do the research and math.
But NOT for garysher, since he's just asking to waste my time.
You'll notice how many other issues he has DROPPED while in the pursuit of this "why won't you answer my question" crap...


That's a "no", with an explanation for WHY it is a "no".


The "crux of these studies"???
You mean YOUR ASSUMPTION that you want to see played out in these studies, and you are frustrated because it DOES NOT have any evidence in these studies.

Tell me Gar. If that WERE an important feature, shouldn't you see SOME DETRIMENTAL IMPACT on the child because of the absence of two genders???
Yet the fact that NO detrimental impact was found, and you CANNOT EXPLAIN ANY ACTUAL detrimental impact from the absence of both genders, that helps prove the question is baseless in the first place.

The properly scientific thing would be to COMPARE and CONTRAST the effects of the relationships on the children to evaluate if there IS an effect from "lack of one gender".
Without that, the question is meaningless.

I could just as well ask how the heterosexual couples substitute for the lack of a two-party representation of one gender.

I repeat:

In the first paragraph, it explicitly states what the U.S. MILITARY is doing. What the U.S. MILITARY developed
Not the APA.

In the second paragraph, it talks about SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. And there it does not talk about torture.

Do you really think some psychologist told the military to stack the prisoners naked in a pile? That's obviously some stupid stunt performed by a military member.

You are such a buffoon!

Nobody is suggesting that the body piles at Abu Ghraib were witnessed by the APA, or that they were an official US torture technique!

Read the quote again:

"In particular, the Pentagon Inspector General provides concrete evidence that techniques developed by the US military for withstanding torture are being used against prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
After 9/11, the Pentagon began using so-called behavioral science consultants, or "biscuit" teams, to advise the military on how to "break" prisoners to make them more cooperative."
Democracy Now! | "The Task Force Report Should Be Annulled" - Member of 2005 APA Task Force on Psychologist Participation in Military Interrogations Speaks Out

FYI Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba not Iraq

Ahhh. You are in full obfuscational mode.
I suspect you now realize your error, and quickly you'll cowardly hide from discussing THIS specific subject again.

1) I never claimed that anybody suggested "abu ghraib" body piles were witnessed by the apa.

2) HERE is the claim YOU made which you have STILL NOT PROVEN...
"Incidentally, your precious, unbiased "reliable institution", the APA, has come under fire recently for participating in the torture of prisoners by the US military"
You STILL have not shown ANY APA participation in torture of prisoners.


Read my reply to the quote again.
In the first paragraph, it explicitly states what the U.S. MILITARY is doing. What the U.S. MILITARY developed
Not the APA.

In the second paragraph, it talks about SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. And there it does not talk about torture.

Do you really think some psychologist told the military to stack the prisoners naked in a pile? That's obviously some stupid stunt performed by a military member.


I never claimed it was gitmo you schmuck.
The point was that the psychologists give pointers on how the military can get information from prisoners. These tactics are employed EVERYWHERE that the military has prisoners, if the people are trained.

When you see tactics that are only employed in CERTAIN AREAS, that demonstrates tactics that are being practiced by a small group of people, independent of their uniform training on the issue of prisoner treatment and interrogation.

It's simple logic that even...
... scratch that. I don't know why I should expect you to be able to piece that together...