For some of us, particularly those of us who have been or are in the military, or the medical field, or first responders, the red cross means, in general, not a particular branding, nor the United States Red Cross nor the Red Cross International -- it means that in an emergency, when lives are on the line and blood and pain are at hand, that there is help. It's a beacon in the darkness that there is still hope.
That's what this is about. J&J tried to take that away. The Red Cross is an internationally agreed upon and (near, if not completely) a universally recognised sign that shouts, "Medical Care! MEDICAL CARE HERE!" Ask any random hundred or thousand people off the street what they think when they see a Red Cross on a White Field. I seriously doubt that Johnson and Johnson will be near the top of the list.
What J&J have done here that is so reprehensible is attempted to dilute that already prolific sign of medical care and hope, to commercialise what others already had a far better claim to. Shame on them, sirs. Shame and disgrace.
They might as well attempt to sue the Catholic Church for being (one of the two) oldest branches of Christianity over trademarks over Santa Claus. It would be exactly as nonsensical.
If I fire a gun at someone intending to kneecap them, then I have knowingly and willfully commited an act. If they later die, it doesn't matter that I didn't intend to kill them -- I have committed murder.
While I firmly believe in your right to believe as you wish to believe, the facts are that our nation is founded on Judeo-Christian morality, and our Justice System is that of 'an Eye for an Eye.'
This woman took a life. She may not have intended to, but she did, through malicious, deceitful behaviour. Her life is forfeit.
You cannot reasonably expect that the act of lawfully coming to a stop as proscribed by driving regulations at a red light will cause the death of another human being. And unless you did it with the intent to cause death, then it's not murder.
As to growing up, you either need to grow up or move to a culture more in line with your views on morality.
Psychologically torturing a mentally unstable person who then kills themself meets the definition of Murder via Depraved Indifference. A reasonable person can infer that psychologically torturing a mentally unstable person could cause them to kill themself. Furthermore, this is an adult preying upon a child. Children do not have the same coping skills adults have. These a people who give a damn what kind of pencils and erasers they have in school, and who sits with who at what table.
This woman clearly engaged in this activity with the purpose of causing grave psychological harm to this girl, who, as aforementioned, is mentally unstable. If you cannot understand that that one thing has a high chance of leading to another, then I'm sorry. Psychologically torturing a person with preexisting problems may not cause them to kill themself, but evidence suggests it has a damn good chance of pushing someone over the edge. If you stand on the roof of a building and egg someone on to jump off and they do, you are guilty of murder. This woman did exactly the same thing, only via the internet. What's so damn hard to understand?
Maybe you should go look up the legal definition of murder. Last time I checked murder was "any willful act, knowingly undertaken, which causes the death of another person." You don't have to mean to kill someone with your actions. If you do something when you can reasonably infer that doing so would cause grievous bodily harm or death, and you do so anyway because you don't care, it's called depraved indifference. This woman deserves to go to jail for her actions. IN our society is is generally considered unacceptable to prey upon those weaker than us, be it mentally or physically. This woman may not have beaten the girl to death with a hammer, but her actions are just as criminally culpable as if she had. She killed this girl, and her weapon was MySpace.
You may not like it, but you can be charged with murder for driving someone to commit suicide if it's determined you did what you did on purpose. You need not have meant to kill them. Just as you can be charged with murder if you shoot someone and they die, even if you didn't mean to kill them. You intended to cause grievous bodily harm which then lead to death. This woman intended to cause grievous psychological harm which led to suicide.
But seriously... there are high schools still around that make you read those classics? High schools around here still think it's ok to ban Huck Finn because they say he was gay for Tom, Tom Sawyer because of N-word Jim, and Farenheit 451 because nobody got it.
You mean schools who want to ban it because it's about book burning, and that's what the Nazis did, and therefore it must be a horrible book?
Hi, there. My planned speciality is Psychiatry. Apparently you've never been to a psychiatric hospital. No matter what the reason you're in there for, the simple fact that you're in there to begin with, even if it's for observation to determine if there is something wrong with you is taken by many psychiatrists and others as evidence that there is something wrong with you to begin with.
If you come into the hospital, say, with a severe head wound, and are shipped to a psychiatric hospital for observation, as I was, suddenly you've got Borderline personality disorder, because you, knowing a little bit about the nature of serious head wounds, decided that self-inflicted wounds were a perfectly acceptable means of keeping yourself awake until the ambulance got to you.
Nevermind that both the EMTs who responded and the ER doctors thought that what you did was perfectly acceptable considering the size of the pocket of blood that was forming in the back of your skull. Nevermind the fact that you probably would have fallen asleep and died if it wasn't for the injuries you gave yourself. Your behaviour, though lifesaving, was not culturally acceptable, and therefore warranted psychiatric observation, which is tantamount to most people as saying there is something wrong with you.
The problem with modern psychiatric practice is it is about 50% science and 50% ethnocentrism. So much of what is considered 'insane' behaviour in our society is simply behaviour that is not 'normal' in Western Society. So many people forget to draw a the line where it matters: It's not whether your behaviour meets the cultural norms or not. It's whether you are able to lead a functional life. Only when you behaviour interferes with you living a functional life does it become a problem. Your happiness, while of concern to a health care worker, is none of their damn business unless you want it to be.
> Faramir, instead of being noble, was more like his brother
I think Tolkein made Faramir impossibly perfect, but I think both Tolkein and Jackson omitted character development at both ends. Tolkein has Faramir boasting that he wouldn't pick up the ring if he saw it lying at the side of the road, but never even put that boast to the test. What, is he better than Gandalf and Isuldur combined? Jackson, on the other hand, doesn't include the boast at all.
You really, really need to reread the dialogue between Faramir and Frodo. I had the distinct impression that he was sorely tempted to take the ring, just as Sam was tempted to keep it when he had possession of it.
Now go away, or someone with Genetic Luck will come along and ruin this conversation by making it so that any further dialog entered into it will only work out in their favour.
So massive core explosions delivering a huge radiation wave are expected.
Step 1:
- invent scrith
Step 2:
- build Ringworld
Step 3:
- profit (sell real estate)
Dear Sir and/or Madam:
Good Day. My name is Jack Brennan. You may call me Brennan-monster. I am writing on behalf of my Protector brethern. This letter constitutes a cease and desist notice. You have been publishing our trade secret, that is, our business plan. Please remove said plan from you website at once or face litigation.
... but if the acting is supurb, and they're telling a good story, then I'm happy.
Maybe, if you have not read the book. The 1980s theatrical movie had good acting and a good story but plot elements really knocked the movie down a notch, for example for many who read the book the sound based weapons were a strong negative. The Fremen won fights because their environment and culture made them tough, it was not a technological gimmick. The movie discarded a major element of the book, people adapting to and being influenced (culturally and physically) by their environment.
A-frickkin'-men-, brother.
Dune may have been dedicated to dryland ecologists, but we all know the book and series were for Anthropologists.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Gods. Maybe it's a black dwarf. A dead star that burned through all its nuclear fuel long ago and has since cooled.
How many people will fall into comas playing this game, CC Corp!
Damn you! Damn you!
Signed, Baramunku
You make me cry, OP. I've known militant feminists who have said the same thing.
For some of us, particularly those of us who have been or are in the military, or the medical field, or first responders, the red cross means, in general, not a particular branding, nor the United States Red Cross nor the Red Cross International -- it means that in an emergency, when lives are on the line and blood and pain are at hand, that there is help. It's a beacon in the darkness that there is still hope.
That's what this is about. J&J tried to take that away. The Red Cross is an internationally agreed upon and (near, if not completely) a universally recognised sign that shouts, "Medical Care! MEDICAL CARE HERE!" Ask any random hundred or thousand people off the street what they think when they see a Red Cross on a White Field. I seriously doubt that Johnson and Johnson will be near the top of the list.
What J&J have done here that is so reprehensible is attempted to dilute that already prolific sign of medical care and hope, to commercialise what others already had a far better claim to. Shame on them, sirs. Shame and disgrace.
They might as well attempt to sue the Catholic Church for being (one of the two) oldest branches of Christianity over trademarks over Santa Claus. It would be exactly as nonsensical.
Signed,
Irate Med Student.
Of course it should! That's what happens when you put two Ford Pintos into the super collider!
If I fire a gun at someone intending to kneecap them, then I have knowingly and willfully commited an act. If they later die, it doesn't matter that I didn't intend to kill them -- I have committed murder.
Inciting someone to kill someone else is murder. That's why someone who incites a riot can be held responsible for deaths that result.
In this case, she simply incited the girl to kill herself.
The death, however, would not have taken place without this woman's depraved, unscrupulous actions.
While I firmly believe in your right to believe as you wish to believe, the facts are that our nation is founded on Judeo-Christian morality, and our Justice System is that of 'an Eye for an Eye.'
This woman took a life. She may not have intended to, but she did, through malicious, deceitful behaviour. Her life is forfeit.
You cannot reasonably expect that the act of lawfully coming to a stop as proscribed by driving regulations at a red light will cause the death of another human being. And unless you did it with the intent to cause death, then it's not murder.
As to growing up, you either need to grow up or move to a culture more in line with your views on morality.
Psychologically torturing a mentally unstable person who then kills themself meets the definition of Murder via Depraved Indifference. A reasonable person can infer that psychologically torturing a mentally unstable person could cause them to kill themself. Furthermore, this is an adult preying upon a child. Children do not have the same coping skills adults have. These a people who give a damn what kind of pencils and erasers they have in school, and who sits with who at what table. This woman clearly engaged in this activity with the purpose of causing grave psychological harm to this girl, who, as aforementioned, is mentally unstable. If you cannot understand that that one thing has a high chance of leading to another, then I'm sorry. Psychologically torturing a person with preexisting problems may not cause them to kill themself, but evidence suggests it has a damn good chance of pushing someone over the edge. If you stand on the roof of a building and egg someone on to jump off and they do, you are guilty of murder. This woman did exactly the same thing, only via the internet. What's so damn hard to understand?
You're the idiot if you can't understand what 'malice aforethought' means.
Maybe you should go look up the legal definition of murder. Last time I checked murder was "any willful act, knowingly undertaken, which causes the death of another person." You don't have to mean to kill someone with your actions. If you do something when you can reasonably infer that doing so would cause grievous bodily harm or death, and you do so anyway because you don't care, it's called depraved indifference. This woman deserves to go to jail for her actions. IN our society is is generally considered unacceptable to prey upon those weaker than us, be it mentally or physically. This woman may not have beaten the girl to death with a hammer, but her actions are just as criminally culpable as if she had. She killed this girl, and her weapon was MySpace.
You may not like it, but you can be charged with murder for driving someone to commit suicide if it's determined you did what you did on purpose. You need not have meant to kill them. Just as you can be charged with murder if you shoot someone and they die, even if you didn't mean to kill them. You intended to cause grievous bodily harm which then lead to death. This woman intended to cause grievous psychological harm which led to suicide.
And while Ziggy Stardust was indeed abused at the hands of humans, wasn't that his purpose? Can't be the messiah without the abuse and dying.
But seriously... there are high schools still around that make you read those classics? High schools around here still think it's ok to ban Huck Finn because they say he was gay for Tom, Tom Sawyer because of N-word Jim, and Farenheit 451 because nobody got it.
You mean schools who want to ban it because it's about book burning, and that's what the Nazis did, and therefore it must be a horrible book?
Hi, there. My planned speciality is Psychiatry. Apparently you've never been to a psychiatric hospital. No matter what the reason you're in there for, the simple fact that you're in there to begin with, even if it's for observation to determine if there is something wrong with you is taken by many psychiatrists and others as evidence that there is something wrong with you to begin with.
If you come into the hospital, say, with a severe head wound, and are shipped to a psychiatric hospital for observation, as I was, suddenly you've got Borderline personality disorder, because you, knowing a little bit about the nature of serious head wounds, decided that self-inflicted wounds were a perfectly acceptable means of keeping yourself awake until the ambulance got to you.
Nevermind that both the EMTs who responded and the ER doctors thought that what you did was perfectly acceptable considering the size of the pocket of blood that was forming in the back of your skull. Nevermind the fact that you probably would have fallen asleep and died if it wasn't for the injuries you gave yourself. Your behaviour, though lifesaving, was not culturally acceptable, and therefore warranted psychiatric observation, which is tantamount to most people as saying there is something wrong with you.
The problem with modern psychiatric practice is it is about 50% science and 50% ethnocentrism. So much of what is considered 'insane' behaviour in our society is simply behaviour that is not 'normal' in Western Society. So many people forget to draw a the line where it matters: It's not whether your behaviour meets the cultural norms or not. It's whether you are able to lead a functional life. Only when you behaviour interferes with you living a functional life does it become a problem. Your happiness, while of concern to a health care worker, is none of their damn business unless you want it to be.
You really, really need to reread the dialogue between Faramir and Frodo. I had the distinct impression that he was sorely tempted to take the ring, just as Sam was tempted to keep it when he had possession of it.
You mean non-irony?
The Brennan-monster delivers.
Rocket Surgery.
It's not Rocket surgery.
Rich Mann.
Have you read Down in Flames?
We Protectors stick together.
Now go away, or someone with Genetic Luck will come along and ruin this conversation by making it so that any further dialog entered into it will only work out in their favour.
Jack Brennan
I am civilised, after all. I'm a Belter, not a lawyer.
Jack Brennan.
Dear Sir and/or Madam:
Good Day. My name is Jack Brennan. You may call me Brennan-monster. I am writing on behalf of my Protector brethern. This letter constitutes a cease and desist notice. You have been publishing our trade secret, that is, our business plan. Please remove said plan from you website at once or face litigation.
Sincerely yours, Jack Brennan
I have Thalassemia Minor. If there was a huge outbreak of Malaria, guess what? I sudden become genetically better than you.
Reality just is. Taking offense at reality is rather stupid. If you have such a problem with reality, there is an easy way out.
Maybe, if you have not read the book. The 1980s theatrical movie had good acting and a good story but plot elements really knocked the movie down a notch, for example for many who read the book the sound based weapons were a strong negative. The Fremen won fights because their environment and culture made them tough, it was not a technological gimmick. The movie discarded a major element of the book, people adapting to and being influenced (culturally and physically) by their environment.
A-frickkin'-men-, brother.
Dune may have been dedicated to dryland ecologists, but we all know the book and series were for Anthropologists.