This just muddies the waters. For there to be a crime, there must be mens rea.
If the fetus isn't capable of understanding what it's doing, then isn't it basically an animal?
What do we do with misbehaving animals? I have even more right to shoot a dog that won't get off my property than a human being who won't leave.
The way I look at it is, if some other person requires a continuous blood transfusion from me for their survival, I and I alone will decide whether they will get it.
Being pro-life is about saving innocent lives. The death penalty is about ending guilty ones.
But fetuses are guilty - guilty of the crime of trespassing in a woman's uterus, and of stealing resources from her body. All of this against her permission - obviously, if she had given her permission, she wouldn't be going in for the abortion.
No, it's not relevant that she "chose" to have sex. If you invite a person in for coffee, and then they decide they're going to stay for nine months and eat all your food, don't you have a right to remove them from the premises? And use deadly force, if they simply won't leave by any other means?
It doesn't matter in that situation that they'd be leaving in a few months; neither therefore does it matter that a fetus is vacating the premises in a few months. If it's there a second longer than you want it it's trespassing.
Women have an absolute right to control who is living in their uteruses. They have a right to enforce that will with deadly force, if necessary, just as you have that right for your own property.
If it was the butterfly, why even bother with the caterpillar stage? If you can already fly around and stuff, why bother crawling?
Because this way you don't compete for food with, and lose to, adults in your same species.
It's really quite obvious when you think about it. And the process of metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly is really no more unlikely than the metamorphosis from egg to caterpillar (or any other configuration.)
Probably for the same reason that the USAF was off playing wargames with, coincidentally, a fake airplane hijacking, and for the same reason that Dick Cheney stopped flying on airplanes right around the same time.
Whats wrong with that? Its informative, entertainig and it works.
Nothing's wrong with it. If the only reason you read about video games is to find out which ones to buy, then the "old" style is more than adequate for your needs.
But clearly some people are interested in video games, and in discussing them, beyond in a consumer capacity. I certainly am. Much as the same way people apply techniques of criticism to books and movies in their capacity as works of art and not as items to be purchased. This "New" journalism is simply the application of the same techniques in textual criticism that have been around for decades.
I welcome this trend, and I hope it catches on. I'm still going to crack open GamerRag or whatever when I'm not sure if I want to buy a game, but I'm also very interested in other people's interpretations of games that I've enjoyed myself.
Suppose you drop by my house with a lovely Katana sword. You then leave said sword in my posession. I turn around and sell it. Sure, I'm a turd, but you are pretty much 100% SOL.
Suppose you drop by my house and I let you borrow my car to pick your girlfriend up from the airport. You turn around and sell my car to a chop shop for quite a bit of money.
Am I still 100% SOL? Somehow I doubt the police will see it that way.
Can someone please explain the appeal of Lineage to me? I played the original, and while I liked the anime style graphics, there was zero variety between characters, no customization really, it was laggy as hell, and not very exciting.
I tried it for like a couple of days (until I realized how slow the leveling was). What attracted me to the game was that a certain class of character could assert a claim to the throne and attract followers, take over castles, battle other leaders, etc. Sounded fun. Unfortunately it was going to take almost a year to get involved in that. Not fun.
World of Warcraft has a lot of that gameplay, and will have even more when Battlegrounds come out. And I'm nearly lvl 60 after only a few months of casual play.
Then there were the few that ended up failing out of college because the couldn't pull themselves away from the computer.
Yeah, but is that a sign they were "addicted"? Or merely an indication that they weren't all that interested in the program?
I failed out of college, myself, not because there was one thing I was compelled to do instead of attend classes, but because I discovered that I would rather do anything than attend classes.
Oh, so anyone that doesn't see the evidence the same way you do must be motived by something other than the evidence?
When the evidence has only one parsimonious interpretation? When your so-called "alternate interpretations" involve mental gymnastics that even the Hamm brothers couldn't attempt? Yes, exactly. It's not evidence that makes someone bend over backwards to escape an obvious truth; it's usually ideology.
Never mind that most serious scientists don't think there's enough evidence one way or the other yet....
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. There's absolutely no scientific debate on the issue. The scientific consensus is clear that humans are causing global warming.
Which is not to say that there's no debate whatsoever; obviously there's a large number of people for whom the reality of global warming conflicts with ideology. Like you, I guess. But among those who allow the evidence to be the final arbiter, there's no doubt whatsoever that humans are causing global climate change.
All this time I thought that my reply was a comment about how too many people think that because a statement comes from a scientist that it's 100% indisputable.
In other words, just what I said: Because we don't know everything, we know nothing. Like I said, good luck with that attitude.
Statements from scientists are, in fact, disputable. But they're not disputable from a basis of "scientists have been wrong before." Dispute them with evidence, if you can. The fact that scientists have been wrong is why the conclusions of science are tentative. But just because they're tenative, doesn't mean they're wrong.
Why is it that anyone who goes against the common, left-leaning attitude here on/. regarding politics or science is automatically branded with either "troll" or "overrated"?
Because, at this point, in the face of all the evidence, anyone who denies global warming is occuring due to human activity is either ignorant, stupid, or insane. And none of those people are capable of posting anything better than "troll" or "overrated." So, as you can see, it's perfectly logical.
But, good luck with your "we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing" attitude towards science. I'm sure that will get you far in life.
I can't believe someone can look at a bunch of moving steel parts and NOT think something bad could happen to you should your hand end up in there?
And what if all the moving steel parts are suddenly moving outside the machine, where your arm used to be, because your skinflint boss didn't want to shell out for maintenence?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he's a bit responsible for what happened to you?
I mean, how far do you want to go with this? If somebody drops a piano through your roof because of lax safety practices, is it your fault for building your house there? If a poorly-designed pool drain eviscerates your 9-year-old daughter, is it her fault for having weak abdominal tissues? If someone shoots you in the face with a gun to take your money, is it your fault for not being Superman?
Then what DID they expect?
That it would hurt. Should it burn off all the skin on your pelvis? Why?
And why don't people sue their parents/spouse when similar stuff happens at their home?
When has that ever happened in anyone's home? You have to heat coffee to well over 200 degrees to do that. How often do you serve superheated coffee to your guests?
That was rather the point in the McDonald's case - the coffee was served well beyond the necessary temperature, and the fact that it was a safety risk was known to the company but they did it anyway.
What does it take to get you to stop blaming the victim?
In the 30's, if you stuck your arm into a pulley and got it taken off, it was your fault because any idiot knows not to put their arm into machinery...
Oh? And what if you were doing nothing more than operating it the way it was supposed to be operating, and because it was poorly maintained, it malfunctioned and took your arm off? Or killed you?
I think people have a reasonable expectation that the machines they're expected to work with won't injure or kill them, and that the owners of those machines have a responsibility to ensure that's the case. Much as I think people have a reasonable expectation that spilled coffee shouldn't inflict third-degree burns over their genitals through two layers of clothing. Hence the McDonald's coffee damages.
This lawyer is a douchbag. But there are legitimate reasons for tort lawsuits. I for one don't want to live in a world where companies choose lax safety standards because its cheaper that making sure their products don't maim or kill, and I can't imagine why you would. Tort lawsuits keep that in check.
The entire country has gone to "blame someone else."
Because a surprising number of times, it is someone else's fault.
How is global warming going to cause all food production to become impossible?
Not all of it, but most of it. Already we're seeing arable land lost to drought due to increasing global temperatures.
Ever seen the Sahara? That used to be some of the most fertile land in Africa - during the last ice age, when global temperatures were so much lower.
You need to think through the consequences of increased global temperatures, and what all that extra heat in the atmosphere does to things like precipitation, ocean currents, the Jet Stream, etc. There's no indication you've thought through the consequences any further than "Shorts weather! Get out the barbeque!" You're beyond the point of looking ridiculous.
Whether the focus is on the rehabilitive or retributive aspects of incarceration, it seems like "relaxation and fun" should not be high on the list of priorities for accomplishing the goals of imprisonment.
I find that "getting them to not strangle the guards and escape" to be a fundamental goal of imprisonment, and anything that dulls them into a zombie stupor - video games, cable TV, hell, handjobs from the commisary - accomplishes that goal, and is therefore money well spent, in my book.
Well, in WoW, I pay a fee to use the gameworld auction house. That's like a kind of tax, although I can avoid it if I merely sell items directly.
If Blizzard could get away with paying their employees in game gold, I suspect they'd be charging more.
I will grant you that the specificity of the game gold makes it worth far less than USD, but again, all money is virtual. I mean, you could say that the game gold was worthless outside of the game; but outside of the US the dollar is just green paper.
Slashdot Mirror
This just muddies the waters. For there to be a crime, there must be mens rea.
If the fetus isn't capable of understanding what it's doing, then isn't it basically an animal?
What do we do with misbehaving animals? I have even more right to shoot a dog that won't get off my property than a human being who won't leave.
The way I look at it is, if some other person requires a continuous blood transfusion from me for their survival, I and I alone will decide whether they will get it.
Yeah. It's all property, as far as I can see.
Pregnancy is the intended natural result of sex.
No, it's not. Pleasure is the intended natural result of sex.
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, then she better not have intercourse.
Ah yes. Blame the victim. Always the mature option.
Being pro-life is about saving innocent lives.
The death penalty is about ending guilty ones.
But fetuses are guilty - guilty of the crime of trespassing in a woman's uterus, and of stealing resources from her body. All of this against her permission - obviously, if she had given her permission, she wouldn't be going in for the abortion.
No, it's not relevant that she "chose" to have sex. If you invite a person in for coffee, and then they decide they're going to stay for nine months and eat all your food, don't you have a right to remove them from the premises? And use deadly force, if they simply won't leave by any other means?
It doesn't matter in that situation that they'd be leaving in a few months; neither therefore does it matter that a fetus is vacating the premises in a few months. If it's there a second longer than you want it it's trespassing.
Women have an absolute right to control who is living in their uteruses. They have a right to enforce that will with deadly force, if necessary, just as you have that right for your own property.
If the lake is deep enough you may drop too deep where the air inside the sub is too pressurized to float even when the ballast is released.
A good point; the solution would be to use a buoyant liquid, like diesel fuel, instead of air. Cheap and effective.
If it was the butterfly, why even bother with the caterpillar stage? If you can already fly around and stuff, why bother crawling?
Because this way you don't compete for food with, and lose to, adults in your same species.
It's really quite obvious when you think about it. And the process of metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly is really no more unlikely than the metamorphosis from egg to caterpillar (or any other configuration.)
So why was it ignored?
Probably for the same reason that the USAF was off playing wargames with, coincidentally, a fake airplane hijacking, and for the same reason that Dick Cheney stopped flying on airplanes right around the same time.
Whats wrong with that? Its informative, entertainig and it works.
Nothing's wrong with it. If the only reason you read about video games is to find out which ones to buy, then the "old" style is more than adequate for your needs.
But clearly some people are interested in video games, and in discussing them, beyond in a consumer capacity. I certainly am. Much as the same way people apply techniques of criticism to books and movies in their capacity as works of art and not as items to be purchased. This "New" journalism is simply the application of the same techniques in textual criticism that have been around for decades.
I welcome this trend, and I hope it catches on. I'm still going to crack open GamerRag or whatever when I'm not sure if I want to buy a game, but I'm also very interested in other people's interpretations of games that I've enjoyed myself.
Suppose you drop by my house with a lovely Katana sword. You then leave said sword in my posession. I turn around and sell it. Sure, I'm a turd, but you are pretty much 100% SOL.
Suppose you drop by my house and I let you borrow my car to pick your girlfriend up from the airport. You turn around and sell my car to a chop shop for quite a bit of money.
Am I still 100% SOL? Somehow I doubt the police will see it that way.
So...
Women like to play the same games as men, but somehow, at the same time, the "industry wasn't speaking to women"?
Can someone please explain the appeal of Lineage to me? I played the original, and while I liked the anime style graphics, there was zero variety between characters, no customization really, it was laggy as hell, and not very exciting.
I tried it for like a couple of days (until I realized how slow the leveling was). What attracted me to the game was that a certain class of character could assert a claim to the throne and attract followers, take over castles, battle other leaders, etc. Sounded fun. Unfortunately it was going to take almost a year to get involved in that. Not fun.
World of Warcraft has a lot of that gameplay, and will have even more when Battlegrounds come out. And I'm nearly lvl 60 after only a few months of casual play.
Then there were the few that ended up failing out of college because the couldn't pull themselves away from the computer.
Yeah, but is that a sign they were "addicted"? Or merely an indication that they weren't all that interested in the program?
I failed out of college, myself, not because there was one thing I was compelled to do instead of attend classes, but because I discovered that I would rather do anything than attend classes.
Oh, so anyone that doesn't see the evidence the same way you do must be motived by something other than the evidence?
When the evidence has only one parsimonious interpretation? When your so-called "alternate interpretations" involve mental gymnastics that even the Hamm brothers couldn't attempt? Yes, exactly. It's not evidence that makes someone bend over backwards to escape an obvious truth; it's usually ideology.
Never mind that most serious scientists don't think there's enough evidence one way or the other yet....
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. There's absolutely no scientific debate on the issue. The scientific consensus is clear that humans are causing global warming.
Which is not to say that there's no debate whatsoever; obviously there's a large number of people for whom the reality of global warming conflicts with ideology. Like you, I guess. But among those who allow the evidence to be the final arbiter, there's no doubt whatsoever that humans are causing global climate change.
All this time I thought that my reply was a comment about how too many people think that because a statement comes from a scientist that it's 100% indisputable.
In other words, just what I said: Because we don't know everything, we know nothing. Like I said, good luck with that attitude.
Statements from scientists are, in fact, disputable. But they're not disputable from a basis of "scientists have been wrong before." Dispute them with evidence, if you can. The fact that scientists have been wrong is why the conclusions of science are tentative. But just because they're tenative, doesn't mean they're wrong.
Why is it that anyone who goes against the common, left-leaning attitude here on /. regarding politics or science is automatically branded with either "troll" or "overrated"?
Because, at this point, in the face of all the evidence, anyone who denies global warming is occuring due to human activity is either ignorant, stupid, or insane. And none of those people are capable of posting anything better than "troll" or "overrated." So, as you can see, it's perfectly logical.
But, good luck with your "we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing" attitude towards science. I'm sure that will get you far in life.
What's wrong with people that they think a game that allows you to beat up women, shoot cops and steal cars is fun?
No video game can allow you to do those things. Or are you another one of those people that can't distinguish between fantasy and reality?
Since when in jurisprudence does someone else get punished based on the action of another?
Historically? Through most of English history.
I can't believe someone can look at a bunch of moving steel parts and NOT think something bad could happen to you should your hand end up in there?
And what if all the moving steel parts are suddenly moving outside the machine, where your arm used to be, because your skinflint boss didn't want to shell out for maintenence?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he's a bit responsible for what happened to you?
I mean, how far do you want to go with this? If somebody drops a piano through your roof because of lax safety practices, is it your fault for building your house there? If a poorly-designed pool drain eviscerates your 9-year-old daughter, is it her fault for having weak abdominal tissues? If someone shoots you in the face with a gun to take your money, is it your fault for not being Superman?
Then what DID they expect?
That it would hurt. Should it burn off all the skin on your pelvis? Why?
And why don't people sue their parents/spouse when similar stuff happens at their home?
When has that ever happened in anyone's home? You have to heat coffee to well over 200 degrees to do that. How often do you serve superheated coffee to your guests?
That was rather the point in the McDonald's case - the coffee was served well beyond the necessary temperature, and the fact that it was a safety risk was known to the company but they did it anyway.
What does it take to get you to stop blaming the victim?
It's nothing but a finger-pointing game.
Sometimes fingers need to be pointed.
In the 30's, if you stuck your arm into a pulley and got it taken off, it was your fault because any idiot knows not to put their arm into machinery...
Oh? And what if you were doing nothing more than operating it the way it was supposed to be operating, and because it was poorly maintained, it malfunctioned and took your arm off? Or killed you?
I think people have a reasonable expectation that the machines they're expected to work with won't injure or kill them, and that the owners of those machines have a responsibility to ensure that's the case. Much as I think people have a reasonable expectation that spilled coffee shouldn't inflict third-degree burns over their genitals through two layers of clothing. Hence the McDonald's coffee damages.
This lawyer is a douchbag. But there are legitimate reasons for tort lawsuits. I for one don't want to live in a world where companies choose lax safety standards because its cheaper that making sure their products don't maim or kill, and I can't imagine why you would. Tort lawsuits keep that in check.
The entire country has gone to "blame someone else."
Because a surprising number of times, it is someone else's fault.
Wow.
Bitter, much?
How is global warming going to cause all food production to become impossible?
Not all of it, but most of it. Already we're seeing arable land lost to drought due to increasing global temperatures.
Ever seen the Sahara? That used to be some of the most fertile land in Africa - during the last ice age, when global temperatures were so much lower.
You need to think through the consequences of increased global temperatures, and what all that extra heat in the atmosphere does to things like precipitation, ocean currents, the Jet Stream, etc. There's no indication you've thought through the consequences any further than "Shorts weather! Get out the barbeque!" You're beyond the point of looking ridiculous.
I am yet to be shown how global warming is going to kill all 7 billion people on the planet, or even a substantial portion of them.
Lemme ask you something. Did you ever eat? Or know someone who has?
Whether the focus is on the rehabilitive or retributive aspects of incarceration, it seems like "relaxation and fun" should not be high on the list of priorities for accomplishing the goals of imprisonment.
I find that "getting them to not strangle the guards and escape" to be a fundamental goal of imprisonment, and anything that dulls them into a zombie stupor - video games, cable TV, hell, handjobs from the commisary - accomplishes that goal, and is therefore money well spent, in my book.
There's no sales tax on GP... yet.
Well, in WoW, I pay a fee to use the gameworld auction house. That's like a kind of tax, although I can avoid it if I merely sell items directly.
If Blizzard could get away with paying their employees in game gold, I suspect they'd be charging more.
I will grant you that the specificity of the game gold makes it worth far less than USD, but again, all money is virtual. I mean, you could say that the game gold was worthless outside of the game; but outside of the US the dollar is just green paper.
What we have here is a group of school administrators so extremely left wing and paranoid that they'll cancel just about anything.
"left wing" =/= "dipshit", dipshit.