Imagine the United States as a unicorn--pure, innocent, all that whatnot. Now the corporations are hunters who are hunting the unicorn. The problem of course, is that in a one-on-one fight with a unicorn, they're going to get gored all to hell. So they set a trap, immobilize the unicorn, stab it up and collect all its magical blood, then run away before the unicorn explodes and sell the magical blood.
Everybody knows that unicorns explode when they die, right? They do.
"100 points from Gryffindor!" "But Snape, I was just walking down the hall minding my own business..." "Another 100 points from Gryffindor for arguing!"
Bold words from a show where humanity suddenly and magically solved most of its societal problems with very little in the way of explanation, unfortunately.
The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to keep the program that lets them collect information on everybody, and legality be damned. Which would only be a problem if anybody actually stood up and said it was illegal, admittedly.
In other news, water continues to be wet, the sky continues to be blue, and people in the Middle East continue to kill each other.
Citing a German website for English language rules seems a bit suspect, though.
"Importing into" seems redundant, while "importing to" says that the act of importing is occurring toward the direct object, which seems by definition false, as the importer is the subject. It sounds to me like saying, "I drove the car forward backward."
Citing examples of a phrase being used in public isn't what I'd call proof; however, it appears these sites are actually commerce-related, so there's that. If I had a nickel every time somebody used "everyday" as an adverb on a billboard...
And I think that just because you disagree with my viewpoint does not give you the excuse to say it "does not even fulfill basic rationality standards." This is the same exact argument that Libertarians make--"stay the fuck out of my business," so obviously a significant number of people find that it "fulfills basic rationality standards."
1) The current execution process has apparently been found relatively painless, and medical patients in need of anesthesia were getting treated as usual. 2) The E.U. decides to stop selling the drugs. 3) Now they're testing an execution cocktail that may *not* be painless, and we're using our reserves of anesthesia for medical patients.
I stand by my previous statements. If the U.S. wants to execute people, I don't see why it's the business of other countries to force them to change their policy when said coercion will affect normal anesthesia procedures of people completely unrelated to capital punishment. A more reasonable response, in my mind, that would solve *everyone's* problems, would be for the E.U. to just raise the prices on the drugs. Hell, they can raise them a bit more every month for all I care. That way, it offers and incentive to find some other solution as well.
And because of your "right" to call them morally corrupt, maybe people will get executed in more pain, or innocent people with medical conditions may suffer or die.
But I hope you feel all morally justified and whatnot. Good for you.
It's not about "being better" than anyone. It's about never resorting to killing people ever, for any reason, as an ethical judgment. (At least, so I hear. No personal experience.)
So basically, it's blackmail. Or, if you like a slightly less inflammatory term, coercion. And these are probably the same people who complain about the U.S. sticking their noses where they don't belong.
Considering that she was presumably still pregnant by choice, it evidently had some value to her, and isn't it the mother's opinion that the pro-choice people are always screaming about in the first place?
Doesn't it have to be proven harmful to be considered "mutilation"? There are parts of the world where this definition actually holds much more solidly.
Because they can't see the vials of injection going down during the procedure? Umm...
1) The prisoner must not be aware that he is in the process of being killed. 2) The prisoner is definitely aware that he has been sentenced to death. 3) He's been brought to some viewing area and strapped down. 4) They've already done the "last words" bits, etc. 5) The prisoner must logically know he's about to be killed.
It seems like the only way we can say 1) and 5) aren't contradictory is if we start getting into arguments about Aristotle's Hare or whatever about the divisibility of discrete units of time.
Proof by induction: All I have to do is find 2 cases where it's okay to kill a person, therefore I can extrapolate that it's okay to kill all people?:D
Because the E.U. is going to intentionally prevent people from getting proper medical care just to make an ethical point about *a different country's* capital punishment? That seems particularly unconscionable to me.
I was wondering that, too. Just give a big ol' dose of morphine or chloroform or whatever, enough to put them under permanently. Wouldn't that be painless, and quite possibly a good deal cheaper than their fancy death drug cocktails?
Slashdot Mirror
End of the gold having any value, sure.
Imagine the United States as a unicorn--pure, innocent, all that whatnot. Now the corporations are hunters who are hunting the unicorn. The problem of course, is that in a one-on-one fight with a unicorn, they're going to get gored all to hell. So they set a trap, immobilize the unicorn, stab it up and collect all its magical blood, then run away before the unicorn explodes and sell the magical blood.
Everybody knows that unicorns explode when they die, right? They do.
"100 points from Gryffindor!"
"But Snape, I was just walking down the hall minding my own business..."
"Another 100 points from Gryffindor for arguing!"
Pssh, yeah--inalienable human rights are so passe.
Bold words from a show where humanity suddenly and magically solved most of its societal problems with very little in the way of explanation, unfortunately.
The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to keep the program that lets them collect information on everybody, and legality be damned. Which would only be a problem if anybody actually stood up and said it was illegal, admittedly.
In other news, water continues to be wet, the sky continues to be blue, and people in the Middle East continue to kill each other.
Wow, that doesn't sound arrogant at all. Good day, sir.
Citing a German website for English language rules seems a bit suspect, though.
"Importing into" seems redundant, while "importing to" says that the act of importing is occurring toward the direct object, which seems by definition false, as the importer is the subject. It sounds to me like saying, "I drove the car forward backward."
Citing examples of a phrase being used in public isn't what I'd call proof; however, it appears these sites are actually commerce-related, so there's that. If I had a nickel every time somebody used "everyday" as an adverb on a billboard...
http://grammarist.com/usage/everyday-every-day/
And I think that just because you disagree with my viewpoint does not give you the excuse to say it "does not even fulfill basic rationality standards." This is the same exact argument that Libertarians make--"stay the fuck out of my business," so obviously a significant number of people find that it "fulfills basic rationality standards."
Export. The U.S. wants to import the drugs, but the E.U. won't export them to the U.S.
1) The current execution process has apparently been found relatively painless, and medical patients in need of anesthesia were getting treated as usual.
2) The E.U. decides to stop selling the drugs.
3) Now they're testing an execution cocktail that may *not* be painless, and we're using our reserves of anesthesia for medical patients.
I stand by my previous statements. If the U.S. wants to execute people, I don't see why it's the business of other countries to force them to change their policy when said coercion will affect normal anesthesia procedures of people completely unrelated to capital punishment. A more reasonable response, in my mind, that would solve *everyone's* problems, would be for the E.U. to just raise the prices on the drugs. Hell, they can raise them a bit more every month for all I care. That way, it offers and incentive to find some other solution as well.
And because of your "right" to call them morally corrupt, maybe people will get executed in more pain, or innocent people with medical conditions may suffer or die.
But I hope you feel all morally justified and whatnot. Good for you.
That's okay; mistakes happen. I'm just surprised at the number of reply posts I've gotten so far.
It's not about "being better" than anyone. It's about never resorting to killing people ever, for any reason, as an ethical judgment. (At least, so I hear. No personal experience.)
"Of course," huh? Glad to see we got that straightened out.
Who are you referring to with "you"? The U.S. government? My whole point is that the U.S. *can't* lie in its bed because of E.U. cantankerousness.
So basically, it's blackmail. Or, if you like a slightly less inflammatory term, coercion. And these are probably the same people who complain about the U.S. sticking their noses where they don't belong.
Considering that she was presumably still pregnant by choice, it evidently had some value to her, and isn't it the mother's opinion that the pro-choice people are always screaming about in the first place?
Was this before or after all those big battles with the orcs?
Doesn't it have to be proven harmful to be considered "mutilation"? There are parts of the world where this definition actually holds much more solidly.
Because they can't see the vials of injection going down during the procedure? Umm...
1) The prisoner must not be aware that he is in the process of being killed.
2) The prisoner is definitely aware that he has been sentenced to death.
3) He's been brought to some viewing area and strapped down.
4) They've already done the "last words" bits, etc.
5) The prisoner must logically know he's about to be killed.
It seems like the only way we can say 1) and 5) aren't contradictory is if we start getting into arguments about Aristotle's Hare or whatever about the divisibility of discrete units of time.
Proof by induction: All I have to do is find 2 cases where it's okay to kill a person, therefore I can extrapolate that it's okay to kill all people? :D
Or does that only work for math...
Because the E.U. is going to intentionally prevent people from getting proper medical care just to make an ethical point about *a different country's* capital punishment? That seems particularly unconscionable to me.
I was wondering that, too. Just give a big ol' dose of morphine or chloroform or whatever, enough to put them under permanently. Wouldn't that be painless, and quite possibly a good deal cheaper than their fancy death drug cocktails?