I doubt any parent intends to kill their child by leaving them unattended in a hot car, but they do, and society has a need to punish them for their negligent actions.
It is possible, that negligence — causing bad things to happen without any intent — should be punished. But, in your example, the charges brought up against such parents currently are murder (or involuntary homicide, whatever the fine distinction), when it should be just that — negligence.
No, the charge is criminal negligence, and often comes with manslaughter tacked on. To be charged with murder, there has to be intent and/or premeditation.
So, basically, your argument is based on ignorance of existing law. I'd suggest you brush up before commenting on such topics next time.
But that doesn't change the fact that a person can act negligently, without intent, and still deserve to be punished.
Case in point, I doubt any parent intends to kill their child by leaving them unattended in a hot car, but they do, and society has a need to punish them for their negligent actions.
Go watch this, then try and come back here and tell me that stupid bitch shouldn't be punished.
Considering how regularly and spectacularly biology fucks up, wouldn't it be more surprising if cross-sex fuck-ups didn't happen?
Yes it would.
It would be equally surprising of those cross-sex fuck-ups weren't anomalies.
but I'm not talking about anomalous genetic issues like someone having XXY or XO chromosomes; I'm specifically referring to people who would have an XX-male pair (and vice versa, of course), but exhibit physiological indications that the person was actually female, such as irregularly high estrogen output, or the whole cross-brain-thinking thing we're discussing in this specific thread.
Take it up with them if the fact that what you call multitasking isn't really multitasking, because they're the ones making the claim. I'm just parroting it.
Would you say a person that discharges a firearm in a crowded place should not be punished?
Only if he meant to hit someone — without a legal reason to do that.
Ah, so if the guy standing next to you in line shoots a gun at the ground, and the round ricochets and hits you in the femoral artery, you don't think he should be charged with a crime, since he didn't mean to kill you.
You realize that's insane, don't you? Or are you one of those people who flat out refuses to take responsibility for their own actions?
which is fantastic until a guy gets away and then kills someone, then the police are screwed. Or if the chase a guy and he kills someone, then the police are screwed.
Yea, because cops are always being punished harshly, huh? Not like they can outright murder someone in cold blood and receive 2 weeks paid vacation as a "punishment."
Oh, wait, I got that backwards; cops almost never get punished for shit they actually do, let alone any perceived ill. You're grasping at straws.
Doesn't really roll off the tongue like 'straight,' 'gay,' or 'tranny' does.
I think being monosyllabic is probably important. Plus, "guy in a dress" might be offensive to transvestites going in the other direction, and "lady in pants" is a bit too broad.
Yet ordinary Americans, for the most part, seem not to care: 'Surveillance so intrusive it is putting certain subjects out of bounds would seem like cause for alarm in a country that prides itself as the world's most free.
America, land of the free, home of the brave.. Inviting every Tom, Dick and Harry from all corners of the globe to come join America's way of life wasn't such a good thing afterall. It has politicians back peddling like crazy to shore up the borders now. Now that we have clearly let some of those who would love to destroy America move on in.. Why is everyone so surprised by the survellance taking place now being that we are really threatened by these unknown foreigners emigrating and raising their children to hate America?
Uh, why are you so worried about foreigners? Because they aren't the ones passing "laws" giving themselves the right to arrest you without charges, imprison you indefinitely without due process, torture you, violate your right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, prevent you from exercising your rights to free speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances, etc. etc. etc.
Really, dude, if you're worried about people who want to "destroy America," you should be paying more attention to DC and Wall Street than Ellis Island.
It just kills me that those in power with their jingoistic cries of "they hate our freedom" are the ones stripping us of our freedom.
Well, appeal to emotion is one of the most effective propaganda techniques, you know.
That's why they put children in ads for damn near everything, or use "for the children" as an excuse for bad behavior - because what good, honest, 'Christian' (since we're talking about 'Murica) person would ever disagree with helping children? Do you hate children or something?
... That's the same UK that has essentially outlawed porn and "rude behavior," right?
Hey, isn't your capital city the one that's literally blanketed in high-tech surveillance equipment, has some sort of terrorist attack every year, and has a mayor who thinks the mean ol' poor should be punished for picking on the poor, innocent uber-wealthy?
The same UK whose government is, right now, running your so-called 'free' press through the ringer for the Snowden disclosures?
I wouldn't engage in a 'whose government is slightly less fucked' pissing contest with America if I were you; but, then again, I don't like being covered in piss.
Those that remember growing up in a free America care.
So... nobody?
Look, man, we've never lived up to the lofty ideals set forth in our Constitution. Not to say they aren't great ideas, but rather that our society has consistently failed to live up to the expectations they set forth.
Of course, that's no excuse for not trying; true liberty is something we should always be moving closer to, not further from.
God-damn but I hate how religious fundamentalists have co-opted conservativism.
I don't know about "conservatives like [OP]," but I'd like to inform you that conservatives like me don't give a flying fuck what strangers do with their own bodies, so long as 'what they do' doesn't translate to getting between me and my right to do whatever the fuck I want, so long as it's not getting between someone else and their right to do whatever the fuck they want, so long as... well, you get the picture.
Of course, "progressives" and "liberals" are just as bad about cherry-picking which rights they'll defend and for whom as you're accusing "conservatives" of, which leads me to point out the real problem: it's not the apparently-diametrically-opposed-but-realistically-identical goals of the duopolistic parties; it's that stupid motherfuckers actually buy into the lies of one side or the other, insisting that Party A is nothing but evil hypocrites (but Party B is filled with angelic philanthropists), then go vote.
I'm complaining about the War on Drugs, started by Nixon
No.
Nixon might have ramped things up a bit, but the War on Personal Freedom (thank you, Bill Hicks) technically started with a man named Harry J. Anslinger, America's first drug czar.
Are the only damages (or potential damages) the $0.05 in electricity? What if that particular circuit was being used for other things, like running a pump to deal with some flooding, and plugging in the car was enough to blow the braker?
So the next time you run a red light should we lock you up for killing the children that could have been crossing the street at that intersection?
I'm OK with that; IMO running a red light is criminal negligence.
Counter-argument: Would you say a person that discharges a firearm in a crowded place should not be punished?
Except that "literally" has been used in that manner for far longer than dictionaries have existed.
I just heard an NPR story yesterday about how using "axe" instead of "ask" is actually proper English, because people used it that way back in the 1500's. Interesting and informative, but doesn't change the fact that if you say to a stranger, "hey, man, lemme axe you something," he's going to assume that you're an idiot.
That's not the same thing; if you read the article you linked to, in the first paragraph they point out that intersex anomalies such as hermaphroditism result from "combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female."
I'm talking specifically about XY and XX chromosome groups. People with Turner Syndrome and the like are not included, for obvious reasons.
Also, a link to a Wikipedia entry doesn't really qualify as empirical evidence, especially when discussing topics of which people tend to have very strong leanings (because they'll pollute the Wiki entry with their opinions instead of facts).
Slashdot Mirror
It is possible, that negligence — causing bad things to happen without any intent — should be punished. But, in your example, the charges brought up against such parents currently are murder (or involuntary homicide, whatever the fine distinction), when it should be just that — negligence.
No, the charge is criminal negligence, and often comes with manslaughter tacked on. To be charged with murder, there has to be intent and/or premeditation.
So, basically, your argument is based on ignorance of existing law. I'd suggest you brush up before commenting on such topics next time.
Look, I get the importance of intent in law.
But that doesn't change the fact that a person can act negligently, without intent, and still deserve to be punished.
Case in point, I doubt any parent intends to kill their child by leaving them unattended in a hot car, but they do, and society has a need to punish them for their negligent actions.
Go watch this, then try and come back here and tell me that stupid bitch shouldn't be punished.
No difference at all when I tried it - maybe your car has an automatic transmission and the engine drops to zero RPM before the car is stopped?
Maybe his car is a piece of shit and the vacuum check valve in the power brake system is leaking like a screen door in a battleship.....
Actually, the last one I had do that to me was indeed a POS.
It also had a penchant for losing fuel pressure on hard corners, enough to kill the engine.
I'm specifically referring to people who would have an XX-male pair (and vice versa, of course).
Ha, who'd have thought that a simple typo would lead me to find the answer I've been looking for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
Considering how regularly and spectacularly biology fucks up, wouldn't it be more surprising if cross-sex fuck-ups didn't happen?
Yes it would.
It would be equally surprising of those cross-sex fuck-ups weren't anomalies.
but I'm not talking about anomalous genetic issues like someone having XXY or XO chromosomes; I'm specifically referring to people who would have an XX-male pair (and vice versa, of course), but exhibit physiological indications that the person was actually female, such as irregularly high estrogen output, or the whole cross-brain-thinking thing we're discussing in this specific thread.
Switching between tasks really, really fast.
Of course, it's not me you're arguing with, it's the scientific community:
https://www.google.com/search?q=can+humans+multitask
Take it up with them if the fact that what you call multitasking isn't really multitasking, because they're the ones making the claim. I'm just parroting it.
How does it seem unlikely?
Probability.
Because if sexual dimorphism wasn't unlikely, conditions such as hermaphroditism wouldn't be anomalies, they would be commonplace.
But genetic anomalies outside the XX and XY norm aren't what I'm talking about.
Only if he meant to hit someone — without a legal reason to do that.
Ah, so if the guy standing next to you in line shoots a gun at the ground, and the round ricochets and hits you in the femoral artery, you don't think he should be charged with a crime, since he didn't mean to kill you.
You realize that's insane, don't you? Or are you one of those people who flat out refuses to take responsibility for their own actions?
which is fantastic until a guy gets away and then kills someone, then the police are screwed. Or if the chase a guy and he kills someone, then the police are screwed.
Yea, because cops are always being punished harshly, huh? Not like they can outright murder someone in cold blood and receive 2 weeks paid vacation as a "punishment."
Oh, wait, I got that backwards; cops almost never get punished for shit they actually do, let alone any perceived ill. You're grasping at straws.
Doesn't really roll off the tongue like 'straight,' 'gay,' or 'tranny' does.
I think being monosyllabic is probably important. Plus, "guy in a dress" might be offensive to transvestites going in the other direction, and "lady in pants" is a bit too broad.
It is possible to have ovaries and be XY, or to have testes and be XX,
Yup, that's what I want to see a citation for.
Really? You never heard about TARP?
Google "TARP"
Also Google "The Great American Bubble Machine" by Matt Taibbi. Great article by one of the few real journalists left in 'Murica.
Yet ordinary Americans, for the most part, seem not to care: 'Surveillance so intrusive it is putting certain subjects out of bounds would seem like cause for alarm in a country that prides itself as the world's most free.
America, land of the free, home of the brave.. Inviting every Tom, Dick and Harry from all corners of the globe to come join America's way of life wasn't such a good thing afterall. It has politicians back peddling like crazy to shore up the borders now. Now that we have clearly let some of those who would love to destroy America move on in.. Why is everyone so surprised by the survellance taking place now being that we are really threatened by these unknown foreigners emigrating and raising their children to hate America?
Uh, why are you so worried about foreigners? Because they aren't the ones passing "laws" giving themselves the right to arrest you without charges, imprison you indefinitely without due process, torture you, violate your right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, prevent you from exercising your rights to free speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances, etc. etc. etc.
Really, dude, if you're worried about people who want to "destroy America," you should be paying more attention to DC and Wall Street than Ellis Island.
It just kills me that those in power with their jingoistic cries of "they hate our freedom" are the ones stripping us of our freedom.
Well, appeal to emotion is one of the most effective propaganda techniques, you know.
That's why they put children in ads for damn near everything, or use "for the children" as an excuse for bad behavior - because what good, honest, 'Christian' (since we're talking about 'Murica) person would ever disagree with helping children? Do you hate children or something?
Stupid, yes. Counter-productive, yes. Effective, big-ol-honkin' yes.
... That's the same UK that has essentially outlawed porn and "rude behavior," right?
Hey, isn't your capital city the one that's literally blanketed in high-tech surveillance equipment, has some sort of terrorist attack every year, and has a mayor who thinks the mean ol' poor should be punished for picking on the poor, innocent uber-wealthy?
The same UK whose government is, right now, running your so-called 'free' press through the ringer for the Snowden disclosures?
I wouldn't engage in a 'whose government is slightly less fucked' pissing contest with America if I were you; but, then again, I don't like being covered in piss.
Those that remember growing up in a free America care.
So... nobody?
Look, man, we've never lived up to the lofty ideals set forth in our Constitution. Not to say they aren't great ideas, but rather that our society has consistently failed to live up to the expectations they set forth.
Of course, that's no excuse for not trying; true liberty is something we should always be moving closer to, not further from.
There is always at least one episode of one of the CSIs on somewhere.
I hereby dub thee "Grissom's Dictum"
God-damn but I hate how religious fundamentalists have co-opted conservativism.
I don't know about "conservatives like [OP]," but I'd like to inform you that conservatives like me don't give a flying fuck what strangers do with their own bodies, so long as 'what they do' doesn't translate to getting between me and my right to do whatever the fuck I want, so long as it's not getting between someone else and their right to do whatever the fuck they want, so long as... well, you get the picture.
Of course, "progressives" and "liberals" are just as bad about cherry-picking which rights they'll defend and for whom as you're accusing "conservatives" of, which leads me to point out the real problem: it's not the apparently-diametrically-opposed-but-realistically-identical goals of the duopolistic parties; it's that stupid motherfuckers actually buy into the lies of one side or the other, insisting that Party A is nothing but evil hypocrites (but Party B is filled with angelic philanthropists), then go vote.
I'm complaining about the War on Drugs, started by Nixon
No.
Nixon might have ramped things up a bit, but the War on Personal Freedom (thank you, Bill Hicks) technically started with a man named Harry J. Anslinger, America's first drug czar.
Are the only damages (or potential damages) the $0.05 in electricity?
What if that particular circuit was being used for other things, like running a pump to deal with some flooding, and plugging in the car was enough to blow the braker?
So the next time you run a red light should we lock you up for killing the children that could have been crossing the street at that intersection?
I'm OK with that; IMO running a red light is criminal negligence.
Counter-argument: Would you say a person that discharges a firearm in a crowded place should not be punished?
Stealing is stealing.
Legal precedent begs to differ.
If you steal a nickel's worth of electricity from a school, you get arrested.
If you're a bank and you steal billions of dollars from taxpayers, you get another couple billion as a reward.
So no, stealing is not stealing, it's only stealing when you do it. So long as "you" is not a bank, LEO, or multinational conglomerate.
Except that "literally" has been used in that manner for far longer than dictionaries have existed.
I just heard an NPR story yesterday about how using "axe" instead of "ask" is actually proper English, because people used it that way back in the 1500's. Interesting and informative, but doesn't change the fact that if you say to a stranger, "hey, man, lemme axe you something," he's going to assume that you're an idiot.
Literally.
That's not the same thing; if you read the article you linked to, in the first paragraph they point out that intersex anomalies such as hermaphroditism result from "combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female."
I'm talking specifically about XY and XX chromosome groups. People with Turner Syndrome and the like are not included, for obvious reasons.
Also, a link to a Wikipedia entry doesn't really qualify as empirical evidence, especially when discussing topics of which people tend to have very strong leanings (because they'll pollute the Wiki entry with their opinions instead of facts).
I did look it up (did you not see the MotorTrend link in my post?), but did not see any reference to the drivetrain setup.
If you know of a resource that does have the information, by all means post the link, I'd be quite appreciative.
FWIW, all the forklifts I've ever used had more than 2" between the back axle and the back of the vehicle body, unlike how the Honda appears to be.
But with practice, you can do many tasks without conscious focus.
I suppose it is possible, but I haven't seen any empirical data to confirm the conclusion.