So the woman, who appeared as though she had been recently beaten, opened the door and allowed the cops in, she was not in her right mind? The "right mind" action for her was to tell the cops to get lost, thus allowing the gang material and guns of her gangster boyfriend to remain in the house?
Maybe sometimes the right thing to do is to actually talk to the cops. She allowed them in, they searched the place, found evidence to put the guy in prison for 14 years, and now a gangster is off the street and she doesn't have to worry about being abused by him anymore. What's wrong with that outcome?
This is part of war, and we are at war with a group of people who want to impose a strict fascist interpretation of Islam on their own countrymen, and if possible, the rest of the world. In a time of war, sometimes civilian casualties happen; this is called, euphemistically, collateral damage.
You keep posting this link to the alexa stats. Although it looks like there has been somewhat of a drop lately, the statistics are pretty unchanged overall since last year.
So maybe it's because a lot of people's jobs rest on these missile defense systems being implemented?
Also, I am curious how hypersonic weapons will fare against a ship equipped with either a Gauss cannon, or more importantly, a laser. Wouldn't both of these be an adequate defense against a hypersonic missle, if implemented properly?
Creationism is alive and well in this country, unfortunately. You have to fight them at every turn. Science is under siege by people like Ham, and ignoring them, alas, will not make them go away.
The idea that the best way to deal with Creationists is to ignore them is a ridiculous one. These people don't go away if you ignore them. On the contrary, you have to engage them. You have to deal with their claptrap whenever and wherever you find it, because these people have political power in this country.
I'm 40. I love what I do, I love building websites and I love doing front-end development. Do I live and breathe it? No. I go to work, work on great sites, and then go home for the day and enjoy my evening doing non-coding things.
This, I always thought, was always rather a silly and pithy quote from Jesus. As Christian theology makes clear, you will be judged regardless of if you do or do not judge. So maybe it makes sense to judge on occasion, just for the hell of it.
For example, I'm relatively certain that at the end of days, Harry Connick, Jr. and Jennifer Lopez will be judged for their talents of lack thereof, regardless of the fact that they were judges on American Idol.
One of the differences Diamond points out in his book is the difficulty in storing foodstuffs in certain climates. It's not too hard to store many grains that are commonly available in Europe and northern Asia, but go south and it becomes much more difficult to store foodstuffs like tubers and breadfruit for any period of time. This is significant because it allowed for people to do things rather than have to hunt for food all the time.
Well, my example was somewhat facetious, I doubt there's an example of the Nazi giving the woman the gun to do the job, but rather to essentially demand that she make the choice. In the few cases I've read about (it's been many years) where this happened the woman placed herself in front of her kids demanding the Nazi spare her kids life in exchange for her own. of course you can imagine how that turned out.
The point is there is no correct choice in the real world in a situation like this.
What if the person is tied up? Remember, not choosing is a choice. You can attack the Nazi, and after he knocks you back down or ties you up, he can ask you to make the choice again. These things really happened; there's multiple accounts of sadistic folks forcing people into morally repugnant situations throughout history.
There ARE real world versions of this. I pointed this out above, but the real world versions tend to involve atrocities during wartime, something that the armchair ethicists here don't seem to want to discuss much. A REAL scenario would involve a soldier telling a mother to shoot one of her children or the soldier would shoot all of them himself. These things have, and will continue to happen in real life on occasion.
What's the proper response here? Attack the soldier with the gun he gives you to shoot your kid? OK, what if he tells you to choose which child will die and he will do it himself while you are tied up? The point is, in th real world, it is the CHOICE ITSELF which is the atrocity, and there is NO correct decision. In the real world. Which is one of the many reasons why war is evil.
Choosing not to decide is still a choice. You could choose to flip a coin, and let fate decide, that is to say, allow the choice to be a random one, but you are still chooing not to decide.
Except that the bullshit of this explanation is shown by the fact that "his son" came back three days later. There was no sacrifice.
Stephen, who dies a martyr, gave more than Christ ever did, because he knew he would not come back. Jesus, being part of an infinite being, surely knew he would come back. He gave up nothing except a few days on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
So the woman, who appeared as though she had been recently beaten, opened the door and allowed the cops in, she was not in her right mind? The "right mind" action for her was to tell the cops to get lost, thus allowing the gang material and guns of her gangster boyfriend to remain in the house?
Maybe sometimes the right thing to do is to actually talk to the cops. She allowed them in, they searched the place, found evidence to put the guy in prison for 14 years, and now a gangster is off the street and she doesn't have to worry about being abused by him anymore. What's wrong with that outcome?
Nothing.
I grew up in Tulsa and graduated from Oklahoma State. It is a backwards, taliban state, for the most part. But even a broken clock...blah blah blah...
This is part of war, and we are at war with a group of people who want to impose a strict fascist interpretation of Islam on their own countrymen, and if possible, the rest of the world. In a time of war, sometimes civilian casualties happen; this is called, euphemistically, collateral damage.
You keep posting this link to the alexa stats. Although it looks like there has been somewhat of a drop lately, the statistics are pretty unchanged overall since last year.
I also am not a paleontologist. It's true.
It's my understanding that for 20% of the users, going to slashdot.org did in fact force people to the new beta.
Holy shit, yes you have.
So maybe it's because a lot of people's jobs rest on these missile defense systems being implemented?
Also, I am curious how hypersonic weapons will fare against a ship equipped with either a Gauss cannon, or more importantly, a laser. Wouldn't both of these be an adequate defense against a hypersonic missle, if implemented properly?
Creationism is alive and well in this country, unfortunately. You have to fight them at every turn. Science is under siege by people like Ham, and ignoring them, alas, will not make them go away.
The idea that the best way to deal with Creationists is to ignore them is a ridiculous one. These people don't go away if you ignore them. On the contrary, you have to engage them. You have to deal with their claptrap whenever and wherever you find it, because these people have political power in this country.
I'm 40. I love what I do, I love building websites and I love doing front-end development. Do I live and breathe it? No. I go to work, work on great sites, and then go home for the day and enjoy my evening doing non-coding things.
This, I always thought, was always rather a silly and pithy quote from Jesus. As Christian theology makes clear, you will be judged regardless of if you do or do not judge. So maybe it makes sense to judge on occasion, just for the hell of it.
For example, I'm relatively certain that at the end of days, Harry Connick, Jr. and Jennifer Lopez will be judged for their talents of lack thereof, regardless of the fact that they were judges on American Idol.
You could do this.
Or you could grow a beard and a mustache and never have to worry again.
One of the differences Diamond points out in his book is the difficulty in storing foodstuffs in certain climates. It's not too hard to store many grains that are commonly available in Europe and northern Asia, but go south and it becomes much more difficult to store foodstuffs like tubers and breadfruit for any period of time. This is significant because it allowed for people to do things rather than have to hunt for food all the time.
I always answer with, "If you ask a question to which you don't really want an honest answer, you might get an answer you don't want to hear."
Just like Christie.
They were screwed...by chemicals in their water.
So you think we should have no cops then.
Anarchist.
Well, my example was somewhat facetious, I doubt there's an example of the Nazi giving the woman the gun to do the job, but rather to essentially demand that she make the choice. In the few cases I've read about (it's been many years) where this happened the woman placed herself in front of her kids demanding the Nazi spare her kids life in exchange for her own. of course you can imagine how that turned out.
The point is there is no correct choice in the real world in a situation like this.
Especially if they Built This City on Rock and Roll
What if the person is tied up? Remember, not choosing is a choice. You can attack the Nazi, and after he knocks you back down or ties you up, he can ask you to make the choice again. These things really happened; there's multiple accounts of sadistic folks forcing people into morally repugnant situations throughout history.
Ok, so then what will you choose with your Freewill, Geddy Lee?
There ARE real world versions of this. I pointed this out above, but the real world versions tend to involve atrocities during wartime, something that the armchair ethicists here don't seem to want to discuss much. A REAL scenario would involve a soldier telling a mother to shoot one of her children or the soldier would shoot all of them himself. These things have, and will continue to happen in real life on occasion.
What's the proper response here? Attack the soldier with the gun he gives you to shoot your kid? OK, what if he tells you to choose which child will die and he will do it himself while you are tied up? The point is, in th real world, it is the CHOICE ITSELF which is the atrocity, and there is NO correct decision. In the real world. Which is one of the many reasons why war is evil.
Choosing not to decide is still a choice.
You could choose to flip a coin, and let fate decide, that is to say, allow the choice to be a random one, but you are still chooing not to decide.
Except that the bullshit of this explanation is shown by the fact that "his son" came back three days later. There was no sacrifice.
Stephen, who dies a martyr, gave more than Christ ever did, because he knew he would not come back. Jesus, being part of an infinite being, surely knew he would come back. He gave up nothing except a few days on earth.
And this is partly why I am not a Christian.