Walsingham

yup... if sombody was resposnisble for putting you in a "kill that poor sap or I'll kill you" situation. the other person can be charged with Murder I watch wayyyy too much Law And Order. That's where they are coercing you to commit the act itself.

You keep saying that, but I no no think it means what you think it means. It's all about control. Nonsesne. It's about the passionate rythm of the salsa.

I do know that women prefer a guy who's been working out. BUt I don't think that's the sweat so much.

I think it's sad. I'm old enough to remember her being a sex symbol instead of a ropey fat weirdo. When someone dies who you've fancied it's strange.

I believe so. You must be guilty of an actual act under most legal systems. I can't find you guilty of shooting a civilian just because you were in a position to do so.

They werren't inside the house, but they were hanging off it outside my bedroom window with a knife. I was going to shoot, thinking in the clinical way you chaps are advocating, but I suddenly thought about the consequences, and also the fact that I'd never know why on earth they were doing it. So I stuck the gun in their face and demanded an explanation. A slightly unrepeatable occurrence, perhaps, but I think you can see my point. *shrugs* maybe it's because I've met too many criminals to consider them inhuman. I'll defend myself and my property, but to the extent demanded. I certainly don't relish the prospect or think about the means of defence as an exciting opportunity to shoot someone.

No apology necessary. I suppose I sould clarify myself. Im not against cures for diseases or even so much for subsidizing the cost (although it does rankle me a little). Im against the government MANDATING anything medically that does not effect the wellbeing of the populous. I would also be against a MANDATED HIV vaccine. Not because its not a good thing, not because you would be an idiot not to get it, but because in those examples (non-communicable) they have no business in your body. Now regarding parents who "just cant be arsed" to educate and provide a ride to the clinic, well tbh, thats their problem. We do not need a nanny government that attemts to MANDATE every aspect of our health. Money is one issue (see subsidizing) but just plain ole dont give a damn isnt an excuse for the government to step in. Thanks for accepting my apology and for clarifying your position. I can certainly understand you much better now. I can't recall teh justification, but it's my understanding that for a vaccination program to be truly effective it needs to be mandated. The example which springs to mind is smallpox.A hideous disease, but which was actually annihilated thanks to a concerted global effort.

They were dressed entirely in black, and appeared to be hanging off the edge of teh roof with a knife in their hand. It turned out that my neighbour (the judge) was cleaning the gutters while suffering from insomnia. I also happen to like Plano's idea of neutralising and confusing the intruder. Bright lights, strange noises etc would serve the other purposes of alerting your loved ones and the neighbours to a problem. I'd suggest something like pepper spray would do a good job at convincing them to leave the premises. I should add tat I'm well aware, from my past work, of teh fact that you will occasionally find criminals whose intent is sadistic, not larcenous. Your firearm really will come in handy then. BUt equally, trying a lesser response first will serve to convince both you and a court that lethal force was required. You'll fight a lot harder and shoot better if your conscience is clean. BTW, if the moral argument doesn't convince you, you have realised that getting blood all over your house will require you to replace a lot of stuff like carpets which will almost certainly cost more than the poor fool can steal?

You keep saying that, but I no no think it means what you think it means.

Read what I said. The war does not have to be legal for deployment to be legal. Now read it again. His order is deployment. What's illegal? In his mind, the war. What's legal? His order, the deployment. NOw that IS an interesting angle. He was refusing deployment, but deployment isn't illegal. I guess in some ways one could argue in favour of a division by tactical, operational, and strategic responsibilities. In short, f a tactical actor (soldier) believes a tactical order (shoot gentleman x) is illegal then he is required to refuse. However, strategic decisions (go to war) are not his responsibility (in any way other than being a voter), and are the responsibility of the strategic authorty i.e. Congress. Is that any clearer?

Josh: I know I'm writing from an island, but coastlines are tricky too! Unless you take the Aussie approach of sinking anyone who mucks around with them.

It's a damned lie! Everyone knows we were persecuting the Irish long before the Muslims turned up.

I have no ipod. I was going to ask if any of you chaps could find the tunes there, in which case I'd try to get them that way.

The Italian American link is an interesting angle. Given that some of those Italian Americans would have come from very much Italian cultural backgrounds. I should make clear that I don't take the view that any man, properly lead, is a coward. And that as Hilde says, my view is emphatically that the biggest cultural distinction is in the way the officer corps took nil responsibility and took no interest in training or preparedness.

If you want to choose your fights then you become a merc. It's not rocket science, boys and girls. Nuremberg did state that a soldier has a duty to not participate in crimes against humanity and illegal orders. However, as has been tested numerous times in court, that does not mean you get to debate the decision of whether the war itself was correct!

[Tarkin] I grow tired of asking this, so it'll be the last time [/Tarkin] Now please pay attention. Bullets will kill you three ways: 1. the 'zombie' kill Shots to the mid and rear brain will drop you on the floor immediately. Shots that purely damage the forebrain and someo f the mid brain structures often won't. However, most can lead to... 2. Bleed out Damage to arteries and other blood bearing tissues, such as the heart or spleen cause a loss of blood. Without blood you can't get oxygen to your tissues. Without oxygen you can't function. 3. Shock No-one I know has ever given me a concrete explanataion for this. Essentially, sometimes when subjected to great pain, especially coupled with surprise, the body just quits. Out like a light. 4. Conceivably you could literally chip bits off a person This is why the old .22 does 1D6 dam. .44 does 8D6 dam is utter nonsense. It depends almost entirely on where you get shot. Thinking you need a magnum round to protect yourself is waffle. EDIT: and if you'd seen as many autopsy reports as I have you wouldn't be so bloody excited about killing people just because they want into your house. As I've previously said in other threads I nearly shot my next door neighbour for precisely that because I couldn't identify them in the dark. I'm eternally glad I didn't.

Does this mean we can get adverts ban just because they suck?

Cough linctus for everyone!

Interestingly I can't find any reference to weapons now. However, while looking I find another quote by him: "It's not a police state for everybody else because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims and that's quite an open fact." He also critcised the police for their 'amateur interrogation techniques', suggesting he objects to our being an amateurish police state. Which leads me to suspect we have finally located Onur the Courageous.

Because I can't spell it.

I'm a wee bit confused, Gfted1. I apologise for missing the costings in the original link, but you yourself seem to be making a bit of a curveball argument. You say that arguing in favour of the vaccines is trying to cover for insufficient parenting skills. Whereas opponents seem to be arguing that without the threat of HPV induced cancer to wave at their kids then they can't keep them from making mit der rumpy pumpy. My feeling in general is of course that having established that $360 per head is quite a lot. In fact I would argue that free barrier contraceptives would address not only this problem, but y'know things like HIV and other VD. I think it is aprticularly important to keep in context the fact that the US system has no NHS, and as such it's a bit incongruous to suddenly start behaving as if they do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6340935.stm I absolutely love this story. The way I read it we have a man who clearly despises the government, is taking a course in political islam and works in a proseletysing bookshop and whose first reaction on seeing police come to his home was to look for a weapon is claiming all muslims are targets! I was, like, "Sure, any muslims who are violently inclined radical muslims." Nutball. I'm not saying anyone who is violent and dislikes the government should be arrested or subject to arrest. However I would suggest that if you are and you get picked up as a terrorist suspect then the police didn't make a vast error.

I saw the pictures and thought "Is this some devious plot to convince any aliens we meet that they should stay the hell away?"

If I recall correctly, my previous conclusion when we discussed this was that while we may be happy for a day if soldiers start disobeying orders and deciding national politics today ...the consequences more generally are not so happy. Viz Thailand's recent coup.

Heh. I'm with you there. I mean all people should be equal before the law!