213374U

Rome Total War, atm. I didn't have much experience with non-Roman factions outside quick battles, so I gave Macedon a go. Wow, those phalanxes really are meat grinders. Macedonian light cavalry is pretty crazy too. Doing fine, even though pretty much every neighboring nation DOWed on me - I now understand why AI Macedon is usually the first to bite the dust. Not really a problem since the mainland Greek cities (and Rhodes!) are literally a money factory and this allows me to fund a huge navy to choke their economies. I wish the diplomatic aspect of the game had a bit more weight, however. In short, I'm having a blast. I'll probably try the Seleucids or Parthia for my next game. How is Medieval/Empire compared to Rome? And I still haven't touched BI. Hey man, how playable is HOI3 yet?

I'm not speaking for anyone here, but there's no difference between "indefinitely" and this silence. It's the same lack of seriousness on the publisher's part - even if the blame lays with the developer. What, after a multi-year long development cycle, could justify an "indefinite" delay? First Crucible, and now this. WTF?

♩"And another one bites the dust" ♫ Just keep posting man, people are reading.

My bad. If the plea bargain had been rejected by the judge, Polanski would just have withdrawn his guilty plea, though. Just whom is this comment aimed at?

Rape doesn't always leave that sort of evidence. I remember reading a study by a psychiatrist that spoke about the disconnection between the physiological sexual arousal "symptoms" and the psychological state of mind. It was suggested that a terrified woman may actually have her body react receptively towards a sexual aggressor, even if the victim is completely paralyzed by terror and not sexually enticed at all. That doesn't mean the woman isn't being raped. It was explained as a mechanism that developed to protect the woman's life in a time when rape was common, as active resistance could lead to more serious injuries or death.

Yes, he did admit to "IT". "IT", in this case, means sex with a minor, as per the terms of his guilty plea agreement with the prosecution. He did admit to "IT" because it meant he wouldn't be tried for RAPE. Or so goes the LAT article Gromnir linked to. Can you be sentenced for something you aren't charged with? Which one do you like better, pick one: a) the supremacy of the rule of law being upheld, or b) Polanski doing hard time no matter what. They needn't be one and the same.

I hear it also renders you totally impervious to attack - you can't be killed after that. Dude, stop posting winner strategies. I'd like the game to have some challenge when I get it!

It's a strawman because you are placing my argument and others you made in the same camp, and then using those arguments to attack my position. Jeez. Where do you get the idea that I'm all out against arbitrary limits for everything? A speed limit applies to cars and speed. An age of consent applies to people and sex. Can you really establish a flimsier analogy? Stop bogging down the discussion with misrepresentations. I'm more a Socrates kind of guy myself, tbh. You know, what with posing questions and all. Which is kinda at odds with your circular logic about the legitimacy and usefulness requirements and intent of laws. But hey, you're the lawyer. If you say the necessary and sufficient condition for laws is the govt's thumbsup, I guess you'd know better. I think I should ask for a second opinion, though. Not saying this isn't how things are, either. But it's a sad state of affairs. Yes, yes, I know. The real world, yadda yadda. What? Yeah, yeah. Because democracy is "of, by, and for the people", and therefore anything else (read: barbarians) is inferior and wrong. Okay. The Egyptians' example wasn't meant to establish moral comparisons, anyway (Isn't that supposed to be unrelated to this debate, at any rate?). You misunderstood or are (again) misrepresenting me. Professional deformation? I simply threw it in there to show that different realities can exist that conflict with what is generally assumed to be true (in this case, that non-adults can't cope with sex). I'm not even drawing any conclusions myself... I'm not qualified to. Yup.

How dare you. Whatever has Mickey Mouse done to you?

You were giving lessons of straw man fallacies, just a few posts ago. That's a textbook example. Not bad, Grom, not bad. Not exactly what I had in mind when I said you could do better, though. I think the question is, "is age of consent legislation the best way to protect children from sexual predators and abuse?" Since, by your own admission, its value as a deterrent for similarly aged teenagers isn't that great, and nobody actually bothers to enforce it in those cases. The Ancient Egyptians were just an example to show that just because CONGRESS set it up that way it doesn't mean it's the ONLY way. Gee, who woulda thunk it! Oh, wait. They are "barbarians", right? Yeah. You can also use a knife to open a tin can. Doesn't mean it's the best tool to do it - nor is having a knife an excuse not to go buy a can opener.

What slippery slope? All you can come up to support the, as you admit yourself, arbitrary line is that "society believes X". Well, is "society" (read: Congress) somehow infallible? Are those laws as effective as they could be? Is there a better way to achieve the same end? Just pointing your finger and going "relativist!" is not good enough to refute anything - I'm sure you can do better. This is a completely tangential topic, btw. It has no bearing on the case, as the law was such and such when he did the deed, and then it was illegal - it's no attempt to defend Polanski or legitimize child abuse in general. You can lay down your torches and pitchforks now, folks.

Your Honor, he has ho proof!

Not forensic evidence, perhaps. But I think the idea that she really wanted him to stick it in is rather indefensible. Ergo, rape. I agree about the mediatic judgement thing, though.

Yeah, guys! You need to let go of your bias and focus on the facts!

This is the real deal. Be discreet. SEGA is EVERYWHERE!

Yeah. This guy's like a mine of lol. He IS dead serious, though.

Thanks for proving that you have the reading comprehension level of a second grader.

This. From Wiki: I know nothing about US legal procedures, so I don't really know how relevant is that, but to the untrained eye, it looks serious. Grom? Now, we all want things to go according to THE LAW, but, shouldn't those charged with imparting justice be the first to do things by the book?

Hey the government says so, who are we to question it right? You can question the government, and seek to change the Law, but until the Law is changed then you must obey the Law or face the consequences of breaking the Law.

But it's against The Law!

This is a bit of, um, old news...

It was a false analogy. You were trying to assimilate my questioning of a poorly defined aphorism with questioning the substance and associated ethics of murder - a thinly veiled personal argument. That was dishonest. I didn't think it merited a serious response, so I took the rhetorical path. At that point there was no arguement to lose anymore. Depends. Looking just at the New Testament, it's "You shall not kill"/"You shall not murder", depending on translation. So killing another person is a no-no in all its forms. That's why it's not "defined"... it's an all-encompassing definition, and probably as close to a natural definition you can get. Not very good as a source of law, though. The Old Testament is much more fun, to be sure. Which one do you want to subscribe? It was a crime at the time he did it, so he should face the consequences, even if the law is changed further down the line. Simply because I reserve the right to break the law when I see fit doesn't mean I expect not to be prosecuted.

You're just trying to justify child rape!

Lol, stop being such a pathetic attention whore, Hades. Nobody cares. Order a mail bride already. Oh, ****. You got me there. WoD tried to paint me as the bad guy with a poorly built fallacy, and I just played along. Heh, if he had admitted to be quoting from his Bible, I would have had to accept it, as murder as defined in there is immutable. But if there was a natural definition for murder, there would be no need to codify it, no? Anyway, I think you are just playing hard to get. Why don't you tell us what you think (and not what you "know").